Nazi-style hate propaganda promoted by The Spec

On January 17, the Stoney Creek page of the online Hamilton Spectator published an anonymous “opinion”. Its title and language can only be compared with the Nazi propaganda targeting Jews. The title of the piece, “It’s time to get tough with the unvaccinated“, is divisive and hate-inciting. Its style is greatly manipulative, presenting the author’s views as “public” and the opposing views as “individual”. The arguments are mostly misleading. The threats and intent of turning public opinion against people who stand by their constitutional rights are illegal, if not criminal. The whole text is fueled by a pack of lies, wishful thinking, arrogance and ignorance. Another example of hate-inciting propaganda was the January 15th article, “The unvaccinated cherish their freedom to harm others. How can we ever forgive them?

This trend and attitude was encouraged by Justin Trudeau. Inappropriate, uneducated, and shameful:

Primacy of Constitution of Canada

Art. 52 (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

(The Charter is a part of the Constitution)

Ontario Declaration of Emergency

The Ontario Declaration of Emergency has been revoked as of June 9, 2021 but the emergency measures continued and so did the vaccination campaign with the experimental mRNA “vaccines” approved for use under the emergency authorization only. This happened just weeks after court challenges were filed against the governments for enacting illegal and unhealthy “measures” to combat the “pandemic”. The governments downloaded the implementation of such measures onto municipalities, employers and educational institutions to avoid liability and legal consequences. Mainstream media continued to advertise the official narrative and promote the illegal measures as well as the experimental mRNA “vaccines” even after their adverse effects were discovered and officially acknowledged.

Individual vs. Collective Rights

Using the “majority” argument is a typical authoritarian tactic that invokes “collective rights” in order to implement a totalitarian rule. Let me remind you that 90% of German population have once supported Adolf Hitler and willingly  followed policies that led to the war crimes and atrocities of WW2, including the Holocaust. Inciting hate is a dangerous game that should never be repeated towards any group in any society. Most international human rights and rights listed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms refer and apply to individuals, not to a collective. We are not living in the Soviet Union. Collective rights are always interpreted as a sum of individual rights. Eliminating individual rights in the name of “a collective” always leads to a dictatorship.

Article 3 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights , reads:

Article 3 – Human dignity and human rights
1. Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected.
2. The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.

This Universal Declaration was adopted by the UN General Assembly as UN Resolution A/RES/217(III)[A] on 10 December 1948 in Palais de Chaillot, Paris. Of the 58 UN members at the time, 48 voted in favour, (including Canada), none against, eight abstained, and Honduras and Yemen failed to vote or abstain.

The British delegation, while voting in favor of the Declaration, expressed frustration that the proposed document had moral obligations but lacked legal force; it would not be until 1976 that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , [Text] came into force, – (also ratified by Canada) – giving a legal status to most of the Declaration.

Other international and Charter Rights

Many other rights and freedoms are being limited and/or eliminated by measures implemented under the redefined “pandemic” excuse. I’ve listed them in my old article “Mandatory mRNA vaccination and PCR testing potentially illegal and punishable“, also published by Global, here .

Exemptions from vaccinations

Vaccinations are NOT mandatory in Canada.  Immunization in Canada (PDF – then click “continue to publication”); Canada Communicable Disease Report (CCDR) May, 1997; Vol 23S4 and Canadian National Report on Immunization; 1996, states:

“Unlike some countries, immunization is not mandatory in Canada; it cannot be made mandatory because of the Canadian Constitution. Only three provinces have legislation or regulations under their health-protection acts to require proof of immunization for school entrance. Ontario and New Brunswick require proof for diphtheria, tetanus, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella immunization. In Manitoba, only measles vaccination is covered. [see note below]  It must be emphasized that, in these three provinces, exceptions are permitted for medical or religious grounds and reasons of conscience; legislation and regulations must not be interpreted to imply compulsory immunization.”

Genetic Non-Discrimination Act

As statistics and scientific research on the nature and effects of the so-called mRNA “vaccines” are emerging, it is now reasonable to assume that the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act will also apply as a prohibition of discrimination based on modifications of our genetic makeup. It can be successfully argued that mRNA vaccines, which deliver computer generated fragments of synthetic RNA to our cells, forcing our cells to multiply and manufacture copies of a foreign spike protein, are modifying our natural genetic makeup and functions at the cellular level. This is a unique characteristic of the mRNA “vaccines” (often called a “gene therapy“) that is not present in traditional vaccines. Concerns have also surfaced that mRNA vaccines have a potential to rewrite our genetic code, either temporarily or permanently. Requirement to disclose such information to the employer or any other authority is equivalent to a requirement to disclose the results of a “genetic test”. For the same reason, any test, procedure or application that is, or may be used to identify, if a person has or has not been mRNA “vaccinated” must be considered illegal.

Quarantine Act

In addition, Article 14 of the Quarantine Act forbids the use of any screening technology that involves the entry into the tested person’s body of any instrument or other foreign body. This limitation and restriction is not being observed in screening with the RT-PCR test.


Please see the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Selected legal aspects

Scientific considerations

Vaccination and “variants” keep the “pandemic” going

The opinions of scientists and medical doctors on the pandemic and applied “measures” are divided. Both in the US and in Canada an increasing number of independent scientists are now inclined to believe that:

  1. The existing mRNA vaccines do not protect against infection or transmission of Covid-19 and are, therefore, ineffective or at least largely ineffective;
  2. This puts pressure on the virus, but does not block it completely. Such incomplete “pressure” causes the virus to mutate and produce new “variants” that are able to overcome partial blockades, causing new “waves” and new outbreaks of the illness. For this reason, it is believed that the vaccinated are responsible for the emergence of new variants and the prolongation of the “pandemic”;
  3. Unvaccinated individuals, who have no symptoms and are healthy, have a strong natural immunity. They have either already defeated this virus or have developed immunity to other similar coronaviruses in the past (so-called cross-immunity);
  4. That’s why a majority of infections and hospitalizations are reported among the vaccinated, while the unvaccinated acquire natural herd immunity, which is more effective, more robust, and lasts longer than the immunity produced by mRNA vaccines. How is it possible? It’s simple. The unvaccinated become immune to the whole, complete virus and, by extension, to most similar coronaviruses (cross immunity). They do not narrow their immunity down to a few, assumed, small, computer generated genetic fragments of the spike protein, as it happens with the mRNA vaccines.

Testing and Statistics

The “pandemic” is driven by statistics and the statistics are manufactured by testing. Is this process reliable and credible?

The RT-PCR test. A number of credible sources and experts stated that the RT-PCR test is not reliable. These sources included doctors and scientists, for example the inventor of the PCR technology and 1993 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry, Kary Mullis. Also, in January of 2021, the World Health Organization has admitted that and corrected its earlier diagnostic procedure recommendations.

The RT-PCR test:

  • cannot distinguish between a live virus and fragments of dead viruses remaining in our bodies after a flu or a common cold we had in the past. Therefore, it cannot be used to reliably establish the viral load;
  • cannot identify a specific virus (or its “variant”) due to a small number of “markers” (genetic code fragments that it is looking for). According to a reliable source, the number of markers used in PCR tests was recently further reduced to 2, from previous 3 or 4;
  • is often used improperly, with higher number of amplification cycles (Ct Threshold)

For these reasons, the RT-PCR test delivers a large number of “false positive results” and cannot be relied on. Anything above 25-30 cycles of amplification is not recommended. Tests conducted in Canada were often done at 40 and more amplification cycles.

The Abbott rapid antigen test. It was discovered by first responders in Europe that the Abbott test showed positive results when used with physiological saline instead of the original extraction buffer, even when the test was administered without a specimen from the patient, just with the saline alone. The use of physiological saline was often recommended, when there was a shortage of the original extraction buffer. Unfortunately, you cannot buy a complete Abbott test kit at your pharmacy. You have to send your sample (specimen) to a lab for the actual testing, although the testing procedure is simple and does not require a complicated equipment. Consequently, you have no way of checking the reliability of your test results.

What are we measuring? Official documents and mainstream media articles confirm that so-called Covid-19 cases consist of “confirmed cases” and “probable cases”. “Confirmed cases” are established based on positive (unreliable) test results. “Probable cases” are people who have any of the Covid-19 symptoms that are identical with symptoms of influenza, pneumonia, and common colds. But all of them end up as “Covid cases”. Go figure. No wonder the flu has disappeared.

Death certificates and mortality statistics. Moreover, we have a problem with death certificates and mortality statistics that mix together those who passed away “from Covid” and those who passed away “with Covid“. As a result, you may die in a motorcycle accident and, upon admission to hospital, test positive for Covid, and you will be added to statistics as a victim of Covid, even though you did not have any symptoms. Unfortunately, such data is difficult to verify and correct. Autopsies are not performed. According to some sources, hospitals and medical staff have been offered financial incentives for processing Covid cases. Since incentives were offered “for the time of the pandemic”, “new cases” may be with us forever.

Vaccination rollouts. As noticed by some experts, the emergence of new “variants” and waves of higher infection rates during this “pandemic” closely follow the vaccination rollouts. This would be consistent with the opinion that vaccinated people are driving the “pandemic” – (see above).

Adverse events

Adverse events (adverse effects of the mRNA vaccines) are officially recorder in the US and in European Union, although they are greatly under-reported. In Canada, such statistics are not being made public, if such system at all exists.

One of the ways to “hide” adverse events is the following: Most adverse events happen within the first two weeks after the vaccination but the government begins to consider you as “vaccinated” 14 days after the jab. This way, most adverse events happen to “unvaccinated” – and nobody is asking what had caused them.

Other general concerns

Other environmental and medical considerations

Higher morbidity and mortality numbers can also be attributed to:

Using wrong masks or using them improperly

(Perhaps Justin should explain to us how to stop the mosquitos using a chain-link fence)

Seasonal weather changes (temperature, humidity)

Other medical and social factors. As reported by many experts, measures imposed on the society during the “pandemic” are contributing to lower immunity, higher number of serious medical conditions, increased number of dangerous symptoms, and higher number of deaths. These factors include:

  • Two years of isolation measures, including masks, social distancing and quarantines, that lowered the herd and cross immunity of the population (see the Great Barrington Declaration);
  • Impact of mRNA vaccines that reportedly lower our natural immunity by narrowing identification of Covid viruses to a few small fragments of computer-generated genetic code, instead of identification of the entire, natural, virus, as it happens with traditional vaccines. According to some experts, this also increases the number of “positive cases”, as most coronaviruses have similar genomes and cannot be distinguished based on small fragments of genetic code.
  • Lower standard of living (including nutrition) of a large part of the population due to lockdowns, unemployment, increasing poverty, and broken supply chains;
  • Higher levels of stress resulting from isolation, lockdowns, loss of employment, bankruptcies, etc.;
  • Reorganization of the health care system resulting in limited access to doctors, longer waiting periods to specialists, cancellation of screening and treatments, cancellation of hospital surgeries and procedures;
  • Limited care due to medical staff shortages resulting from illness but also from suspensions and dismissals following requirements for mandatory vaccination, vaccination passports, and vaccination status;
  • Ban on inexpensive early treatment in Covid cases, such as the use of Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Amantadine, and other treatment protocols reported by medical doctors as safe and effective, also have an impact on morbidity and mortality statistics. If alternative treatments were available, there would be no need and no excuse for emergency authorization of experimental jabs and most people would say, “We don’t need a risky and ineffective vaccine, we have a safe and effective treatment”. – (Unexpected Comeback in the FLCCC Early Treatment Protocol}

Social factors

A desire to demonstrate loyalty and complicity (“I am a good girl/good boy”)

Psychological factors

The effects of the 24/7 fear campaign by the media

Personal considerations

I am 72 and have a good immune system. I believe that I had Covid-19 (or whatever it is that we call Covid-19) in the Fall of 2020. I recovered, so I have a full natural immunity against this “virus”, regardless of whether it is natural or artificial. But I also had a hearth attack and a quadruple bypass surgery not long ago, followed by some complications and a heart condition.

I am not stupid, I can read and I can use my brain. I am reading expert opinions on so called adverse events caused by mRNA vaccines. Aside from anaphylaxis and ADE (Antibody Dependent Enhancement), they include blood clotting, myocardiatis, pericarditis, heart attacks, strokes, and deaths that are officially listed and confirmed by VAERS and similar European databases. I also read data and expert opinions suggesting that mRNA vaccines don’t prevent infection or transmission. In this situation, it is safer for me to face the virus than the adverse events. It is my decision and nobody can overwrite it, not even communist governments invoking “collective safety” against individual rights. The authors of the hate inciting pieces and the editors of The Spec who published them should think twice, before the lawyers “get tough with them”. It will happen, if the hate propaganda continues.

* * *


This entry was posted in "Pandemic", Adverse events, Criminal policies, Health Passports, Human Rights, Legality, Measures, RT-PCR Test, Science, Vaccine mandates, Variants. Bookmark the permalink.