reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Palestinian demonstrators accuse Prime Minister Trudeau and his government of genocide. They march through the streets of Ottawa, causing traffic disruptions. The reporters ask Trudeau for comments on various issues, including the presence of a Nazi at a dinner and the WE Charity scandal. They also question the legality and justification of invoking the Emergencies Act. Trudeau remains silent and is criticized for being a narcissist and a sociopath. The reporters request at least a wave from him. The video ends with the comment that Trudeau has no legacy.

Indigenous voices condemn corruption in the reconciliation business, pointing to the missing $120,000,000 and accusing Chief Greg Deshleigh of avoiding questions about it while pursuing photo ops and development. They note comparisons with FSIN funding of over $34,000,000 and question when RCMP will step in. Audits set back Indigenous progress and they demand accountability, asking, "Why is nobody letting our people know what's going on?" They insist, "the elephant in the room" must be addressed and claim, "it's not the white guys causing financial harm to us Aboriginal people. It's our own chief and council." Calls for forensic audits and emergency meetings grow; some warn, "If you don't want questions about how you're spending your money, then raise it privately." They reference defunding of cross-country digs with little reporting, a Dallas Brody documentary on reconciliation, and suggest removing the United Nations from Canada and enforcing federal acts.

Speaker 0 states that over 6,000 bodies have been found, citing information from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and other government bodies. Speaker 1 questions this claim, asking for clarification on where these bodies were found and if the Truth and Reconciliation Commission reported finding 6,000 bodies. Speaker 1 asserts that as a journalist, Speaker 0 should be concerned about the accuracy of their claims. Speaker 0 requests to complete their questions.

We begin tonight with the horrific discovery at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia. They would shave our heads and beat the hell out of you. These are crime scenes. The residential schools was a genocide of our people. 215 children were found in unmarked graves. The federal government is ready to dispense $10,000,000. $8,000,000. $27,000,000 to find unidentified burial sites. We will follow the evidence. We will follow the science. We are here for truth telling. Neotribal elites are pretending that it's been found that there's 215 children. There's a difference between murders and children dying in the building. There's no list of names of missing children at any of these schools.

The speaker questions why the government conducted a public consultation on hate speech laws if they were going to ignore the results. The government responds by stating that public consultations are a way to gather people's thoughts and highlight issues. However, they acknowledge that the majority of the population does not participate in these consultations, so it may not be reflective of public opinion. They also mention that submissions are often organized by campaign groups. The speaker then asks why hold the consultation if the results will be disregarded. The government explains that decisions are made by the elected parliament, not based solely on public consultations or opinion polls. They clarify that consultations are meant to test the temperature and are not just for show.

The speaker discusses the government's spending of $8 million on searching for unmarked graves at a school in Kamloops, BC, with no results. They criticize the wasteful spending and highlight the financial struggles of Canadians. The speaker expresses frustration at consistently being proven right about issues years before they are acknowledged, leading to backlash and cancelation. They predict being vindicated in the future.

They have said again and again that unmarked mass graves have been found at Canada's residential schools, which were boarding schools for Indian children that existed for about a hundred years peaking in the early twentieth century. Last year, archaeologists detected what they said could be 200 unmarked graves at this former school in Kamloops, British Columbia. Weeks later, a further 751 unmarked graves were detected across from the former Marivelle Residential School on the Cowices Reserve in Saskatchewan. More than three years later, not a single body has been found in any unmarked grave at any residential school anywhere in Canada. Turns out that, in fact, the alleged unmarked gravesite in Kamloops was in reality a 2,000 foot long, three foot deep trench that was established in 1924 as a septic field to store sewage from the school.

Speaker 0: It was January 2022 when a colleague of mine in the unit came to me saying, something's up. We've had a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year. And that's what got my curiosity piqued. Speaker 1: Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2: I have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 3: Doctors made extra money to push vaccines and they were given a billing code to do it. I have pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 2: They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved. They've distributed it to the province so the second it's approved, we can start jabbing ourselves with it. We can start jabbing pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4: Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, And then you don't. Speaker 0: I was suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials. Possible. They pushed on with this narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2: They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1: Our Canadian babies died, and the police are trying to cover it up to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it. Speaker 2: The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression. Speaker 4: If you don't want to get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk. Speaker 2: It started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public. Speaker 5: Canada has to shift their understanding of what the CBC is. It is a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 2: This is the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective, and they're still not investigating. Everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, our health agencies, how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.

A rapid back-and-forth centers on whether a situation is genocide. The exchange includes: 'Are you do you agree that it's a genocide?' 'Yes.' 'There you go. What? Hold on. No. No.' 'So Somebody say it again.' 'Can you give me an apology, bro?' 'When if when where you been, sweet? Well, I've been away for a little bit.' 'Maddie, repeat that again one more time.' 'Is it for you, Maddie?' 'Go ahead. Let me hear you say this again.' 'I think it's become a genocide.' 'Wow.' The dialogue shows uncertainty and interruption, culminating in the statement 'I think it's become a genocide.'

Speaker 0: My last comment is I hope that you will tell the American people how many preventable child deaths are an acceptable sacrifice for enacting an agenda that I think is fundamentally cruel and defies common sense. Thank you, Speaker 1: mister chairman. Do I get a reply? Senator, you've think sat in that chair for how long? Twenty, twenty five years while the chronic disease in our children went up to seventy six percent, and you said nothing. Context: The dialogue centers on accountability for preventable child deaths and a critique of a policy agenda, followed by a response about tenure and rising chronic disease among children.

Ansel from the community asks Frances Widdowson about a press release regarding unmarked graves at Kamloops Indian Residential School. Council members dismiss her question due to her controversial past and refuse to engage in discussion. Widdowson persists, questioning if spreading misinformation is acceptable. The council avoids answering and moves to adjourn the meeting.

We discussed a sonar scan of land next to a church on an Indian reservation, where something “must be bones” was found and described as a mass murder with bodies dumped there, suggesting it spread across the country. Then we hear about the prime minister apologizing for the mass murder of a Canadian Indian people and ongoing coverage about churches being burned, including Catholic and other churches, with reporters repeatedly presenting new details. There’s talk of the residential schools and how terrible they were, and the narrative is said to go overboard with fabrications that have no evidence whatsoever, claiming not one bone has ever been found and labeling the whole story a hoax. It’s argued that this is acceptable because it criticizes “the evil white settlers” and similar notions, implying a political climate that allows certain criticisms at great length. The discussion moves to the idea that reports can be extended and sensationalized, highlighting the existence of double standards. For example, it’s claimed that the New York Times had a significant piece asserting that photography is racist, with examples like walking dogs being described as a white man’s activity. There’s also mention of Vancouver being characterized as the “anti Asian hate crime capital of the world,” based on statistics described as dubious. The speaker suggests that you can invent such things. In contrast, the speaker argues that when someone blows up an airplane and engages in separatist activity and threatens the leader of India—described as a rather important foreign partner—there is a reluctance to say anything. This is presented as evidence of hypocrisy and double standards that exist in discourse. The overall point is that there are selective criticisms and narratives shaped by political considerations, allowing some topics to be explored at length while others are suppressed or avoided. Key claims repeated include: the sonar finding of bones and a mass murder on land near an Indian reservation; widespread reporting of mass murder and church burnings tied to residential schools; the assertion that not one bone has been found and that the whole story is a hoax; accusations of fabrications with no evidence; the New York Times’ stance on photography as racist; the claim that walking dogs is a white man’s activity; Vancouver as the anti-Asian hate crime capital of the world based on dubious statistics; and the assertion of hypocrisy and double standards when comparing domestic issues to actions by actors related to India.

Speaker 0 notes a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 says their own government told them a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2 states they have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 1 says doctors made extra money to push vaccines and were given a billing code to do it, and she has pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 3 asserts they’ve purchased the vaccine that hasn’t been approved and distributed it to the provinces, so the second it’s approved they can start jabbing themselves and pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4 asks why vaccinations were necessary, noting that when going to the hospital for birth, you expect to go home, and then you don’t. Speaker 0 suspects criminal negligence by the government and public health officials. Speaker 2 agrees, saying “Possible.” Speaker 0 contends they pushed a narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 recalls wiretapping, harassment, and charges, and that they didn’t allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1 says Canadian babies died, and police are trying to cover it up by stopping detective Helen Graves from testifying about it. Speaker 3 comments that dominant individuals maintain subordinates’ place through constant aggression. Speaker 5 argues that choosing not to vaccinate is one thing, but being unable to fly or ride trains with vaccinated people and thus putting them at risk is another issue. Speaker 2 says CBC started with a story to implicate her and paint her in an uncomplimentary light to the public. Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of CBC, describing it as a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 3 declares this is the most significant health matter affecting children today, and they are still not investigating. Speaker 2 asserts that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, and how they work together and censored information; all of it ties to this one case, making it dangerous.

The speaker discusses the history of the push for a treaty and constitutional change for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia. They highlight the fraudulent nature of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the lack of representation and transparency in Aboriginal organizations. The speaker also addresses the issues of health disparities, misuse of royalty payments, and the need for accountability and tangible results. They reject the voice to parliament and call for real change and unity among all Australians.

The speakers discuss the vaccination landscape around human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, focusing on a controversial issue they claim has been known and disseminated since early on: contamination with DNA (DNA residuals) from Deinococcus or related genetic material in vaccines and the implications of aluminum adjuvants used in Gardasil/Gardasil 9. - They begin by asserting that HPV vaccines, including Gardasil/Sil, have been the subject of remarkable legal actions worldwide, including four major lawsuits in Japan. They note that historically, in Japan, many young women and girls stood as plaintiffs, and that the core problem they highlight is the DNA contamination issue (referred to as “ディー エ ヌ エー 混 入 汚 染 問 題”). - The claim is that from early on, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and others acknowledged this contamination as central. They reference a 2012 paper that reportedly made the DNA contamination problem very clear, naming pathogens such as Human Papillomavirus, HPV, and DEIN? They describe that vaccine particles (HBV? HPBL DNA fragments) were found to be directly bound to aluminum adjuvant particles in Gardasil, implying a mechanism by which residual DNA could be involved in adverse effects. - The speakers say that the 2012 study, and subsequent work, led to attention from doctors worldwide who listened to the voices of women and girls and wondered what was happening with the vaccine recipients. They claim that samples showed that residual HPV DNA fragments were consistently present and directly linked to aluminum adjuvant particles, and that “PCR” detection indicated the same DNA sequences across samples. They mention that the 2012 paper’s findings were followed by reporting that, by 2014, vaccination had been suspended in Japan earlier than many would have expected. - They recount a process in which major scientists from various countries (France, the UK, and others) were involved in investigating adenoviral or genetic components (they reference Shihan? and others) and that the Japan-based researchers, including Ishii Ken, were central figures. They describe meetings, PowerPoint presentations at a hotel, and a sequence of visits to the UK and the US (including HR-related planning with U.S. FDA and the UK authorities) that were interrupted by closures in the Obama era, leading to documentation and discussions about the safety concerns. - The speakers claim that by the 2012 report and again by 2014, all vaccine samples from multiple countries contained residual DNA, and that Japan became a hub for disseminating awareness of these issues globally. They state that the issue was present not only in the early Gardasil (Gardasil-4) but also in later forms, with references to Gardasil-9 and the idea that the DNA contamination and adjuvant interactions could contribute to immune and neurological symptoms in recipients, particularly in women and girls. - They discuss changes to WHO and FDA guidelines on residual DNA limits, noting a progression from 10 picograms to higher thresholds over time, implying corporate interests in allowing higher residual DNA quantities in vaccines. They emphasize that the shift in limits is tied to pharmaceutical companies’ needs, not human biology changes, and argue that Japan highlighted the problem of Deinance-DNA contamination during the cervical cancer vaccine era, signaling that researchers, journalists, and victims were aware long before others. - Finally, Speaker 1 adds that two points became clear a year earlier: the disruption of messenger RNA–type vaccines as a response to safety concerns, and the subsequent rise in adverse outcomes after widespread vaccination, including deaths, which they claim intensified opposition to these vaccines. Note: The summary presents the speakers' claims and sequencing of events as described in the transcript without evaluation or endorsement.

The video discusses the discovery of a mass grave at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School in Canada, initially reported to contain the remains of 215 children. However, it was later clarified that there were 200 probable graves, with no excavations conducted to confirm the presence of bodies. The lack of action from the RCMP, BC coroner's office, and the Catholic Church, which ran the school, is criticized. The speakers express frustration with the difficulty in obtaining information and responses from various organizations involved in the investigations. They also mention the discovery of a juvenile rib bone, emphasizing the need for further investigation and accurate information dissemination. Overall, the community calls for accountability, repatriation, justice, and a proper investigation into the bone discovery.

My people oppose the referendum as they were not consulted. The proposed recommendations are racist and won't create a better future. It's concerning that money is being allocated to establish a corporation for the Voice while my people live in third world conditions. They lack medical assistance, proper food resources, housing, infrastructure, roads, and water. The funds for the corporation could have been used to improve the lives of my people in remote communities. Have you ever witnessed or experienced these conditions?

The speaker says that to be convinced there is no white genocide in South Africa, President Trump would need to listen to the stories and perspectives of South Africans, including his friends. Another speaker claims there are thousands of stories, documentaries, and news stories about it. They show a video of what they claim are burial sites of over a thousand white farmers, with cars lined up to pay respects. They say each white cross represents a white farmer or their family member who was killed. The first speaker expresses unfamiliarity with the scene and asks where it is located. The other speaker says it is in South Africa. The first speaker says they need to find out where it is.

The prime minister has not firmly supported the bill, citing a difficult balance regarding limits on speech. Despite inquiries, no clear stance has been provided by key ministers, raising concerns about the lack of decision from the Liberals since the bill's introduction a month ago. It's emphasized that inciting hate, such as residential school denialism, is not free speech and poses a threat to survivors who deserve protection from violence. For true reconciliation, the prime minister and relevant ministers must prioritize the safety of survivors and their communities. Urging them to read and support the bill quickly is essential for progress.

A debate in British Columbia centers on Indigenous land title and reconciliation. Speaker 0 notes that homeowners in Richmond woke up to find their properties given to an Indigenous band that had fished there over 150 years ago, and asks the premier, “With 204 bands in BC, how many more title cases could be coming down the pike?” He asks for “Just the number, please.” He points out there are 204 bands in the province and implies ongoing title claims. In response, Speaker 1 (Minister of Indigenous Relations) emphasizes focusing on agreements and reconciliation. She states that nations across the province are keen to reconcile, noting that this province did not enter into treaties with most nations as other provinces did, and expresses a wish that it had, suggesting that would have provided more certainty today. She asserts that the path to a better future is not through division or denying the province’s history, and acknowledges that the province has made missteps, caused violence and harm, and trauma to First Nations people through laws passed in the legislature. She says recognizing that history can lead to lighter, more hopeful relationships, enabling people to see each other in a way previously denied, as reflected in the building’s past divisions. She argues that acknowledging history can help create a future where the province and Indigenous nations stand alongside each other to build the economy of the future, families, homes, and communities. The minister calls for uniting in a positive path for a better future rather than pursuing division, denial, or making people invisible or calling them names. Speaker 0 closes by acknowledging the member’s remarks with a brief “ma’am,” signaling the end of that exchange.

The speaker claims that the government of Canada is committing genocide against its people, specifically children. They believe that the government is aware of running PCR tests with a high cycle threshold, resulting in false positives and justifying a state of emergency. They also accuse the government of forcibly injecting a lethal experimental vaccine, which they claim has caused thousands of deaths. The speaker alleges that the government has violated the Nuremberg code and urges viewers to share this message.

We fully support the Uluru statement from the heart, including voice, treaty, and truth. A voice to parliament is crucial. Speaker 1 expresses frustration about not getting what they want intentionally. Speaker 0 disagrees with the excitement and believes they don't need anyone to speak on their behalf.

Frances Widdowson, who co-wrote a book casting doubt on the harmfulness of Canada's residential schools, spoke after indigenous leaders called her appearance harmful and painful. Widdowson, a former professor fired from Calgary's Mount Royal University after comments on residential schools and Black Lives Matter, authored a book contesting evidence of unmarked graves. Widdowson compares the situation to the satanic panic, claiming people's memories are influenced. She won't say who invited her or if she's being paid for her travel costs.

The speaker asks questions about pregnancy outcomes and the Liberal government platform. They discuss the CBC's income sources, suspecting hidden government funding. The conversation also touches on pharmaceutical advertising differences between Canada and the US. The speaker criticizes CBC reporters for not covering the National Citizens Inquiry, suggesting they are avoiding facing the truth.

The film explores how the term genocide has become politically charged in the context of 1984-1985 Punjab-related violence and the Canadian-Sikh diaspora, focusing on claims, counterclaims, and the influence of the World Sikh Organization (WSO). - Speaker 0 asserts repeatedly that 1984 events constitute a genocide, while Speaker 1 and others challenge the use of the term as political currency. The program frames the genocide label as a tool used to confer status, build victimhood, justify extremism, and frame separatism as necessary (Speaker 1, Doctor Paul Bullen, Speaker 3). - The documentary identifies Canada as a stronghold and headquarters of Sikh extremist terrorism, citing Babar Khalsa figures, an Air India bomb plot, and later activities of individuals tied to Canadian Sikh extremism (Speaker 2, Speaker 3, Speaker 0). It notes that Babar Khalsa is listed as a terrorist entity by the Canadian government and associates Khalistan activism with Canada’s Sikh community. - Santok Singh Kela is introduced as someone convicted in Canada in 1986 for conspiracy to commit mass murder after offering cash and heroin to an undercover FBI agent posing as an explosives expert to bomb an Air India flight. The interview with Kela includes his denial of genocide and his defense of his actions as part of a broader struggle, while the interviewer challenges him on whether 30,000 or more were killed and whether that constitutes genocide (Speaker 0, Speaker 3). - Bob Ray, a Canadian-born former Sikh who left the religion, recounts his view of 1984, describing Sant Jarnail Singh Bindranwale as a radical leader who hijacked the Sikh religion and used fear and violence to control the community in Punjab. Ray argues that the Indian government acted because Bindranwale fortified the Golden Temple as a military base, surrounded Amritsar with military and police, offered surrender warnings, and that attempts at rebellion continued after Operation Bluestar. Ray says Sikhs who committed extremism used the narrative of genocide to frame their acts; he notes that Sikhs in Canada conducted aviation-related terrorism in 1985 and 1986 with plots against Air India and JFK, which were thwarted by authorities, with Canadian actions described as controversial (Speaker 2). - American political scientist Doctor Paul Bullen offers a scholarly perspective on framing, arguing that genocide is a legal term with a specific definition, and that the term has become politically charged “to connect your group to that because it gives you a certain status.” He discusses debates about whether the Gaza situation constitutes genocide and questions the utility of the label for broader audiences, suggesting that in some contexts genocide is a loaded term (Speaker 1, Doctor Bullen). - The program presents a timeline: late 1983, Bindranwale’s militants fortified the Golden Temple; June 1984, Operation Bluestar; Indira Gandhi’s assassination within hours marked by anti-Sikh riots. It notes that subsequent bombings linked to Canadian Sikh extremists occurred in 1984-1985, including Air India Flight 182 and Narita Airport, with a 1986 FBI-disrupted plot at JFK. The inquiry into the Air India bombing in Canada (2006) revealed connections involving World Sikh Organization (WSO) leadership and Canadian figures; testimony described Lal Singh’s attempt to plead innocence and seek support from WSO leaders, and the inquiry explored the involvement of WSO executives in Canada’s political or legal spheres (Speaker 3, Speaker 8, Speaker 9, Speaker 10, Speaker 11). - The documentary argues that World Sikh Organization influence affects Canadian and U.S. national security, highlighting the close ties between WSO executives and political elites, including mayors, ministers, and judges who are described as children of WSO executives. It claims that Sikh politicians in Canada, aligned with WSO, have shaped policy and that the 1984 genocide narrative has been used by pro-Khalistan activists to lobby political figures, including U.S. President Donald Trump, for leniency toward Sikh drivers involved in violent acts (Speaker 2, Speaker 3). - The piece cites a CIA document from 1986 noting that overseas Sikhs were seen as terrorists with the aim of establishing Khalistan, and asserts that WSO served as an umbrella for Sikh groups, with leadership connected to terrorist activities. It also references a 2011 partially declassified CIA report and argues that despite differing views, the belief persists that Sikh terrorism and extremism in the diaspora were closely connected to Khalistan activism (Speaker 3, Speaker 12). - The transcript closes with a call for congressional or governmental action and criticizes what it calls “human rights mafias,” inviting donations to continue reporting (final appeal).