Important letter exposing WHO fraud

Please read this letter that I co-authored for ocla.ca.

http://ocla.ca/ocla-letter-who/

http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2020-06-21-Letter-OCLA-to-WHO-DG.pdf

Hou.

#masksdontwork

La géoéconomie et la géopolitique entraînent des époques successives de globalisation prédatrice et d’ingénierie sociale

https://lesakerfrancophone.fr/la-geoeconomie-et-la-geopolitique-entrainent-des-epoques-successives-de-globalisation-predatrice-et-dingenierie-sociale

L’influence des conditions géopolitiques et économiques globales sur le tissu des sociétés nationales et sur la psychologie individuelle est le plus souvent sous-estimée par les commentateurs civils, notamment en ce qui concerne les sociétés occidentales dites « libres et démocratiques ». Les militaires, en revanche, ne sous-estiment pas l’importance des facteurs commerciaux et économiques généraux sur le tissu même d’une société et sur la psychologie de ses citoyens, du moins dans les pays en développement ciblés. ²

Cet article a deux objectifs principaux.

Le premier est de démontrer dans quelle mesure le système financier global détermine la réalité nationale et régionale dans la vie et la sécurité des populations, y compris aux États-Unis et dans le monde occidental en général, en mettant l’accent sur les deux principales transformations de l’après-guerre, qui ont débuté en 1971, après l’annulation des accords de Bretton Woods, et en 1991, après la dissolution de l’Union soviétique.

Le second est de décrire le changement tectonique en cours qui a suivi la dissolution de l’Union soviétique en 1991 en des termes plus larges qu’on ne l’envisage habituellement, et comment ce changement motivé et coordonné a été chronologiquement accompagné par : une accélération spectaculaire de la « globalisation » commerciale et financière, et une campagne sans précédent d’ingénierie sociale des classes moyennes supérieures occidentales, visant à faciliter une exploitation opportuniste des nouvelles circonstances globales, par les États-Unis et l’élite globale, qui a abouti par contrecoup aux Gilets jaunes, au Brexit et à Trump… (Dans un sens, « les Russes l’ont fait. »)


Pour un « résumé des points clés » avec description des données socio-économiques à l’appui, voir la section Conclusion.

Geo-Economics and Geo-Politics Drive Successive Eras of Predatory Globalization and Social Engineering: Historical emergence of climate change, gender equity, and anti-racism as State doctrines

“Geo-Economics and Geo-Politics Drive Successive Eras of Predatory Globalization and Social Engineering: Historical emergence of climate change, gender equity, and anti-racism as State doctrines”,

by Denis G. Rancourt,

Ontario Civil Liberties Association, OCLA Report 2019-1, April 2019.

LINK TO REPORT:
http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/OCLA_Report_2019-1.pdf

When does "antifa" become pro-totalitarian?

Opinion / Denis Rancourt

I noticed some angry "antifa" activists advocating in favour of the recent "hate speech" criminal charges against social-media pundit Kevin Johnston. (See OCLA petition for background.)

Their stance does not strike me as a sterling example of logical consistency.

I'm against Fascism if this means opposing the evident and fast-pace government-corporate march towards totalitarian control over individuals and free associations of individuals, not if it means mobbing and attacking individuals that express views and sentiments.

I feel this way irrespective of the particular expression, irrespective of form and content.

Working with the state to suppress individuals for their ideas and organizing is not anti-Fascism. It is an actuation of totalitarianism.

Words are not bullets and arguments are not anything like (blood letting, bone-breaking) physical aggression. Otherwise, things become irrational very quickly and the resulting chaos serves powerful elites that love us to fight.

Imagine if, instead, we all wanted actual democratic control of the government and institutions. Antifa, Right, Left, whatever... unite.

Canada's Genocide Explained

A 5-minute video interview with Dr. Bruce Clark.




"This video segment captures Dr. Bruce Clark’s riveting and historically correct account of Canada’s genocide of the Aboriginal Peoples.

The state’s systematic and total destruction of peoples, food sources, economic base, family ties, and culture -- facilitated by a legal structure, technology, and institutionalized child theft -- may be unprecedented in human history.

Dr. Clark is an expert on aboriginal rights jurisprudence and was a dedicated advocate for aboriginal land rights in Canada. He represented Gustafsen Lake Faith Keepers at the Gustafsen Lake Standoff in 1995 near Shuswap, BC. From defender of Aboriginal rights before Canadian and international courts to being jailed and disbarred for advancing legal arguments, Dr. Clark's struggle is itself a mirror of Canada’s genocidal crimes.

The high-definition version of the full one-hour video interview is on the film maker's channel: https://youtu.be/lp97_pKafC0

Dr. Bruce Clark: Aboriginal rights lawyer
Denis Rancourt: Interviewer, for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)
Produced by the OCLA (http://ocla.ca/)
Filmmaker: Peter Biesterfeld

About the Ontario Civil Liberties Association:
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) defends civil liberties at a time when fundamental freedoms are being eroded in all spheres of social life. OCLA opposes institutional policies and decisions that deprive individuals of their personal liberty or exclude individuals from participation in the democratic functions of society.

Related links
Articles by Dr. Bruce Clark published on Dissident Voice:
http://dissidentvoice.org/author/bruceclark/

Is it time for the tort of defamation to be abolished?

Does society evolve? Has the legal system improved since the days of dueling nobles and the Star Chamber?

Consider this remarkable short documentary video: "Guilty Until Proven Innocent: The Tort of Defamation". The actual "The Eyeopener" report by independent journalist James Corbett starts at 3:10 in the video.

Then read the Ontario Civil Liberties Association's position paper on why the common law tort of defamation should be abolished: HERE.

Defamation law must be abolished -- Join the effort to abolish defamation law

Defamation law can't be fixed. It is the only common law tort (cause of action) that presumes guilt. It is a legal abomination, a persistent residue from Star-Chamber England.

Other torts are enough. This one must go.

Read this report published by the Ontario Civil Liberties Association:

OCLA position paper on Bill 83 – The tort of defamation must be abolished in Ontario

Listen to this radio interview on The Corbett Report:

Interview 862 – Denis Rancourt Dissects the Tort of Defamation

Public pressure and civil society can cause governments to legislate this abhorrent stain out of the courtrooms of free and democratic nations.

For a start, join OCLA, and join the OCLA Facebook group and follow OCLA on Twitter.

Will freedom of expression come to Canada?

OCLA's principled letter to the AG of Ontario...

By Denis G. Rancourt

Political agents across the left-right spectrum in the USA, including left public intellectual Noam Chomsky, positively advance the USA as being the modern society with the greatest protections for free speech.

In the USA, expression of opinion is absolutely protected, as is all expression except in limited areas (LINK):

Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always permitted. There are exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors and inventors over their works and discoveries (copyright and patent), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance.

Canada, on the other hand, has not been so fortunate. It is stuck with a far more backward remnant of the common law tort of defamation (LINK):

Libel law developed in an ancient era which we would today consider backward, tyrannical and repressive. It is rooted in 16th and 17th century criminal statutes protecting nobility from criticism. Cases of political libel and eventually damages actions were handled by the infamous Star Chamber until its abolition in 1641. By the end of that century, many elements of the common law of libel we would recognize today had been established.

Under the common law of defamation in Canada, when a plaintiff claims defamation for some insult or opinion, then damages and malice are presumed (malice of defamation versus express malice), and the defendant has the onus to prove his or her innocence based on strictly limited defences allowed in the common law.

In Canada, the courts had the occasion to significantly reform the common law of defamation when the legal landscape was changed by the introduction of the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but have steadfastly refused to do so, in ruling after ruling.

Instead, incremental changes have been installed that further entrench the common law of defamation in its egregious reverse onus stance, such as the new "responsible journalism" defence -- introduced with great fanfare, after most other common law jurisdictions (UK, Australia, etc.) had seen this particular light.

The common law tort of defamation is the only cause of action which assumes damages without any requirement to prove damages in the court. Other torts that address harm to reputation, such as the tort of malicious falsehood, do not assume damages.

Is there any hope that freedom of expression will ever come to Canada?

I can report recent evidence that may justify some hope: THIS RECENT LETTER of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (independent from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and the CCLA position on the same matter) to the Attorney General of Canada's province of Ontario.

OCLA's letter is strong and principled. OCLA is refusing to ignore the elephant in the room.

Thus, there is hope. This (OCLA's letter) may be a start that could lead to the downfall of the Star Chamberesque jurisdiction of Canadian courts in matters of individual expression?

Denis G. Rancourt is the Self-Represented Litigants Workgroup Coordinator of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association. He is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is known for his applications of physics education research (TVO Interview). He practiced various areas of science which were funded by a national agency, has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, and has written several social commentary essays. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism. He has self-represented himself in several courts and tribunals: labour relations board, access to information appeals, municipal court, Superior Court of Justice for Ontario, Court of Appeal for Ontario, and filed motions at the Supreme Court of Canada.

Brilliant citizens' video: Fighting judges and lawyers harming and exploiting families

This movement is occurring in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada. Here is the video:



And here is an association trying to help with these citizens' struggles in Ontario:

Ontario Civil Liberies Association for Self-Represented Litigants

And here are the Facebook groups:

Sarnia Group: CFFLR

OCLA Group