OPINION: It’s time to follow the scientific method — and re-evaluate Canada’s COVID approach

Author of the article:Special to Toronto Sun

Publishing date:Jun 28, 2021  •

A sign promotes COVID-19 vaccination Wednesday, May 12, 2021 north of Shannonville, Ont.
A sign promotes COVID-19 vaccination Wednesday, May 12, 2021 north of Shannonville, Ont. PHOTO BY LUKE HENDRY /Luke Hendry

By: Claus Rinner, Donald G. Welsh, Jan Vrbik, John Zwaagstra, Laurent Leduc and Valentina Capurri

Did you know that the average age of Canada’s COVID-19 deaths in 2020 was almost 84 years, while the average age at death in Canada in 2019 was only 76.5 years?

You would think that these Statistics Canada data published on June 1 would give politicians, public health officials, and the media reason to re-examine the threat of SARS-CoV-2 and consider age-specific response measures.

An extraordinary burden is put on children, youths, and young families, who are at virtually no risk from the virus nor contribute significantly to its transmission. And blanket emergency orders are being extended for the nth time, although they have been only marginally effective over the last 15 months.

We are a group of academics with PhDs spanning the natural and social sciences as well as the humanities. What we have in common is a daily practice of critical thinking and following the scientific method.

Science continuously questions previous findings, explores new approaches, and validates or refutes them with evidence. As scientists and scholars, we categorically reject the notion that “the science is settled”. Science never settles.

What we know about COVID-19 has changed over the last 15 months. For example, did you know that asymptomatic transmission is no longer considered relevant for SARS-CoV-2 spread? Yet, why are the implications of the updated science on mask mandates and social distancing not being discussed?

How could one-half of the United States go safely back to the old normal with no mask mandates, distancing rules, or vaccine requirements, while the province of Ontario maintains one of the tightest restrictions of civil liberties in the world? Why are dissenting doctors silenced by their professional organizations and the media, instead of being listened to and cross-examined?

In early 2020, asymptomatic transmission was suspected to pose a risk large enough to respond to the novel coronavirus with unprecedented lockdowns and mobility restrictions. Normally, any important government policy is subject to a cost-benefit analysis – why was this not done for the COVID-19 measures?

Independent Canadian researchers predict a devastating toll: one study estimates that 5-10 times more life is lost due to lockdowns (measured in years of life lost prematurely, i.e. Canadians dying earlier than they would without lockdowns), as compared to any lives that may have been saved, and another study pegs the costs at up to 282 times greater than the benefits.

The collateral damage of lockdowns on our emotional, physical, and mental health is increasingly coming to light. And so is the impact of mobility restrictions on the fabric of society: for more than one year, we have been encouraged to refrain from regular social contact and to perceive those around us as carriers of disease and death. Considering that humans are social beings, this is an unprecedented experiment that might have devastating long-term effects, especially on children.

The United States has been a political battlefield for different approaches to responding to COVID-19. Consider California versus Florida. California imposed full dining closures and stay-at-home mandates in November-December 2020, whereas Florida had lifted most restrictions as early as September 2020.

Despite California’s strict measures, the daily death counts attributed to COVID19 continued to rise during the third wave and peaked in January-February 2021. A similar rise was seen in Florida but the peak level was lower than for California, followed by a steady decrease.

Florida has done remarkably well, health-wise and economically, throughout the pandemic and that with a population more than half that of Canada squeezed into a landmass similar to Nova Scotia.

It does not take a degree in medicine or public health to see the possibility that the threat of SARS- CoV-2 was greatly exaggerated and the Western world’s pandemic response badly mismanaged. It is extremely dangerous to suppress diverging analyses and censor opposing views, as has been happening with respect to COVID-19 in mainstream and social media, in the public sphere and at the workplace, and even in our universities and parliaments.

If we do not maintain careful checks and balances on government and public health officials, we run the risk of taking the wrong path for too long. This is the situation we are facing right now, and it is imperative that we stop and retrace our steps to find a sensible, sustainable way to deal with SARS- CoV-2, as we do with other endemic viruses.

This country has to fully re-open and get back to normal life, along with restoring long-established pandemic preparedness.


EDITORIAL: Trudeau ‘hate speech’ law could harm anyone


What could possibly go wrong with BillC-36? Those who are woke, a militant cancel culture and the perpetually offended on the prowl for anything they deem hateful. A different point of view, a differing narrative could be called “hate speech”. Feelings trump facts, truth is hate speech, we are already there.

I am not sure what is more alarning , BillC-36 or the fact that we have a federal gov’t that is seeking to shut down Canadian’s freedom of speech while most of us are still in various forms of lockdown. Most of us are just looking for our lives back and yet Trudeau and cabal took advantage of weary Canadians in a supposed “pandemic” to bring BillC-36 to the table.

Awake yet?

If you have been paying attention, “sunny ways” already brought compelled speech to Canada under BillC-16, that is when Jordan Peterson came to the forefront sounding the alarm and he was proven right. Compelled, telling you what you must speak. We have a PM who has said that he admires China’s dictatorship, Cdns, should have believed him.

Canadians must say no to this government and BillC-36 or any other bill that undermines our freedoms of speech.

Author of the article:Postmedia News Publishing date:Jun 27, 2021  

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau attends a news conference at Rideau Cottage in Ottawa, June 25, 2021.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau attends a news conference at Rideau Cottage in Ottawa, June 25, 2021. PHOTO BY BLAIR GABLE /REUTERS

There’s an old joke about free speech that goes something like this:

“What’s hate speech? It’s speech we hate!

Terms like hate speech are very subjective and hard to nail down with legal precision.

Different people will have different notions of what qualifies as hate speech. They will project their own biases into their definitions. Some will just seek to outlaw things that they don’t personally support.

That’s not how it’s supposed to work. Yet there’s very good reason to fear that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government are planning to do just that.

Hot on the heels of ramming through Bill C-10, which was criticized by free speech and legal experts, the Liberals will now try to push through Bill C-36.

The stated goal of this legislation is to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include a definition of hate speech and then categorize it as legal discrimination.

Who can have a problem with that? Hate speech is bad, right?

It depends upon the definition. The devil is in the details.

This new law defines hate speech as “content that expresses detestation or vilification of a person or group” — and this includes over the Internet.

Yikes. That’s pretty broad.

Expressing detestation of a group? What does that even mean?

What it will mean in practice is that anyone will be able to make nuisance claims that someone else’s Twitter or Facebook post violates their rights.

The proposed law says people can be fined $20,000 for the first offence and $50,000 for the second.

The truth is that this law makes a mockery of real laws on the books that pertain to things like making threats as well as libel and defamation. This is the stuff of real courts and it’s right these laws are already on the books.

What Trudeau is planning will lead to kangaroo court attempts to punish speech that some people find offensive.

Justice Minister David Lametti claims that these laws will only be used to go after “the worst of the worst” offenders.

Sorry, but we find that hard to believe. After all, Section 13 — this law’s controversial precursor that was eventually removed — was previously used by claimants to take mainstream Maclean’s magazine to court.

Bill C-36 is more trouble than it’s worth.

Section 13 Rises from the Dead

by Mark Steyn
The War on Free Speech

The “free world” barely pretends to favor free speech these days. The triggered interns who infest the big publishing houses openly demand their employers pulp the latest manuscripts from J K Rowling and Jordan Peterson. The totalitarian wankers of the British police sit around the station all day monitoring Twitter for transphobic quips, which is far more congenial labor than getting off their flabby arses and catching criminals. The woke billionaires of social media boast openly of their success at “fortifying” the US election by memory-holing unhelpful content.

Beyond those specifics, there are few takers for the principle of “free speech”. For most people under thirty – forty? fifty? – freedom of expression takes a back seat on ever more issues. On climate, Islam, race, immigration, LGBTQWERTY and of course ChiCom-19, there is one correct position and it is entirely legitimate therefore to quash any dissenting views.

In such a world it is no surprise to find that Justin Trudeau’s ministry is preparing to restore “Section 13” of the Canadian Human Rights Code. The repeal of that vile law represents one of my few victories in the political realm. As the saying goes, there are no permanent victories in politics, and I would have a tougher time winning that battle today: The principled lefties (Margaret Wente) who offered support have themselves been canceled, and the queasier ones (Neil Macdonald) who objected on the grounds that all the attention was merely helping me sell even more books have been supplanted by more committed warriors who feel that, with Zuckerberg and Bezos at your back, there is no one so lofty he can’t be brought low.

Even a decade ago, Stephen Harper’s supposedly right-wing ideologues had no stomach for the fight. His “conservative” attorney-general was useless and his “conservative” human-rights commissar was on the other side. When the issue came up in Cabinet, the consensus was that “Steyn’s going to lose” – as every other defendant had lost – and therefore there was no point getting involved. Maclean’s was the country’s biggest-selling news magazine, and its excerpt of America Alone was a short clip from a Number One Canadian bestseller. But the “human rights” commissions had feasted on fringe losers and had worked up an appetite for meatier fare.

And so it was that it was not the Government that moved to rid Canada of this awful law, but a plucky backbencher, Brian Storseth, in a private member’s bill. Here is what I wrote nine years ago in Maclean’s – June 2012 – when the abolition of Section 13 finally received Royal Assent:

Coloured people don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Burn it.

Thus, Ray Bradbury in his prescient 1953 novel Fahrenheit 451. On June 6th, the day after Bradbury’s death at the age of 91, the House of Commons passed Brian Storseth’s private member’s bill repealing Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Fahrenheit 451 draws its name from the temperature at which books burn; Canada’s Fahrenheit 13 is its frosty northern inverse—the temperature at which the state chills freedom of expression. Free speech is the lifeblood of free societies, and, as this magazine has learned over the last half-decade, our decayed Dominion was getting a bad case of hypothermia.

We’re not alone in this. In Britain, Australia, France, Denmark, the Netherlands and many other places, democratic societies have become far too comfortable in policing the opinions of the citizenry. But even by comparison with our Commonwealth cousins and Western Europe, Section 13 and its provincial equivalents are repugnant—practically, philosophically, and operationally.

As a practical matter, an extremely narrow licence to combat the mortal threat to Canadians of 1970s answering machines effortlessly metastasized into investigating the country’s most-read magazine for publishing an excerpt from a Number One Canadian bestseller. Which was entirely predictable to everyone except genius jurists on the Supreme Court—because make-work bureaucracies are never going to content themselves with being a little bit pregnant.

Philosophically, it was a cure worse than the disease: Ian Fine, the senior counsel of the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, declared that his organization was committed to the abolition of hatred—not “hate crimes,” not even “hate speech,” but hate—a human emotion; you know, like the human emotions the control-freak enforcers attempt to abolish in Invasion of the Body Snatchers and The Stepford Wives. Any society of free peoples will include its share of hate: it could not be human without it. And, as bad as racists and homophobes and Islamophobes and whateverphobes may be, empowering Mr. Fine’s ever more coercive enforcement regime to micro-regulate us into glassy-eyed compliance is a thousand times worse.

Operationally, Section 13 was stinkingly corrupt. There are some 34 million Canadians, yet just one individual citizen had his name on almost every Section 13 prosecution of the last decade. Just as Matthew Hopkins appointed himself England’s Witchfinder General in 1645 and went around the country turning in raven-tressed crones for the bounty of a pound per witch, so Richard Warman appointed himself Canada’s Hatefinder General and went around turning in shaven-headed tattooed losers in their mums’ basements for far more lucrative bounties of tens of thousands of dollars. He filed his complaints as a supposedly “offended” and “damaged” private citizen while an employee of Her Majesty’s Government. And, in fairness to the original witchfinder, Matthew Hopkins didn’t personally put on a pointy black hat and ride around on a broomstick – whereas Mr Warman joined Stormfront and other “white supremacist” websites and posted copious amounts of hate speech of his own, describing, for example, Jewish members of cabinet as “scum” and gays as a “cancer.” That’s how “hateful” Canada is: there’s so little “hate” out there that the country’s most famous Internet Nazi is a taxpayer-funded civil servant.

For Warman, there was little risk: you paid his costs, and the dice were loaded. After Hosni Mubarak was “re-elected” with 97.1 per cent of the vote, he was said to be furious with his officials for stealing too much of the election and making him look like one of those crude ham-fisted dictator-for-life types like Saddam and Kim Il-Sung. So next time round his officials arranged for him to “win” with a mere 96.3 per cent of the vote. Canada’s “human rights” commissars had no such squeamishness: until (in the wake of our exposure of the racket) the tenacious Marc Lemire won his landmark victory in 2009, Section 13 prosecutions had a three-decade 100 per cent conviction rate even the Soviets might envy.

That wasn’t even the most basic affront. Until Maclean’s intervened in 2008, Lemire’s Section 13 trial was scheduled to be held in secret. I couldn’t quite believe this when I chanced to happen upon the “judge’s” rationale, and I suggested en passant that we should get Maclean’s estimable QC Julian Porter to file a whatchamacallit, a brief or motion or whatever, referencing precedents and other jurisprudential-type stuff, and put a rocket up these totalitarian buggers by treating their dank outhouse of pseudo-justice as a real courtroom subject to real law. Secret trials are for Beijing and Tehran, yet in the name of “human rights” they were introduced to Ottawa.

The line that sums up my objection to the racket was formulated by the Toronto blogger Kathy Shaidle:

You’re too stupid to tell me what to think.

In recent days, the last lonely defenders of the Canadian thought police have all volunteered to demonstrate Miss Shaidle’s proposition. The Opposition critic for “public safety,” Randall Garrison, bemoaned the demise of the commissars’ “power to educate Canadians.” “We do have a serious problem,” said Garrison. “If you take away the power to take [websites] down, it’s not clear they have any mandate to even talk to people about it and educate them about it.”

Unlike Canada’s government-in-waiting, I don’t want the state to have a “mandate” to “educate” the citizen about his opinions. Generally speaking, re-education camp hasn’t worked out so well in those systems that have adopted the Garrison program. Yet joining him, inevitably, in a final desperate defence of Section 13 is Bernie Farber, former head of the Canadian Jewish Congress and Barbara Hall’s rumoured successor as Ontario’s Chief Censor. Captain Farber is determined to go down on the Good Ship Stupid. As evidence of the need for Section 13, Mr Farber excitedly tweeted that “when Nazis rejoice we known [sic] something must be very wrong.” Section 13 is all that stands between you and jackboots on the 401!

Just for the record, the last “hate crime” conviction secured under Section 13 was an Internet post read by just eight people, which works out to 0.8 per cent of a Canadian per province, or, if you include territories, 0.6153 per cent of a Canadian—most of whom were undercover civil servants playing dress-up Nazis. Indeed, at least one of those 0.6153 per cent of a Canadian was Mr Farber or one of his colleagues, since the CJC was an “interested party” on the suit and presumably, if they were that “interested,” they actually read the thing.

But nobody else did.

There is a tragic quality to the obtuseness of what Ezra Levant calls Canada’s “official Jews.” Europe is awash in explicit Jew-hatred on a scale unseen since the Second World War: synagogues are burned, schools are attacked, children are murdered, and, even on quieter days, Jews are enjoined to walk around Toulouse and Amsterdam and Malmo without any identifying marks of their faith. In Calgary, demonstrators of a certain, ahem, religio-cultural background march under placards proclaiming “Death to the Jews!” In Toronto, their comrades stand on sidewalks and express enthusiasm for a new Holocaust. But, as long as there’s one last penniless loser neo-Nazi getting his swastika tramp-stamp touched up at the tattoo parlor in Redneck Junction, Bernie knows his priorities. Canada’s “human rights” regime is less than useless against real threats to social tranquility, but it does enable cardboard crusaders to enjoy cosy sinecures pursuing phantom enemies.

Meanwhile, Warren Kinsella, whom older readers may recall as Jean Chrétien’s attack poodle, began his column bemoaning the end of Section 13 by asserting that people would now be free to use the words “Kike. Nigger. Faggot. Paki. Chink.”

Actually, lots of people use those words all the time. Mordecai Richler used to refer to his favorite berth at Le Mas des Oliviers as “the Kikes’ round table”; there is nary a gangster rapper for whom the epithet “nigger” is not as omnipresent as “moon” and “June” were in less attitudinal ditties; and the best-known comedy sketch of Canada’s acclaimed Kids in the Hall has just one word in the script, recurring over and over: “Fag.” As for “Chink,” a couple of years ago Kinsella himself was forced to make a grovelling apology to “the Chinese community” after an ill-advised jest about ordering the cat at his favourite restaurant in Ottawa: even the most censorious of politically correct enforcers occasionally forget themselves and accidentally behave like normal human beings. Kinsella made the mistake of assuming that, just as rappers can sing “Strictly For My N.I.G.G.A.Z” and gay comics can do fag jokes, so a Liberal of impeccable Trudeaupian credentials is free to engage in feline Sinophobia. You would think, after the Chinese cat got his tongue, that Mr. Kinsella might be somewhat chastened. But no, he too is determined to go down with the Good Ship Stupid:

The boy stood on the burning deck
Whence all but he had fled
Denouncing ev’ry naughty word
Emerging from his head.

“You weren’t hurting anyone, you were hurting only things!” wrote Ray Bradbury in Fahrenheit 451. “You were simply cleaning up. Janitorial work, essentially. Everything to its proper place. Quick with the kerosene! Who’s got a match!”

Toss ’em on the bonfire—criminal words, illegal cat jokes, they’re only things.

I wish Randall Garrison and the other defenders of censorship and secret trials and 100 per cent conviction rates understood. As I said here years ago, it’s not a right-left thing, it’s a free-unfree thing. And I’m glad the Parliament of Canada is finally on the right side of that divide.

~Well, that last bit was wrong. Because in the intervening years we have reached the stage where free speech is now openly mocked as a weird fringe right-wing obsession. The left feels it has no need of freedom of expression because it controls the culture, and therefore in the new world of “approved speech” they’re the ones who grant approval, so what’s the problem?

Still and all, I am glad I won a decade ago. It taught me a lot about framing issues and shifting opinions, and those skills will surely come in useful in the dark years ahead.


Revealed: Somali knifeman who killed three people at random while yelling ‘Allahu Akbar’ in German terror attack ‘came to Europe as a refugee in 2015’ – amid praise for hero locals who tackled him

Martel “once again the joys of multiculturalism and the lessons thereof are writ large, this time on the streets of a German city and a young child and their parent are now dead, butchered by a Somali Muslim who has abused the hospitality afforded him by Germany. Isn’t it time to curtail any further Muslim migration into Europe? Isn’t it time the commentariat and the politicians understood Islam is not worthy of any place or standing in our societies?”

Somali knifeman who killed three people in Germany ‘came to country in 2015 as refugee’ | Daily Mail Online

Winston Marshall’s brilliant stand against cancel culture

The former Mumford & Sons banjoist reminds us how important it is to speak freely and honestly.

EDITOR25th June 2021

Winston Marshall’s brilliant stand against cancel culture


There is something both stirring and sad about Winston Marshall’s goodbye letter to Mumford & Sons after he found himself in the eye of a Twitterstorm for praising the work of anti-Antifa journalist Andy Ngo.

It’s stirring because here we have a public figure making an enormous sacrifice – leaving the band he loves – in order that he might more freely express his political beliefs. That’s rare in this age in which celebs, columnists and politicians usually respond to Twittermobbing with abject apologies, mistakenly believing that public displays of atonement will appease the thoughtpolice. Of course it does the opposite. Apologies embolden the cancel-culture mob. They feast on retractions. The thrill of having successfully forced someone to recant deepens their lust for power.

So to see Marshall stand up for himself feels bracing. His ‘offence’ was that he tweeted favourably about Andy Ngo’s book, Unmasked: Inside Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy. The woke left fantasises that Antifa’s Fisher-Price revolutionaries, its pampered TikTok vanguard, its masked middle-class activists who love beating up journalists and punching stupid working-class Trump supporters, are the 21st-century equivalent of the International Brigades. So anyone who takes the side of Mr Ngo – who recognises that Antifa is actually a bunch of dangerous arseholes – must be evil. And that includes Marshall.https://21035fe0c0d7b00fe516dfe6920567e3.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

The reaction to Marshall’s pro-Ngo tweet was, even by the standards of today’s viral inquisitions, deranged. He was branded scum, alt-right, a fascist. The cancelling fury was so intense that Marshall did apologise, initially, and then disappeared from public view. But now he’s back with his goodbye letter to his band.

He explains why his first response to the storm was to say sorry for having caused offence: ‘In the mania of the moment I was desperate to protect my bandmates. The hornets’ nest that I had unwittingly hit had unleashed a black-hearted swarm on them and their families.’ This is how ferocious and unforgiving digital witch-hunts have become. It isn’t only you, the speechcriminal, who will be hounded and libelled – so too will your friends, your family, your associates. Denounce yourself to save them and possibly save yourself – this is the unspoken creed of the modern mob that will harry for days anyone who deviates from its ideological narrative.

Now, Marshall is retracting his retraction. He has been ‘reflecting, reading and listening’, he says. He now feels that his previous apology ‘in a small way participates in the lie that [left-wing] extremism does not exist’. He strongly believes that Antifa extremism is as problematic as far-right extremism, and in order to be able to express this truth that he has arrived at through reflection and consideration he is leaving Mumford & Sons. ‘I could remain and continue to self-censor’, he writes, ‘but it will erode my sense of integrity. Gnaw my conscience.’

This is an incredibly important stand to take. Self-censorship is the most insidious form of censorship in the early 21st century. The knowledge that a witch-hunt can be formed in mere minutes on social media, and that its baying members will happily demonise, denounce and maybe even call for the sacking of any thoughtcriminal who questions transgenderism or refuses to genuflect to BLM or wonders out loud if Antifa might actually be a bit fa, has nurtured a culture of self-silencing, of keeping one’s opinions to oneself in order not to fall foul of the new self-selected guardians of correct thought.

Polls show that many people feel they cannot express their true thoughts on a range of issues. This is the most sinister accomplishment of cancel culture. The worst thing about cancel culture is not its huge spectacles of denunciation – the blacklisting of Jess de Wahls, the violent threats against JK Rowling, the extraction of apologies from celebs or politicians who ‘misspeak’. No, it’s the chilling impact that these noisy social-media showtrials have on public life more broadly. They send a message to the rest of us: STFU, or else. Keep your foul views to yourself. Silence your inner dissenter.

In refusing to do this, Marshall reminds us how important it is to be honest with ourselves, to be honest about what we think. He quotes Aleksander Solzhenitsyn: ‘And he who is not sufficiently courageous to defend his soul – don’t let him be proud of his “progressive” views, and don’t let him boast that he is an academician or a people’s artist, a distinguished figure or a general. Let him say to himself: I am a part of the herd and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and kept warm.’

But there’s a sad side to Marshall’s letter too; to the fact that he felt he had to abandon his band in order to speak his mind. This confirms how grim and punishing public life has become under the metaphorical boot of wokeness. Ours is a culture that refuses to tolerate diversity of thought or any kind of demurring from new orthodoxies. Speak critically and you could lose everything – your job, your reputation, your band.

Marshall’s letter will do little to convince participants in cancel culture, whose self-righteousness long ago eclipsed their capacity for reason. But surely it will encourage those who have thus far been silent about cancel culture – in the misplaced belief that their cowardice will protect them from the cancellers – to start speaking up. Because a climate in which you must give up everything just to be able to speak your mind is one that is very dark and very dangerous indeed.

Winston Marshall’s brilliant stand against cancel culture – spiked (spiked-online.com)

Priest under fire after sermon on the ‘good done’ by Catholic church on residential schools

Please click on link to read article https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mississauga-pastor-catholic-church-residential-schools-1.6077248?fbclid=IwAR08KHir0VwL5AkcTo_L3m1oPiHhECnmNNFdQ4TCTsJyJVqJ1JCpcXm8Q88

Arwen~ Letter to Mayor Bonnie Crombie

Dear Mayor Crombie;

Did you stop to consider any of Pastor Keenan’s words?  There is zero evidence in Kamloops of what exactly took place, the technology used cannot identify human remains, let alone ages.  This has been outright mislabeled as  a  mass grave, evoking images to most people of  images they have seen of extermination camps like Auschwitz coming to mind.  This is not that.   An Indigenous chief stated this a few days following the media blitz that this  is not a mass grave.  This has been a rush to judgement, knee jerk reaction from the get-go  and as with anything else, anything against the “progressive narrative” will not be tolerated.  Are you aware of how long this school and others schools were in operation?  Who was on the land before?  There are “unmarked” cemetaries all across Canada, with markers long gone, that is not uncommon.   Cemetaries, not mass graves, terminology matters.   

    Are you aware of the deadly diseases that took the life of many children from small pox to TB to others, and there was no treatment, no penicillin to treat?     Are you aware of the mortality rates and life  expectancy of children  during this time?  Are you aware that anyone who died from a communicable disease would  be buried immediately as a safety measure?    Are you aware that not all reports of residential schools are negative and that comes directly from those who attended?  Are you aware that a small percentage of indigenous children attended the schools? 

Pastor Owen Keenan was incredibly brave and showed  critical thinking in his comments, which is clearly not practiced generally speaking  but you were quick to disassociate yourself from him.  .  The woke mob is especially vicious and one can  understand  why you and other politicians are quick to renounce/denounce  without considering the bigger picture, except you are all responsible for  perpetuating a false narrative.  It is false because all of the evidence is not in to support. 

It is easy to go along with the woke crowd , it takes a lot of  courage and conviction to  speak for calm and not a rush to judgement until all facts are in.   

Do your own homework on this Mayor Crombie.   Use critical thinking on today’s  latest residential school grave discovery, which people groups were on the land and from when to when.  What was taking place during those decades, ie diseases, etc.

A few links below that you may find a different perspective, that is not reported in MSM. 



Senator Hawley Calls on U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom to Consider Adding Canada to Watch List

Thursday, June 24, 2021

Today U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) sent a letter to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom urging the commission to consider adding Canada to its watch list in response to the country’s crackdown on religious freedom. In the letter, Senator Hawley cites recent instances of Canadian pastors being arrested and jailed for holding worship services that do not comply with strict COVID-19 restrictions.

“I am troubled that our Canadian neighbors are effectively being forced to gather in secret, undisclosed locations to exercise their basic freedom to worship,” Senator Hawley writes. “Frankly, I would expect this sort of religious crackdown in Communist China, not in a prominent Western nation like Canada. Canadian authorities’ arrest of faith leaders and seizure of church property, among other enforcement actions, appear to constitute systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom.”

Last year, Senator Hawley urged the Department of Justice to bring federal lawsuits to uphold the rights of houses of worship burdened by unjust restrictions.

Full text of the letter is available here and below.

June 24, 2021

Chair Nadine Maenza
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
732 N. Capitol Street, N.W., Suite A714
Washington, DC 20401

Dear Chair Maenza:

One of the most fundamental human rights is the freedom to practice one’s faith according to the dictates of one’s conscience. Last year, I urged the Department of Justice to bring federal lawsuits to uphold the rights of houses of worship burdened by unjust restrictions. Now I am writing to express my deep concern that this freedom is in peril across our nation’s northern border.

In recent months, there have been numerous instances of Canadian pastors being arrested and jailed for holding worship services that do not comply with COVID-19 restrictions. On June 14, Pastor Tim Stephens of Fairview Baptist Church in Calgary, who was previously arrested in May, was arrested again at home in front of his wife and children. Media outlets captured heartbreaking video of the pastor’s children sobbing as they held their father’s hand through the barred window of a police car. Pastor Stephens’ alleged violation was holding an outdoor worship service in a park, which was apparently discovered by a police helicopter flying overhead.

Other Canadian pastors, such as Pastor James Coates of GraceLife Church in Spruce Grove, have similarly faced arrests and enforcement actions. Authorities reportedly seized and fenced off the GraceLife Church building in April, which sparked a protest of hundreds of people in opposition to the move.

I am troubled that our Canadian neighbors are effectively being forced to gather in secret, undisclosed locations to exercise their basic freedom to worship. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that “[e]veryone has the following fundamental freedoms,” which include the “freedom of conscience and religion.” The arrests and actions taken to enforce overly burdensome and unjustified orders, however, do not seem to live up to this praiseworthy statement. Frankly, I would expect this sort of religious crackdown in Communist China, not in a prominent Western nation like Canada.

Canadian authorities’ arrest of faith leaders and seizure of church property, among other enforcement actions, appear to constitute systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom. I urge the Commission on International Religious Freedom to take whatever action is necessary to address and rectify this situation, and consider adding Canada to the Commission’s Watch List.

Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter.


Josh Hawley
United States Senator


The Honorable Kirsten Hillman
Ambassador of Canada to the United States
501 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20001


%d bloggers like this: