Is THIS Misinformation?

A friend sent me the linked document with a note: “Interesting document for your substack”. I suspect she sent its to “name the guilty” who have undermined Canadian sovereignty over decades.

GUILTY or INNOCENT?

The document begins with:

Have you ever wondered how WEF climate change carbon taxes, WHO public health tyranny and other global initiatives came to Canada? 

Over decades, Canada was restructured to fit within a framework of global tyranny, ideas created at those organizations, laws within countries like Canada were changed and added to fit within that framework. 

The Evidence?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ENmk0hzK0sxQhIbK9EAq2drzfsRyS5T3LFsqlAmkMTQ/mobilebasic

The document provides a long list of names and events of official actions taken by Canadians political leaders who signed agreements with global institutions. Over many decades, those unelected institutions have steadily expanded their powers and reach over many decades to become the de facto ONE WORLD ORDER under their influence. The author correctly identifies most of them.

20/20 Hindsight

Someone who was been politically “awake” during the Covid era is likely to be hyper suspicious and concerned about the purpose and mission of the United Nations, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, World Economic Forum, World Health Organization, International Bank of Settlements, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and more.

That someone, alive in 2024, enjoys the benefits of the Information Age with access to the Internet and its wealth of information. My friend has criticized Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper more than once for signing agreements with some of those globalist institutions long ago, well before the full benefits of the Information Age were manifest, and well before the One World Order was even announced as a global economic and political framework.

My point is this.

Did Harper and Mulroney make good decisions or bad given the times, the state of maturity of those globalist institutions at that point in their evolution, the integrity of their leaders, and the quality of information available to them at the time?

How can anyone living today pass judgment in good faith on the decisions made by those two past Prime Ministers and others in similar situations?

What’s Done Is Done.

This linked document is useful because it identifies many of the agreements that were signed in the past and must undergo scrutiny in the present with an eye to amend them or to repeal them altogether to protect all Canadians for a globalist agenda they have not approved.

Furthermore,

Canadians need a “firewall” to protect them from further intrusions into our public affairs and institutions.

It is no longer good enough to trust Parliament and its 338 elected representatives to make decisions on our behalf which may jeopardize our sovereignty as a nation.

Heck, they catch even assure that that rights of every citizen can be faithfully defended and protected as laid out in the Bill of RIghts and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms! Why should we trust them with agreements like the Paris Climate Accord or the current efforts of the World Health Organization to control Canada’s future pandemic responses?

Is Referendum the Answer?

One of my friends grew up in Switzerland where “direct democracy” prevailed for 400 years and citizens were very engaged in deciding public policy through plebiscites and referenda.

Unfortunately, in recent decades, globalist influences have infiltrated the Swiss polity and undermined their democratic processes too. As Marshall McLuhan said: “The medium is the message” and, like in Canada, the Swiss media organizations and public institutions have been usurped by globalist regimes to feed propaganda to the masses which infiltrate the minds of voters and influence their policy preferences.

Is “direct democracy” still a viable option? If so, under what conditions?

Is public education through NON-governmental means part of the solution to allow the “market of ideas” to flourish so that every policy alternative can be aired, discussed, debated and otherwise evaluated thoroughly?

Should voting rights on specific interests be limited? Should citizens who are employed by the government and who are otherwise funded through taxation thereby directly benefiting from expansive public spending initiatives possess the same voting rights as taxpayers who do not enjoy those benefits?

How about lawyers and accountants who earn their living by processes ever-increasing laws and regulations that hold the majority of citizens hostage to the complexities of state rules. If they benefit from this growing complexity, will they vote for more of it to hold fast the security of their government-dependent livelihoods?

But I have digressed to one of my long held bugaboos: the observation that …

Canada has steadily shifted to the political ‘left’ in direct proportion to the percent of the population that receives a pay-check, subsidy or regulatory privileges from one or more levels of government in Canada.

IF voting rights were adjusted to take into account who benefits and who pays with respect to net gains and net losses from government operations, would Canada still move steadily towards MORE GOVERNMENT, including commitments made to globalist entities?

Verdict: NOT GUILTY

In the spirit of direct democracy, I find Ben Mulroney and Stephen Harper innocent of alleged crimes listed in the document by reason of “reasonable doubt”.

I found no evidence of malicious intent in that document at the time of their actions.

Besides, the “statute of limitations” and common sense do not make them culpable for the subsequent decisions and actions of any of the globalist bodies whose documents they signed.

Morally GUILTY

I find Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland GUILTY of a conspiracy to undermine Canadian sovereignty. Besides signing onto or supporting additional globalist initiatives, those elected representatives have held the power and opportunity to REPEAL agreements to to DECLARE to the UN, IPCC, WEF, W.H.O and other global institutions that ALL GLOBAL AGREEMENTS, signed by Canadian government officials dating back to 1960, are subject to SUNSET CLAUSES.

HENCEFORTH, agreements can renewed within six months following the next federal election. Ideally, such agreement extensions must receive the approval of a TRIBUNAL of SEVEN citizens who will possess the knowledge/expertise necessary to make the agreement decision. Only THREE of the SEVEN can be associated with or funded in any way by a government, mainstream political organization or labour union. This provision is required to mitigate against the bias of self-interest.

This tribunal will be charged with the task to decide on behalf of the Canadian people if an international agreement will remain in force and will otherwise expires. The tribunal(s) will meet solely for the purpose of making those decisions in the same way that citizens are called upon for jury duty.

FURTHERMORE, each Canadian province and territory must be empowered to choose to OPT OUT of the obligations of any international agreement that does not bring net benefits to their constituents. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith saw to the passage of the Alberta Sovereignty Act to prevent federal decisions from adversely affecting Alberta’s economy.

This is a necessary provision for every province and territory to account for Canada’s immense diversity AND the unique strengths of each region’s economy, the creativity of its people and local culture .

DEMOCRACY REQUIRES Freedom of Informed Choice in the Digital Age.