BREAKING: Conservative Party calls for criminal investigation into Justin Trudeau over WE Charity

The Conservative Party of Canada is calling for a formal criminal investigation into Prime Minister Trudeau and the WE Charity scandal, which has plagued Trudeau for the past several weeks.

Trudeau’s involvement with the charity has drawn the criticism of opposition parties, as several close ties between WE Charity and the Trudeau’s continue to be revealed, including paid arrangements from the charity to both Margaret and Alexandre Trudeau.


Poilievre said on Friday that Trudeau “acted like a dictator and paid his friends,” as Trudeau had granted the charity a $900 million federal grant before withdrawing the grant after heavy criticism.

It Is Time for Democracy in Hong Kong

June 30, 2019 10:33 PM EDT
Benedict Rogers is co-founder and chair of Hong Kong Watch and Johnny Patterson is the director of Hong Kong Watch.

On Monday, thousands of people in Hong Kong will gather for a protest march to mark the twenty-second anniversary of the city’s handover from Britain to China.

Protest, not celebration, is the annual ritual on handover day. Why? Because the democratic aspirations of Hong Kong’s people have never been fulfilled, and there is a widespread sense of disenfranchisement.

The handover agreement did not immediately grant the right to democratically elect the city’s leader (‘Chief Executive’), but the constitution states that this is the “ultimate aim”. The open question on 1 July 1997 was whether China would abide by their handover commitment. The last twenty-two years have suggested that many people were skeptical with good reason.

The status quo is unsustainable. More than one million people being drawn to the streets twice in a week in June, only to have many of their demands ignored, is a sign of a serious democratic deficit. If the government want to reunite society, now is the time for the transition to democracy.

Under President Xi Jinping, control has been the overriding priority for the central government. This has led to an erosion of political rights and freedoms that has seen democratically elected lawmakers barred from taking their seats, a political party banned for advocating Hong Kong independence, the Asia Editor of the Financial Times denied a work visa, and booksellers abducted.

The cumulative effect of these trends has been to unnerve businesses, casting doubt on Hong Kong’s future as an international financial hub.

But there need not be any conflict between control and prosperity. The best means of achieving control is to win back the hearts and minds of Hongkongers, not to continue to antagonize them.

That millions can repeatedly march and yet have their demands ignored will fuel grievances rather than bring control. The Hong Kong public’s response to police violence on June 12 shows that people are willing to put their bodies on the line for freedom. It is inevitable that clashes will continue if there is not reform, and it is unclear that even more radical repressive measures would quieten Hong Kong’s people into submission.

The easiest way of removing troublesome protestors from the streets will be to allow them to vote for their leader. A U.K. government minister recently noted that, as a result of the existing political system in Hong Kong “action on the streets has tended to be the only answer.” He continued to say that “there should and must be another way.” U.S. Senators McGovern and Rubio’s proposed new Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act also states that democratic reforms should be a United States government priority.

Western democracies never see protests of this scale. Why? People feel they have an outlet. Leaders as unpopular as Carrie Lam are voted out, and the leadership is accountable to the people rather than the 1,200 elites who currently make up the Chief Executive Election Committee.

The loser of this kind of democratic change is unlikely to be the Chinese government. The only group that would lose from reforms are the property tycoons and other elites who have benefited from an oligarchic system. Hong Kong is one of the most unequal societies in the developed world. The city’s housing crisis is largely a result of tycoons working with their political allies to artificially inflate housing prices. Without undercutting the power base of the tycoons, there is no way of resolving this problem. Chief Executives will continue to be hamstrung by it until they are accountable to the people.

Skeptics will highlight that China’s fear of an independently minded leader in Hong Kong has historically overridden these considerations. This fear, that Hong Kong might elect a leader antagonistic to the interests of Beijing, has stood in the way of the government offering anything other than piecemeal reforms in the past. Beijing seems to worry that Hong Kong’s public might elect a leader sympathetic to the idea that city should have the right to determine its own future, or even declare independence, after the handover period finishes in 2047.

Reticence on these grounds is misguided. The greatest driver of dissatisfaction in the last twenty years has been a sense of disenfranchisement. The greatest fuel for the opposition’s rhetoric has been the palpable failure of the current system, and the way it perpetuates inequality. The result has been that every leader’s term in office has ended in acrimony and crisis. This is not a sustainable, long-run solution: it is time to reopen the debate about democratic reform—whether such reforms end up being gradual or comprehensive.

With transitioning geopolitics, China cannot afford for Hong Kong to become a permanent flashpoint. It could be their gateway to the world for generations: democratic reforms are the best way to guarantee this.

Contact us at

Convicted terrorist linked to Black Lives Matter group

July 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A convicted terrorist is on the board of the umbrella group that provides tax-exempt financial status to the Black Lives Matter organization, one of the group’s “projects.” Susan Rosenberg had spent 16 years in prison for terrorizing the United States during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

According to an investigative report by the Capital Research Center, the Black Lives Matter organization, officially known as “BLM Global Network Foundation,” is a fiscally-sponsored project of left-wing organization Thousand Currents. Fiscal sponsorship simply means that a non-profit organization, in this case Thousand Currents, offers its legal and tax-exempt status to one of its “projects,” in this case Black Lives Matter, which engages in activities related to the non-profit organization’s mission.

In other words, thanks to the fiscal sponsorship arrangement between Thousand Currents and Black Lives Matter, donations to the latter group are also tax-exempt.

Rosenberg is one of seven members of the board of directors of Thousand Currents. While the website listing those board members was removed by the organization shortly after the Capital Research Center’s article was published, an archived version is still available online.

Rosenberg openly admitted in her short biography that she had spent “16 years in federal prison,” and was released “in 2001 through executive clemency by then-President Bill Clinton.”

Vaccine group sues Trudeau government for ‘draconian and unjustifiable’ response to COVID-19

Vaccine Choice Canada launched the legal action against Trudeau, Ford, CBC, and others for their ‘over-hyped COVID-19 pandemic narrative’


TORONTO, Ontario, July 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Vaccine Choice Canada, a not-for-profit society founded by families who have suffered from vaccine reactions and injuries, is suing Trudeau’s Liberal Government along with Ford’s Government of Ontario to hold them “accountable” for their “overreach and the draconian and unjustifiable measures taken in response to COVID-19.”

“The mass and indiscriminate containment of citizens, the restriction of access to parliament, the courts, medical and educational services, the destruction of local economies and livelihoods, and the requirement to physically distance, along with the forced use of non-medical masking are extraordinary measures that have never before been imposed on the citizens of Canada,” the group stated in a press release.

“The impact of these aberrant measures on our physical, emotional, psychological, social and economic well-being is profoundly destructive and these actions are unsustainable, unwarranted, extreme and unconstitutional.”

In a press release sent out Thursday, Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC) announced that they filed legal action in the Ontario Superior Court against “multiple parties” for their actions “with respect to COVID-19 measures.” The parities also include, among others, the Municipality of Toronto, various public health officers, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

The VCC Statement of Claim lists the defendants as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, Canada’s Chief Medical Officer Dr. Theresa Tam, Transport Minister Marc Garneau, Ontario Ministers Christine Elliot (Health) and Stephen Lecce (Education), Toronto Mayor John Tory, and Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer Dr. David Williams.

The lawsuit also lists as defendants Toronto’s chief medical officer Dr. Eileen De Villa, the County of Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph and their chief medical officer, and Windsor Essex County and their chief medical officer, and the state-funded Canadian broadcaster, the CBC.

The VCC suit lists multiple plaintiffs which include nurses and citizens who argue that the COVID-19 lockdown measures have negatively affected them in both mental and physical health.

In addition to seeking to be paid for the cost of the lawsuit, the VCC is seeking that the defendants do not force any mandatory COVID-19 vaccine on Canadians as it would violate one’s rights under the Canadian constitution.

The VCC is also asking for a declaration that face masks not be mandated, that social distancing measures be retracted as they are “extreme,” and that the closures of churches, schools, and playgrounds were unwarranted and “scientifically” not valid.

The VCC is also seeking $1 million in general and $10 million in punitive damages from the CBC for spreading “misinformation” and “false news” about COVID-19.

In their Statement of Claim summary, the VCC claims that the entire COVID-19 was a “pre-planned” and “false pandemic” perpetrated by the World Health Organization, Bill Gates, and other “Billionaire Oligarchs,” to install a “New World (Economic) Order” with the aim of control and putting wealth in the hands of a few.

They are also claiming that Trudeau’s shutting down of parliament and Ford’s declaration of provincial emergencies was not warranted. The VCC states that the lockdown measures put in place have no basis in scientific fact and therefore, contravene sections of the charter.

In their press release, the VCC states that “during times of emergency,” Canadians’ Constitutional rights “do not stop being important” but rather “become even more important.”

The VCC press release says that Toronto lawyer, Rocco Galati, will serve as their legal counsel.

LifeSiteNews reached out to Ted Kuntz, president of VCC, to ask him about the lawsuit.

Kuntz responded by saying that although they recognize governments can enact laws that limit constitutional rights, it’s up to them to prove that the limits are needed.

“We recognize that governments may enact laws and pursue policies that limit Constitutional rights and freedoms, but the onus is on the government to prove that the limit is minimal, necessary, finite, and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society,” Kuntz told LifeSiteNews.

VCC held a press conference Thursday at their legal counsel’s office in Toronto. Kuntz told LifeSiteNews that it is “telling that none of the mainstream media attended the press conference.”

In their news release, VCC says that they have made “numerous formal requests of the Government of Canada and various provincial governments” to provide them with evidence that justifies the COVID-19 measures taken, but they have gone unanswered

“An over-hyped COVID-19 pandemic narrative is being utilized to create unnecessary panic and to justify the systemic violation of the rights and freedoms that form the basis of our society, including our Constitutional rights, sovereignty, privacy, rule of law, financial security, and even our very democracy,” states the VCC news release.

The VCC says that there are many “recognized global health and research experts” who have given a valid criticism of “government overreach and the draconian and unjustifiable measures taken in response to COVID-19.”

“The warning bells are being rung about the dire consequences of these unwarranted, irresponsible, and extreme actions that are in violation of the rights and freedoms well established in Canadian and international law. All this continues to fall on the deaf ears of governments,” states the VCC news release.

VCC has been a vocal opponent of government responses to the coronavirus crisis and has a page dedicated to the virus on their website

Recently, the VCC heavily opposed a controversial New Brunswick bill that would have mandated kids to be vaccinated to attend public schools.

The bill was defeated, as lawmakers rejected removing “non-medical” religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions from existing law.

In May, Kuntz told LifeSiteNews that any type of forced vaccination, including a COVID-19 vaccine, is “morally repugnant” and unconstitutional after being asked about Health Canada approving human trial testing of a coronavirus vaccine derived from an aborted fetal cell line.

“The decision by Health Canada to approve human trial testing for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine should concern us all,” Kuntz told LifeSiteNews.

“Bypassing standard and prudent safety protocols and rushing a vaccine to market not only increases the risk of producing a product that will cause more harm than good, it has the very real potential to severely undermine trust in our health professionals, our health agencies, and in the entire vaccine paradigm.”

IB disaster

The IB Disaster – Confessions of a naive IB fan who learned the hard way

I put our son into the IB diploma program because I liked the idea of a rigorous “internationally” oriented education. But as it turned out, it was not the sort of rigor anyone needs. I see him under severe stress, doing all nighters, and having a hard time keeping his GPA high to get into college, while also trying to study for his SAT and ACT. The first half of his senior year has been like a death march, just when he needs to be getting ready for college.

Now I understand why 3/4 of those who start the diploma program at his school drop out. It just is not worth it.

A couple people had advised me that AP is just as good, less stress, and better recognized by colleges in the USA. Unfortunately, I didn’t listen because I was tuned to the IB siren song. My son confirms that he really enjoyed his AP courses, did well in them without much difficulty, and we put his scores on his college application. His IB exams aren’t until the end of the senior year, so they won’t help. Not that US colleges put much stock in the IB anyway. Useless like the whole program.

He explained that the problem with the IB essays is they are extremely formulaic. They have to be done according to the IB ideology and format, and that is twice as much work, because even if you do a great essay, but it’s not in line with the norms of the gnomes in Geneva, it’s a fail. He’s being forced to learn nonsense that isn’t going to help him in college.

To be sure, IB is not alone in having an ideology. The standard US education has one too. But in conventional programs you can adapt to the particular school and teacher. In IB, the teacher’s hands are tied. The IBO in Geneva has the last word about your kid’s diploma.

This can be quite totalitarian. The ideology dictates down to the very structure of the schoolwork. I like the IB idea of being open to the value systems of other countries, but isn’t it a little weird to try to teach open-mindedness by being closed minded?

I can also confirm the criticisms made by others of some of the political tendencies. In English Lit, instead of getting a good grounding in respected classics they’ll be expected to know, he had to read some obscure, third-rate drivel by a lesbian author about her neuroses. Forced like that, it didn’t even have the desired effect of encouraging tolerance. He ended up roundly hating feminism.

Forcing kids to do useless things that steal hours from their lives, that’s the IB.

Theory of Knowledge sounds good on paper with its Socratic method, but my son notes that you would need to be a Socrates to apply it. Of course, few high school teachers even have a credential to teach philosophy. They would do better with a subject that they know and understand. But IB claims it isn’t about knowing things. Their theory of knowledge seems to be that there is no such thing, there are just a bunch of different opinions out there. So maybe anybody can teach it, since it’s just a load of rubbish.

IB has been a huge disappointment for us. Never again would I inflict it on one of my kids. They are only kids once, so let them enjoy life and not groan under the burden of a misguided pedagogy.

I can’t give my son the four years wasted on the IB back to him. All I can do to make some small amends is to write this mea culpa critique for letting him be their guinea pig, and hope it helps someone else avoid the trap.