Trudeau Buries Truth With Refusal Of China Election Interference Inquiry “Since the 1970s, there have been important political and economic pro-China vectors emanating out of Montreal and Ottawa.” byBrad Salzberg “What in the world, you might be asking, is up with Canada? How did a country famed for its sensible, moderate attitudes and customs transform itself into the front rank of the woke phalanx?” Who better than Dr. Jordan Peterson to pose this question to the people of Canada?It is of little surprise that such frank critique of PM Justin Trudeau should appear only within a non-Canadian media publication. By now, most Canadians would have recognized that citizens of our country are being subjected to a “woke media vacuum” within our dying democracy.“Canada, according to Trudeau, is a vacancy, bereft of civil history; a nothing place, waiting to be filled in. But nature abhors a vacuum, and that emptiness cries out to be filled. And who shall guide the infilling? Well obviously, Trudeau himself, along with his mentors and minions,” says Dr. Peterson. Absolutely correct. Early in his tenure, a specious Justin Trudeau blessed Canada with a piece of neo-communist ideology. His claim that our country is a nation with “no core identity” has opened the door for the next phase of our national state-of-being.Media won’t allude to it, but the words which Peterson speaks has set the stage for a post-modern brand of authoritarian governance in Canada. Like presumed father Pierre Trudeau, PM Justin’s political cognition is firmly rooted in communist ideology.On this basis, no living Canadian should be surprised that Mr. Trudeau has put the kibosh on a formal inquiry into a CSIS report confirming interference from the government of China in the past two federal elections.‘Trudeau Rules Out Public Inquiry Into Chinese Electoral Interference,’ reads a headline this week in the Globe and Mail. No one should be surprised by the pronouncement.Legacy media has been doing all they can to provide damage control. PM Trudeau “knew about the interference, and warned Parliament accordingly.““The interference is damaging to Canadian democracy and related institutions,” reads the scroll of damage control.All the while eschewing a central fact within Canada’s political narrative: there is no human being on earth more responsible for a deterioration of freedom, democracy and the rule of law in Canada than Justin Trudeau. Upon which Cultural Action Party repeat our well-worn mantra: The Liberal Party of Canada and the communist government of China have maintained a tacit form of partnership for the past 50-years. Beginning with former Liberal PM Pierre Trudeau in the early 1970’s, China’s path to power within our society is the most overlooked political story of our times.“In U.S. backyard: How China Embedded Itself In Canada”“ Since the 1970s, there have been important political and economic pro-China vectors emanating out of Montreal and Ottawa. Since then, that have broadened to influential pro-Beijing groups across Canada.”Extent to which this information has been disseminated within Canadian media? Blink, and you missed it– because it has never occurred.“Pierre Trudeau made no secret of his sympathies for communist leaders like Fidel Castro, and by the time he was elected Prime Minister, he had already visited China twice. He was there in 1949, the year the Communists took power, and then again on an official visit in 1960, when he was a labour lawyer. On the 1960s visit, he met Chairman Mao. After which CAP delve into an area intentionally hidden from mainstream society. Quebec-centric power-players– of which the Trudeau family belong– have been responsible for the Liberal Party link to the communist government of China.In 1978 came the establishment of the Canada China Business Council. Founding members of CCBC included three major Montreal-based companies, Power Corporation, Bombardier, and SNC Lavalin.“For three generations, Power Corp. has been largely run by the Desmarais family. Paul Desmarais was the first generation. He had been an advisor to Pierre Trudeau, and later Trudeau was on the board of Power Corp. Paul’s son married the daughter of former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. Their son, Paul’s grandson, is the current Chair of the Canada China Business Council.”There you have it. The roots of Justin Trudeau’s refusal to drill-down on China’s election interference. Degree of exposure from Canadian media totals zero– a proverbial goose egg,Conveniently omitted from the Liberal-China narrative is another salient fact. The Conservative Party of Canada won the popular vote in the last federal election. Meaning that it is possible that the 11 MP seats bribed by China’s government could have won the election for the Conservatives. Did China win the 2021 election for Justin Trudeau? It’s darn well possible–the very reason why the Liberals are leveraging the billions paid to establishment media to obfuscative the election interference.The government of China know their business. With or without the right to vote, Chinese government leader know all about maintaining long-term governance. Decade after decade, the same power structure exists to control for the purpose of controlling public behaviour, and muting all forms of push-back against government leaders. CBC won’t tell you, and Toronto Star won’t print it, but the very same structure is currently in place in Canada. The goal is singular: the Liberals are to be Canada’s government-for-life. Utilizing China’s methodology of media control, the Liberal Party has transitioned to Canada’s first neo-communist government. To be followed, in due time, by the real thing. |
Tag Archives: Justin Trudeau
CSIS documents show China warned ‘Canadian friends’ of foreign-interference investigations
- The Globe and Mail (Ontario Edition)
- 18 Feb 2023
- ROBERT FIFE STEVEN CHASE With a report from Carrie Tait in Calgary.
Trudeau says he expects an investigation into the source of leaks to Globe, denies Beijing’s interference in elections
Chinese diplomats quietly issued warnings to “friendly” influential Canadians in early 2022, advising them to reduce their contact with federal politicians to avoid being caught up in foreign-interference investigations by Canada’s spy agency.
Secret and top-secret Canadian Security Intelligence Service documents viewed by The Globe and Mail reveal how China sought to protect its network of “Canadian friends” – a community it relies on to build relations, influence and covertly gather information from MPs and senators.
The Globe reported Friday how China employed a sophisticated strategy to seek the return of a minority Liberal government and to defeat Conservative politicians considered to be unfriendly to Beijing in the 2021 federal election.
The tactics, outlined in secret CSIS reports, included disinformation campaigns, undeclared cash donations and the use of international Chinese students, studying in Canada, as campaign volunteers to support preferred Liberal candidates.
The classified documents show that Chinese influence operations went beyond election interference, employing tactics to target Canadian legislators and sway public opinion through proxies in the business and academic communities.
In response to The Globe story, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told reporters at a Friday news conference that he expects CSIS to find out who is leaking the secret reports, and stuck to his long-held view that Chinese interference operations did not affect the overall results of the 2019 and 2021 elections.
“It’s certainly a sign that security within CSIS needs to be reviewed. And I’m expecting CSIS to take the issue very seriously,” Mr. Trudeau said.
MPs on the Commons Procedure and House Affairs committee are already looking into allegations that China interfered in the 2019 campaign. Opposition parties want the committee to return from a scheduled two-week break on Wednesday to hold hearings on The Globe’s report concerning the 2021 election.
As for foreign interference in federal elections, the Prime Minister played down reports of Chinese state meddling. The CSIS report talked of how China’s former consul-general in Vancouver, Tong Xiaoling, boasted in 2021 about how she helped defeat two Conservative MPs.
“The fact that a Chinese diplomat would try to take credit for things that happened is not something that is unseen in diplomatic circles around the world,” Mr. Trudeau said.
He said a task force of civil servants in Ottawa is keeping Canada’s election results safe from foreign interference. “Canadians can have total confidence that the outcomes of the 2019 and the 2021 elections were determined by Canadians and Canadians alone at the voting booth.”
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre accused Mr. Trudeau of “covering up the interference of the authoritarian regime” in China. “He is perfectly happy to let a foreign authoritarian government interfere in our elections as long as they’re helping him,” he said in Calgary.
The highly classified information about China’s strategy of recruiting business executives, university professors and researchers were shared with senior Canadian government officials and Canada’s Fives Eyes intelligence allies: the United States, Britain, Australia and New Zealand. The CSIS reports were also shared with German, French, Dutch and Swedish spy services.
In a Jan. 15, 2022, intelligence report, CSIS said China had learned that the spy agency for the first time was warning individual MPs and senators from all major parties about influence operations being carried out by Beijing. That set in motion an effort by Chinese diplomats to close down foreign-interference operations directed at elected officials in Ottawa.
“[People’s Republic of China] officials believe that CSIS is conducting investigations into Chinese foreign interference in Canada, resulting in officials considering that it is more prudent for “Canadian friends” to cease contacts with MPs for the time being,” the report said. “PRC officials will simply need to provide an ambiguous warning to the ‘Canadian friends’ in order for the latter to grasp the situation.”
The documents do not identify the Canadian business executives, academics or researchers.
CSIS has become increasingly alarmed about efforts by China and its agents of influence to covertly cultivate relations with elected officials to gain sway over parliamentary debates and government decision-making. The spy service had asked MPs to alert them of any suspicious activity, and provided the politicians with names and contact information of CSIS agents whom they can contact to pass on information.
Canadian friends were described by CSIS as non-ethnic-Chinese individuals who maintain relations with PRC officials in Canada and have close ties with federal politicians in the Liberal, Conservative and New Democratic parties. CSIS said the warning from China was not sent to Chinese-Canadians who were close to MPs as “PRC officials are very well acquainted with those individuals,” the report said.
Of particular concern to Beijing was CSIS’s new focus of trying to put pressure on Canadian universities and researchers from collaborating with China on leading-edge science and technology projects. The report said one Chinese diplomat in Canada said CSIS was “unnecessarily investigating PRC-focused academics” and said PRC officials should warn these academics about the investigations.
In 2021, Ottawa put in place stricter guidelines to require national-security reviews for academics seeking federal funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC). But that did not apply to other federal funding bodies.
Innovation Minister François-Philippe Champagne extended the ban to all federal granting agencies after The Globe revealed late last month that 50 Canadian universities had been collaborating with China’s National University of Defence Technology since 2005. Mr. Champagne announced on Tuesday that Ottawa would no longer fund research with Chinese military or state security institutions. He also urged Canadian universities to adopt the same stringent national-security measures.
China’s consulate-general in Vancouver accused The Globe of smearing and discrediting China. “The Chinese side has made it clear on many occasions that China has always adhered to the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, and has never interfered in any Canadian election or internal affairs in any way,” said a statement on its website.
Walied Soliman, who served as the co-chair of the 2021 Conservative election campaign, said on Twitter Friday that the federal government’s Security and Intelligence Threats To Elections (SITE) task force did not take his party’s concerns about foreign interference seriously.
“Our party was seeing clear signs of tampering in ridings with substantial Chinese diasporas,” he said. “We were met with shrugged shoulders and complete ambivalence. It was truly unreal,” he said.
Andy Ellis, former CSIS assistant director of operations, said Ottawa should have expelled the Chinese diplomats behind the election interference operations even if it meant a tit-for-tat response from Beijing.
“There certainly should have been very, very serious consideration given to declaring them persona non grata,” Mr. Ellis said. “Making a hard judgment to say what is worse losing a diplomat in Beijing in retaliation for this or getting rid of someone who is disrupting Canadian elections.”
Mr. Poilievre called on the federal government to set up a foreign-agent registry that would keep track of all people paid to influence Canadian governments on behalf of foreign countries.
Mr. Trudeau declined to answer a question on whether Ottawa would proceed to set up a registry such as exist in Australia and the United States.
David Mulroney, a former Canadian ambassador to China with a diplomatic career stretching back more than 30 years, said The Globe’s reporting on China’s efforts to influence the 2021 election underscores the need to shine a light on those working for foreign states.
“These revelations make clear the extent to which China uses proxies to deliver its influence campaigns,” he said. The Canadian government “needs to move from musing about a registry of foreign agents to actually establishing one. And the sooner the better.”
He said a registry would make a difference.
“Simply announcing that we are going to require individuals to be transparent about disbursing funds for, lobbying for, or speaking for a foreign state would put China on notice,” he said.
“Much of Beijing’s interference effort in Canada is delivered through individuals who are paid to do those things by Chinese officials. Canadians need to know who’s pulling the strings and cutting the cheques.”
Quebec Government Wants Trudeau’s Appointed Scourge of Of Islamophobia Fired Amira Elghabaway, Minister of Islamophobia, stands beside fellow Moslems, MPs Ahmed Hussen and MP Omar Alghabra. The Quebec government is calling for the resignation of newly-appointed Minister of Islamophobia, Amira Elghabaway, Liberal government special representative to combat Islamophobia. “Quebec Secularism Minister Jean-François Roberge says Ottawa should fire Amira Elghawaby immediately if she chooses not to resign. The journalist and activist was appointed to the role last week by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.” The history of the rise of Islamic political power in Canada suggests she won’t quit, won’t be fired, and will maintain her position as “Islamo-Cop” of Canada. A history of obstinance offers the best clue as to what will transpire. From day one– Justin Trudeau’s ascension to the throne of Canada in 2015– a cast-in-stone palette has coloured the condition of PM Trudeau’s fight against so-called “Islamophobia.” Amira Elghabaway has nothing good to say about our country. In this she shares Trudeau’s sentiment, along with the man whose role it is to prop up the Trudeau government, New Democratic Party Leader, Jagmeet Singh. “Elghawaby co-wrote a 2019 opinion piece in the Ottawa Citizen linking ‘anti-Muslim sentiment’ to Quebec’s Bill 21, which bans certain government employees from wearing religious symbols at work.” Witness the myopia. Bill 21 is equally focused on Christians, Jews, Hindus and Sikhs. Not that it amounts to a hill-of-beans for Ms. Elghabaway. Her single concern is her personal faith; her personal obsession so-called “Islamophobia.” It’s this form of ethno-centricism which has resulted in a steady building of animosity toward our Liberal government’s treatment of one identifiable Canadian community. No one has exacerbated this social problem more than Justin Trudeau. His constant pandering and pumping up of one specific community has resulted in the social discord Canadians are witnessing at present. Neither government, nor media or Canadian academia have considered Mr. Trudeau’s degenerative impact on race relations in our country. For CBC, CTV, Globe & Mail and Toronto Star, the fault is found in those nasty, bitter and racist “Old Stock” Canadians. What a privilege legacy media has bestowed upon PM Trudeau. Not that it isn’t be expected after our PM pulled his “China-like” maneuver of covertly purchasing mainstream Canadian media. “Jean-François Roberge, CAQ minister responsible for the French language, said Eghawaby has not properly apologized for her comments about Quebec. She “seems to be overcome by an anti-Quebec sentiment,” said Roberge. “All she did was try to justify her hateful comments. That doesn’t fly. She must resign and if she doesn’t, the government must remove her immediately.” Upon which CAP pulls out our proverbial crystal ball: Amira Elghabaway will continue on as Woke Liberal Islamo-police person. After all, she has been placed into power by none other than Somali import MP Ahmed Hussen. Elghabaway has friends in high places. M103 “Islamophobia” motion founder and half-citizen of Pakistan MP Iqra Khalid helped her gain the lofty position. Canada most powerful special interest not-for-profit organization, National Council of Canadian Muslims, helped get her there. In Justin Trudeau’s post-modern Canada, these are the power-players holding the political cards. Islam is the future of Canadian immigration, whether CBC tell us so, or not. “It was never meant to suggest that my opinion is that the majority of Quebeckers are Islamophobic. I don’t believe so. I was merely analyzing the polling numbers … [an] opinion piece is meant to cause people to think, to talk, to reflect,” says Ms. Elgabaway. A giant lol to that. Fundamentalist religion doesn’t talk, unless it’s to preach the word, or inform Canadians we “must educate ourselves” to accept cast-in-stone tenets of ancient history. There is no negotiation or flexibility in the world of religious fundamentalism. How strange that the same phenomenon applies to Justin Trudeau’s brand of so-called “progressive” Liberal politics. |
Amira Elghabaway, Minister of Islamophobia, stands beside fellow Moslems, MPs Ahmed Hussen and MP Omar Alghabra.
Quebec group launches private prosecution against Trudeau over illegal Roxham Road border crossings
Trudeau’s declarations have real-life consequences such as encouraging people to cross illegally into Canada at Roxham Road, the group’s head says
Author of the article:
Published Jan 12, 2023 • Last updated Jan 12, 2023 • 3 minute read
A prominent Quebec author and historian at the head of a Quebec activist group has initiated a private criminal prosecution against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, claiming the prime minister has encouraged illegal immigration into Canada, in violation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
‘I feel like I got duped’: Tesla price drop angers current owners
Frédéric Bastien, president of Justice pour le Quebec, alleges that Trudeau made comments that encouraged illegal crossings into Canada at the infamous Roxham Road border point between New York State and Quebec. Private citizens in Canada have the right to initiate criminal proceedings without relying on the Crown to initiate them. Bastien said he believes he has reasonable grounds to proceed with the prosecution, which if successful could result in the prime minister being subject to a fine or even imprisonment.
In his court filings, Bastien made reference to a widely publicized tweet by Trudeau in 2017 in which the prime minister said Canadians will welcome “those fleeing persecution, terror and war,” after U.S. president Donald Trump issued a travel ban for Muslim-majority countries and suspended refugee claims.
Bastien also pointed to comments made by Trudeau in 2022 suggesting that closing the irregular crossing at Roxham Road would not stop the arrival of asylum-seekers and that migrants would simply “cross elsewhere.”
Bastien said Trudeau is “not a normal citizen” voicing his opinion or using his freedom of expression, and that his public declarations had real-life consequences such as encouraging people to cross into Canada at Roxham Road.
“No one is above the law,” said Bastien of Trudeau. “It’s a matter of justice,”
Bastien, a professor at Montreal’s Dawson College, is a former Parti Québécois leadership contender who courted controversy with his 2013 book that accused a former Supreme Court justice of improperly interfering in the 1982 patriation of Canada’s constitution. The book led to a Supreme Court internal investigation, which failed to substantiate the claim.
Roxham Road, situated south of Montreal, has proven a popular way for asylum-seekers to avoid the Safe Third Country agreement, which prevents Canada from accepting refugee claims entering from the U.S. It has been a point of contention with Quebec as the province receives the bulk of irregular arrivals and is expected to provide social services for arrivals while the federal government evaluates the legality of their claims.
A recent compilation from the Journal de Montreal showed that a record number of 150,000 asylum seekers entered Canada since Trudeau’s 2017 tweet. Of that number, 91,000 entered through Roxham Road.
Quebec premier François Legault has been asking the federal government to permanently close the entry point, a position echoed by the Bloc Québécois, and more recently by Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.
The end of Roxham Road where thousands of asylum seekers have illegally crossed the border into Canada. Photo by Ryan Remiorz/The Canadian Press/File
A Léger poll last May showed that 60 per cent of Quebecers wanted Roxham Road closed. Bastien said a poll commissioned by his own group, Justice pour le Québec (Justice for Quebec), found that 68 per cent of Quebecers strongly or moderately agree with that position.
“I think that people are actually very frustrated because this process is bypassing the law,” said Bastien. “There’s a way to actually migrate to Canada… if you’re a refugee, if you want to seek refugee status in Canada, we have some laws, we have some rules in this country.”
“And what is going on now is that basically the government is helping people to violate the rules to bypass the law,” he said. “The more that goes on, the more frustrated people get.”
A justice of the peace must determine if Bastien’s arguments have legal basis in order for the private prosecution to proceed.
Justice pour le Québec last year launched a court challenge against the City of Toronto over its support for a legal challenge against Quebec’s Bill 21, banning certain public service from wearing religious symbols on the job. It It also launched a court challenge against the appointment of Governor General Mary Simon, claiming her inability to speak French disqualified her.
In December, Bastien himself launched a human rights complaint over a job posting at the University of Laval that prohibited white, non-disabled males from applying.
Chinese police stations indication of wider ‘bullying, intimidation’ tactics, experts say
A counter-intelligence expert says CSIS has known about foreign interference from China for decades
Christina (Hwa Song) Jung · CBC News · Posted: Dec 20, 2022 5:00 AM PT | Last Updated: December 20, 2022
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he raised the issue of interference with Chinese President Xi Jinping at last month’s G20 summit in Indonesia. (Prime Minister’s Office)
As allegations of five Chinese police stations located in Canada, including one in Vancouver, B.C., raise concerns of political interference, experts say the role of Chinese intelligence is far more widespread.
Earlier this month, a friendship society in Richmond was visited by RCMP officers after the Spanish human rights groups Safeguard Defenders published a report alleging that Chinese “police service stations” were operating in Canada, including one in Vancouver.
The group alleges the stations are operated out of four jurisdictions in China and are involved in “persuasion to return” operations, where nationals suspected of committing crimes are asked to return to China to face criminal proceedings.
“Former state functionaries that have been accused of bribery or corruption after a changing of the guards … have been telling us about these stations and undercover police officers from China as early as 2017,” Warda Shazadi Meighen, an immigration and refugee lawyer, told CBC News.
- China operating ‘police’ station out of Vancouver, civil rights group alleges
- RCMP investigating Chinese ‘police’ stations in Canada
The Chinese Embassy has previously described the offices as volunteer-run service stations to process things like driver’s licences, which Meighen says is “a little bit suspicious” as passport and licence renewals are typically performed by embassies and consulates aboard.
“I’m aware of human rights defenders or dissidents or Fallon Gong practitioners [being] targeted through these security offices,” she said.
“Sometimes they’ll get messages on WeChat, which is a Chinese version of WhatsApp … to come to a certain location or they’ll start being followed by people.”
Criminal code law needed
Michel Juneau-Katsuya, a former senior intelligence expert and chief of Asia Pacific for CSIS, says more government intervention and foreign laws are needed to stop these types of foreign interference or intimidation techniques, which he says have been going on for a long time.
“We have been monitoring our foreign interference from the Chinese government for decades,” Katsuya said, adding that these stations are a symbol of much wider activities.
“But the problem we are currently facing is that … we don’t have the tools. What the criminal [and civil] codes offer currently are things like arrest [and] defamation, but it’s not enough.”
WATCH | Counter-intelligence expert explains how information is gathered by Chinese agencies:
Former senior intelligence officer provides explanation on how information is gathered by the Chinese government.
22 days agoDuration 0:47Michel Juneau-Katsuya, the former chief of Asia Pacific for CSIS says there’s a difference between how government officials in the West and China gather information.
He claims the alleged service stations are set up to control the Chinese Canadian community through “bullying and intimidation.”
“Basically, what we are talking about is literally having agents of influence bring messages, intimidate people, directly follow people, take pictures or spread rumours on their social media.”
Yiping Li said he moved to Vancouver as a refugee from Hong Kong in 1997 and believes he was a target of the Chinese government for his campaigns and social media messages advocating for minority rights in China.
“I got threats all the time from online and from my social media. They published my home address, my phone number and my mom’s phone number and asked everybody to phone me.”
Li says he believes he’s still being targeted by the Chinese government. (Submitted by Yiping Li)
Li lived in Vancouver for 20 years before moving out east, he said, but still experiences people following him or watching him.
“Just a month ago … I saw a guy parked in his SUV outside my house taking pictures.”
wHAT
Chinese police stations indication of wider ‘bullying, intimidation’ tactics, experts say
A counter-intelligence expert says CSIS has known about foreign interference from China for decades
Christina (Hwa Song) Jung · CBC News · Posted: Dec 20, 2022 5:00 AM PT | Last Updated: December 20, 2022
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he raised the issue of interference with Chinese President Xi Jinping at last month’s G20 summit in Indonesia. (Prime Minister’s Office)
As allegations of five Chinese police stations located in Canada, including one in Vancouver, B.C., raise concerns of political interference, experts say the role of Chinese intelligence is far more widespread.
Earlier this month, a friendship society in Richmond was visited by RCMP officers after the Spanish human rights groups Safeguard Defenders published a report alleging that Chinese “police service stations” were operating in Canada, including one in Vancouver.
The group alleges the stations are operated out of four jurisdictions in China and are involved in “persuasion to return” operations, where nationals suspected of committing crimes are asked to return to China to face criminal proceedings.
“Former state functionaries that have been accused of bribery or corruption after a changing of the guards … have been telling us about these stations and undercover police officers from China as early as 2017,” Warda Shazadi Meighen, an immigration and refugee lawyer, told CBC News.
- China operating ‘police’ station out of Vancouver, civil rights group alleges
- RCMP investigating Chinese ‘police’ stations in Canada
The Chinese Embassy has previously described the offices as volunteer-run service stations to process things like driver’s licences, which Meighen says is “a little bit suspicious” as passport and licence renewals are typically performed by embassies and consulates aboard.
“I’m aware of human rights defenders or dissidents or Fallon Gong practitioners [being] targeted through these security offices,” she said.
“Sometimes they’ll get messages on WeChat, which is a Chinese version of WhatsApp … to come to a certain location or they’ll start being followed by people.”
Criminal code law needed
Michel Juneau-Katsuya, a former senior intelligence expert and chief of Asia Pacific for CSIS, says more government intervention and foreign laws are needed to stop these types of foreign interference or intimidation techniques, which he says have been going on for a long time.
“We have been monitoring our foreign interference from the Chinese government for decades,” Katsuya said, adding that these stations are a symbol of much wider activities.
“But the problem we are currently facing is that … we don’t have the tools. What the criminal [and civil] codes offer currently are things like arrest [and] defamation, but it’s not enough.”
WATCH | Counter-intelligence expert explains how information is gathered by Chinese agencies:
Former senior intelligence officer provides explanation on how information is gathered by the Chinese government.
22 days agoDuration 0:47Michel Juneau-Katsuya, the former chief of Asia Pacific for CSIS says there’s a difference between how government officials in the West and China gather information.
He claims the alleged service stations are set up to control the Chinese Canadian community through “bullying and intimidation.”
“Basically, what we are talking about is literally having agents of influence bring messages, intimidate people, directly follow people, take pictures or spread rumours on their social media.”
Yiping Li said he moved to Vancouver as a refugee from Hong Kong in 1997 and believes he was a target of the Chinese government for his campaigns and social media messages advocating for minority rights in China.
“I got threats all the time from online and from my social media. They published my home address, my phone number and my mom’s phone number and asked everybody to phone me.”
Li says he believes he’s still being targeted by the Chinese government. (Submitted by Yiping Li)
Li lived in Vancouver for 20 years before moving out east, he said, but still experiences people following him or watching him.
“Just a month ago … I saw a guy parked in his SUV outside my house taking pictures.”
Paul Fromm on Implementing the Kalergi Plan: Hatred of Whites in A Witches’ Cauldron in Ottawa
The Canadian Association for Free Expression Proudly Presents
Paul Fromm
Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression
Winner of the George Orwell Free Speech Award, 1994
Implementing the Kalergi Plan: Hatred of Whites in A Witches’ Cauldron in Ottawa
* Ahmed Hussen’s grant machine funds hatred of Whites
* Trudeau always apologizing, except for his own misdeeds
https://archive.org/details/paul-fromm-anti-white-hatred-in-ottawa-october-2022
Throne, Altar, Liberty
The Canadian Red Ensign
Tuesday, March 1, 2022
The Canadian Left Apes the Americans Yet Again
On Monday, the twenty-first of February, even though the border blockades had been removed – they were in the process of being removed at the very moment the Emergency Measures Acts was invoked the week prior – and the Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa had been dispersed over the weekend through an ugly display of police state brutality that is utterly out of place in a Commonwealth Realm and has tarnished Canada’s reputation, Captain Airhead nevertheless managed to get enough votes in the House of Commons to confirm his use of the EMA. Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, the Conservatives, voted against the confirmation, as did the Lower Canadian separatists, but the Liberals all voted for it as did Jimmy Dhaliwal’s socialists. The latter compromised the historical principles of their party to do so. In 1970 they had been the only party in Parliament to take a principled stand against the War Measures Act when Captain Airhead’s father had invoked it in an actual emergency (bombs, kidnapping, murder, that sort of thing). In 2022 they propped up the government in using the Emergency Measures Act against a peaceful, working-class, protest, despite warnings from retired members of the NDP old guard, like Svend Robinson, that they were throwing their legacy away in doing so.
In the debate leading up to the vote, Captain Airhead and the other ministers of the government were repeatedly asked why they were still taking this to a vote even though the protest was over. No convincing answer was provided. The House was told that there was still an emergency, that they would just have to trust the government, and that how they voted would reflect whether they did so trust the government or not. This was how the Prime Minister and Mr. Dhaliwal cracked the whip on their caucuses to prevent members from breaking ranks. The implication was that it was a confidence vote, which if the government lost would dissolve Parliament, leading to an immediate new Dominion election – less than half a year after the last one – in which the leaders could punish dissenters by not signing their candidacy papers.
Two days after having thus given us his rendition of the role of Supreme Chancellor Palpatine from Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, the Prime Minister revoked the Emergency Measures Act. There was, of course, no more of an emergency on Monday than there was on Wednesday, nor had there ever been an emergency of the type that would justify the invoking of the Emergency Measures Act. While we cannot know for certain what was going on in the empty space between Captain Airhead’s ears, we can be sure that it was not a sudden epiphany about the importance of respecting constitutional limits on government powers – he would have resigned immediately had that been the case – and that three factors likely had a significant role to play in his turnaround. One of these is that he had taken a severe beating in the international press. The second is that the Big Five – Canada’s largest banks – would have explained to the government how that forcing financial institutions to act as the government’s thought police undermines those institutions’ credibility, both domestic and international, and threatens the entire financial superstructure of the country, already weakened by years of reckless government financial policy. The last, but not least, factor was that the government was losing the debate in the Chamber of Sober Second Thought. This is not like a bill of legislation which gets sent back to the House if the Senate does not approve. A vote against confirming the use of the Emergency Measures Act in the Senate, and the indicators all suggested that the Senate would vote against confirmation, would immediately revoke the Act. Which would make things far more difficult for the Prime Minister in the official inquiry into his actions that must necessarily follow the use of the EMA than a voluntary withdrawal of the power.
There is a lot that could be said about how this episode provides further demonstration of many of the truths that I have written about over the years. It demonstrates that democracy is not the same thing as either constitutionally limited government or personal freedom. The Prime Minister asked the elected House of Commons to approve his inappropriate use of an Act giving him sweeping powers to trample over our freedoms in order to crush a peaceful protest and they did so. It demonstrates that the Westminster System of Parliament is much more than a democracy. It is an institution that has proven itself over time to be effective at protecting personal freedom and checking the excesses of government, even democratic government, and its unelected components have as much to do with making it work as the elected House. It demonstrates that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is absolutely useless as a safeguard of personal rights and freedoms. The Grit government insisted that its actions under the EMA would be consistent with the Charter. If allowing the government to freeze bank accounts, a) without a court order and b) without liability or any civil recourse for those whose accounts are so frozen is consistent with the Charter, then the Charter is empty and meaningless. A government that can do that is a government that recognizes no constitutional limitations. It demonstrates that Liberal Prime Ministers, especially those with the last name Trudeau, see democracy in terms of elected dictatorship.
It also demonstrates that the Canadian Left is incapable of independent thought and borrows all of its bad ideas from the United States.
This has always been the case. The Liberal Party, which began as the centre-left party that developed out of the pre-Confederation Reform movement, was, before being captured by the harder New Left in the 1960s, the party that envisioned Canada’s destiny in American terms. It was the party that advocated for North American free trade for a century before the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney sold out their own legacy and signed the US-Canada Free Trade Deal. It was the party that wanted greater economic, cultural, and political alignment between Canada and the United States. Liberal theorists such as Goldwin Smith were arguing for formal union between the two countries as early as the 1890s. The Liberal interpretation of Canadian history retold it as if it were simply a re-run of American history with the same goals accomplished by compromise and negotiation rather than war and bloodshed. John Wesley Dafoe, a prominent exponent of this interpretation as well as the Liberal propagandist who edited the Winnipeg Free Press for the first half of the twentieth century, entitled his fanciful view of our history Canada: An American Nation.
This looking to the United States for inspiration did not die out after the Liberal Party swung to the hard left. When Pierre Trudeau became Prime Minister of Canada in the late 1960s he exponentially expanded the welfare state. His inspiration for this was Lyndon Johnson’s similar expansion of social programs in the United States. LBJ had his “Great Society”, PET had his “Just Society”. The Canadian social security net that he so expanded had been similarly introduced in the late 1930s based on the model of FDR’s New Deal in the United States and given the same name. In 1977, the Trudeau Liberals talked Parliament into passing the Canadian Human Rights Act. This Act had nothing to do with human rights in the ordinary sense of basic rights belonging to all people that need protection against the power of the state. It gave the state more power -power that government ought never to have – power to police the thoughts and motives of individual Canadians in their personal and business interactions with one another. It declared “discrimination” to be against the law – not discrimination by the government but by private Canadians – made it a civilly liable offence with criminally punitive consequences, established an investigative body, the Canadian Human Rights Commission to investigate complaints at the public expense and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to hear such complaints. It was a system stacked against the accused, in complete contradiction of the principles the Canadian system of law and justice are based upon, and it became the means whereby the oppressive atmosphere of restricting thought and censoring speech known as political correctness escaped the confines of left-liberal academe where it had developed into the general culture which in turn allowed political correctness in academe to evolve into the more warped version of itself that exists today, wokeness, characterized not so much by self-censorship of thought and speech but by the silencing and destruction of others. Pierre Trudeau modelled the Canadian Human Rights Act on an American law passed thirteen years earlier – the US Civil Rights Act. Canada’s constitution is a mixture of the written and unwritten. In 1982, Pierre Trudeau oversaw the patriation of the principle document of the written part so as to make it amendable by the Canadian Parliament and in the process prefixed to it the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter, over the course of the last two years has been shown to be useless as a protection of Canadians’ basic rights and freedoms from governments, Dominion and provincial, determined not to let those rights and freedoms stand in the way of sweeping public health measures. Over the past forty years, however, it has proven remarkably effecting at Americanizing our Supreme Court in the sense of empowering it to overturn local laws, customs, and traditions older than Confederation and to secularize public schools (In the last decade or so left-liberal commentators have taken to speaking without irony of Canada’s tradition of “separation of church and state” when we have no such tradition, separation of the two being a distinguishing trait of the American tradition). The Charter, in other words, has all of the negatives and few if any of the positives, of the document Pierre Trudeau looked to for inspiration – the American Bill of Rights.
Now consider the response of the Canadian Left – the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, Jimmy Dhaliwal and the socialist party, the legacy media public and private – to the Freedom Convoy. From their initial response as the trucks were heading towards Ottawa, through their commentary on the weeks long demonstrations, and their claims as the Emergency Measures Act was invoked and an ugly, militarized, police force were sent in to trample elderly women with horses, arrest protestors at gun point, beat people with batons and otherwise behave like the lowlife criminal thugs from whose ranks modern police are sadly often recruited, they have regurgitated every bit of the craziness that began afflicting the American Left in the United States’ 2016 presidential election.
In 2016, Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton stuck her foot in her mouth and lost the election by accusing the populist, Middle American, supporters of her opponent, Republican candidate Donald the Orange of being a “basket of deplorables” and threw every imaginable pejorative “ist” and “phobe” at them. You can hear the echo of that in Captain Airhead’s now infamous remarks about the “small fringe minority” with “unacceptable views”, When Clinton lost the election she then blamed her loss on Russian interference.
This is parenthetical but timely given the international events that have drawn everyone’s attention away from Captain Airhead’s vile actions, but notice how the same people who back in the Cold War used to accuse anyone who suggested that the Communist regime in the Soviet Union could not be trusted, was working to undermine constitutional government and freedom so as to enslave the world, and had spies everywhere of being paranoid “McCarthyites” started talking the exact same way themselves when the USSR was gone and Russia was Russia again. Whatever one might think of Vladimir Putin, the present crisis is the result of a little over two decades worth of incredibly bad American policy towards post-Soviet Russia. Their giving their support to every group wishing to secede from post-Soviet Russia and extending NATO membership to these countries in a period when NATO should have been contracting after the collapse of the Soviet regime and in a way that brought NATO ever closer to Russia’s doorstep – the expansion of NATO’s involvement in Ukraine and vice-versa is the immediate issue – was needlessly insulting and provocative to post-Soviet Russia. Nor was support for the coup about eight years ago in which a Russia-friendly elected Ukrainian government was overthrown in an armed coup that replaced it with a US-NATO puppet government in Kiev and placed de facto control of much of the country in the hands of Banderites (1) exactly helpful. By doing these things, American governments, usually those led by left-liberal Democrats like Clinton, Obama and Biden, created the conditions that produced the present conflict.
Just as Hillary Clinton blamed her loss on the Russians in 2016 – her claims have been long since thoroughly debunked – so a CBC commentator claimed with a straight face that the Russians were behind the Freedom Convoy. The government in justifying its crackdown on the protesters maintained that the Freedom Convoy was backed by foreign funds, the implication being that a foreign government or some foreign organization hostile to the Canadian government was dumping huge amounts of money into it. The further implication was that the money was coming from either Russia, some extremist group in the United States, or both. FINTRAC has since demonstrated these claims to be nonsense. The money supporting the protest came from good faith donors in Canada and abroad who supported the Convoy’s cause – the end of the public health restrictions and mandates that have severely curtailed basic personal rights and freedoms for the last two years.
The remainder of the insane and unsubstantiated allegations hurled against the truckers by the Liberal government, Jimmy Dhaliwal’s socialists, and the legacy media have been completely plagiarized from the American loony Left’s response to the incident that took place in Washington DC on the Feast of Epiphany last year. As you might recall, that was the date on which Congress was scheduled to confirm the results of the previous year’s presidential election. That morning, the incumbent president Donald the Orange, who was challenging the results, held a rally of his supporters. A fraction of his supporters entered the Capitol building and it was treated as if it was an insurrection, an attempt to violently overthrow the American government and overturn the results of the election. This was an extremely hyperbolic interpretation of what had actually happened – most of the participants, who rather atypical of insurrectionists were generally unarmed, seemed to be there to take selfies as if they were American versions of Captain Airhead. It arose out of the paranoia about a supposed “far right” threat to American democracy which had been observably growing on the American left ever since the Charlottesville rally of three and a half years prior had drawn their attention to the fact that their ongoing campaign to tear down monuments, vilify admired historical figures, re-write the past in accordance with their present narrow obsessions about race, sex, and gender, and silence anyone who complains about all of this through the thuggish behaviour of Antifa thought enforcers was meeting with resistance and pushback. As over-the-top as the American Left’s interpretation of the actual events of the sixth of January was, the Canadian Left’s attempt to impose this same interpretation on the Freedom Convoy is that much more removed from reality. The Freedom Convoy protestors did not enter the Parliament buildings – they parked on the street in front and threw a block party – and clearly stated their intentions, which did not involve overthrowing the government, and they stuck to their single issue of personal, constitutionally protected, freedom. Captain Airhead and the Canadian Left had far less on which to hang their accusations of insurrection, occupation, ideology-based extremism, and other such drivel against the truckers than Forgettable Joe Whatshisname and the American Left had for their identical charges against the Capitol Hill selfie-takers last year but they still tried to hammer that square peg into the round hole it so obviously did not fit.
There are many things that can be attributed to the Canadian Left. Originality is not one of those things. They should lay off imitating the Americans. It never turns out well.
(1) Banderites take their name from Stepan Bandera, the Ukrainian nationalist leader who collaborated with the Third Reich in the Second World War. In other words, they are in actuality the sort of people Captain Airhead and his followers have been falsely accusing the truckers of being. The Azov Regiment, a unit of the Ukrainian National Guard formed in the 2014 coup, proudly displays its National Socialist ideology in its emblem which prominently features imagery borrowed from the Third Reich. It is part of the regime that Barack Obama installed in the Ukraine and which is supported today by the same Captain Airhead who thinks that the presence of a single Nazi flag, one almost certainly being used ironically – i.e., to attribute that which the flag symbolizes to Captain Airhead – in a protest is sufficient to condemn the entire protest of thousands as being somehow Nazi and justify his use of excessive government power to crush it. Captain Airhead’s deputy prime minister, a woman with the ability to appear both vacuous and Machiavellian at the same time, the granddaughter of the editor-in-chief of the Krakivs’ki Visti, a Ukrainian language Nazi propaganda tabloid that ran from 1940 to 1945, and the same woman who about a week ago was giggling to herself in glee at a press conference when asked about the plight of the Canadian families whose bank accounts she had frozen because they supported the truckers protesting for freedom posted to social media the other day, a picture of herself holding a scarf with the colours of the Banderite movement at a demonstration in support of Ukraine. — Gerry T. Neal
Throne, Altar, Liberty
The Canadian Red Ensign
Thursday, June 17, 2021
The Kangaroo Court is Now in Session
The sixth of June is the anniversary of D-Day, the day, in 1944, when the Allied forces landed on the beach of Normandy and launched the offensive that would liberate Occupied Europe from the forces of Nazi Germany. This year, on that date, something happened in the Upper Canadian city of London, which the government of the Dominion has declared to be an attack of an entirely different sort. That evening a family was waiting to cross at an intersection, when a pickup truck ran into them. One was killed on the spot, three later succumbed to the injuries they had sustained, a fifth was wounded but not fatally.
This would be a horrible occurrence, of course, under any circumstances. It appears, however, that this was not just some terrible mishap where the driver lost control of his truck. It seems to have been deliberate. If this is indeed the case that makes it much worse because a crime is much worse than an accident. I am speaking, obviously, about how the incident as a whole is to be evaluated. The dead and wounded would have been no less dead and wounded in an equally fatal accident.
The London police very quickly announced that they were investigating this as a hate crime. Indeed, the speed in which they made this announcement seems extremely irresponsible when we consider that virtually nothing in the way of evidence corroborating this interpretation of the incident has since been released. This could be explained, perhaps, if the perpetrator, who soon after asked a taxi driver to call the police and thus essentially turned himself in, had confessed to being motivated by hate. If this is the case, however, the police have not yet disclosed it. From the facts that have been disclosed, the only apparent grounds for classifying it as a hate crime are the ethnicity and religion of the victims, who were Muslims and immigrants from Pakistan.
There are many who would say that just as a crime is worse than an accident, so a hate crime is worse than a regular crime. I am not one of those. There are basically two angles from which we can look at the distinction between hate crimes and regular crimes. The first is the angle of motive. Viewed from this angle, the distinction between hate crimes and regular crimes is that the former are motivated by prejudice – racial, religious, sexual, etc.- and the latter are not. The second angle is the angle of the victim. Viewed from this perspective, the distinction between hate crimes and regular crimes is that the victims of the former are members of racial, religious, or ethnic minorities, women, or something other than heterosexual and cisgender and the victims of the latter are not. Viewed either way, however, the idea that a hate crime is much worse than a regular crime is extremely problematic.
Is it worse to take somebody’s life because you don’t like the colour of his skin than to take his life because you want his wallet?
If we answer this question with yes then we must be prepared to support that answer with a reason. It is difficult to come up with one that can stand up well under cross-examination. One could try arguing, perhaps, that the murder motivated by prejudice is worse than the murder committed in the act of robbing someone on the grounds that whereas prejudice is irrational, wanting someone else’s money if you have desperate need of it yourself, is not. This runs contrary to long-established judicial precedent, however. If a man is so irrational that he is considered to be insane this is grounds for a plea of not guilty in a court of law. Conversely, the man who did not go out intending to kill someone but does so in the act of stealing his wallet can be charged with first-degree murder. This is because his intention to commit the crime of robbery makes it a premeditated act.
Suppose, however, we take the view from the other angle and distinguish between hate crimes and regular crimes based upon the identity of the victims. From this standpoint, the assertion that hate crimes are worse than regular crimes translates into the idea that it is worse commit a crime against members of such-and-such groups than it is to commit crimes against anyone else. Worded that way, is there anyone who would be willing to sign on to such a statement?
The idea that hate crimes ought to be considered worse than regular crimes of the same nature but with other more mundane motivations arises out of the idea that “hate” itself ought to be treated as a crime. The problem with this is that hate, whether in the ordinary sense of the word, or in the rather specialized sense of the word that is employed when discussing “hate speech”, “hate crimes”, “hate groups”, etc. is an attitude of the heart and mind. To say that “hate” ought to be a crime, therefore, is to say that the government ought to legislate against certain types of thought. This, however, has long been considered one of the distinguishing characteristics of bad government, government that is tyrannical and totalitarian. Those familiar with George Orwell’s 1984 will remember that in the totalitarian state of Oceania there was a special police force tasked with tracking down anyone questioned, disagreed with, or otherwise dissented from the proclamations and ideology of the ruling Ingsoc Party and its leader Big Brother. Such dissenters, including the novel’s protagonist Winston Smith, were regarded as being guilty of crimethink. I’m quite certain that if Eric Blair were alive today he would be reminding us that this was supposed to be an example to avoid rather than one to emulate.
To return from the idea of hate crimes in general and in the abstract, to the specific, concrete, incident of the sixth of the June, the way our politicians and other civil leaders, aided and abetted by media pundits and religious leaders have been behaving is absolutely atrocious. All evidence that has been released to the public to date points in the direction of this Nathaniel Veltman having been a “lone truckman”. Our politicians, however, led by Captain Airhead and his goofy sidekick Jimmy Dhaliwal, but including Upper Canadian Premier Doug Ford and London Mayor Ed Holder, very quickly and very shamelessly politicized the incident and capitalized upon the suffering of the Afzaal family in order to shift the blame off of the actual perpetrator and onto the Canadian public in general with their incessant talk about “Islamophobia”.
Once again Captain Airhead has been demonstrating his total inability to learn from his past mistakes. One might think that the man who after building his political career upon a carefully constructed image as the poster boy for “woke” anti-racism was revealed to be a serial blackface artist would have learned a little humility and would have given up lecturing the Canadian public about how we all need to be more enlightened and less prejudiced. Or that the man whose efforts to use inappropriate political influence to obtain a prosecutorial deal for a company that was a huge donor to his party landed him in the biggest political scandal of his career might have learned that it is not his place to issue proclamations about criminal guilt before the investigation is complete, charges have been laid, and a conviction obtained. One would certainly hope that the man who has long made it a point of never calling acts of violence perpetrated in the name of Islam “terrorism” would not use this word to describe any act of violence committed against Muslims at the first opportunity that presented itself as if he lived in some fantasy world where Muslims could only be victims and never perpetrators of terrorism. Anyone thinking or hoping such things does not know Captain Airhead very well.
The cynical among us would observe first and foremost just how this incident seems tailor-made to fit Captain Airhead’s agenda. Captain Airhead has made no secret of the fact that he wants Canadians to be less free to disagree with him on matters of race, religion, sex, etc. Granted, he doesn’t word it that way, he says that free speech is important but it doesn’t include hate speech. Here is the key to understanding him. Every time someone says “I believe in free speech” or some equivalent statement expressing support for free speech and a “but” immediately follows that statement, everything that follows the “but” negates and nullifies everything that precedes it. Captain Airhead has been trying since the beginning of his premiership to re-introduce laws forbidding Canadians from expressing views that he doesn’t like on the internet. Bill C-10, introduced last fall for the ostensible purpose of bringing companies like Netflix under the same regulatory oversight of the CRTC as traditional broadcasters, has been widely regarded as a means of smuggling this sort of thing in through the back door, and the Liberals numerous attempts to circumvent open debate in the House so as to ram the bill through prior to the summer adjournment have hardly done anything to assuage such suspicions. Captain Airhead was undoubtedly looking for an incident that he could blow out of proportion enabling him to grandstand and basically say, “See, I’m not a creepy little dictator-wannabee, I’m just trying to fight hate like the kind that we saw here”. No, I’m not suggesting that Captain Airhead faked the incident. I would not be surprised to learn, however, that some memorandum had been sent to law enforcement agencies telling them to be on the lookout for anything that could be plausibly spun as a hate crime, and to flag it as such regardless of the evidence or lack thereof.
As for Jimmy Dhaliwal, the less said about his ridiculous assertions that Muslims are living in constant fear of their Islamophobic neighbours in Canada the better. Such nonsense does not deserve the dignity of a response.
By politicizing this incident in this way, Captain Airhead and Jimmy Dhaliwal are, of course, trying to put the Canadian public in general on trial. “It is because you are prejudiced against Muslims” they are saying in effect “that this happened, and so you are to blame for this young man’s actions, and therefore you must be punished by having more of your freedoms of thought, conscience, and speech taken from you”. For years the Left has put the Canada of the past, and her founders and historical figures and heroes on trial over the Indian Residential Schools. It has been the kind of trial where only the prosecution is allowed to present evidence and the defense is not allowed to cross-examine much less present a case of its own. Over the past few weeks this mockery of a trial has been renewed due to the non-news item of the discovery of an unmarked cemetery at the Residential School in Kamloops. The incident in London is now being exploited by the Left to put living Canadians of the present day on the same sort of unjust trial before the same sort of kangaroo court of public opinion.
In 1940 the film “My Little Chickadee” was released which starred the legendary sexpot Mae West and the equally legendary lush W. C. Fields. It was the first – and last – time they would appear together. West and Fields had also written the screenplay, or rather West wrote it with some input from Fields in the rare moments he wasn’t totally sloshed, and there is a scene in it in which some of the dialogue is purportedly taken from West’s own experience of thirteen years earlier, when she had been briefly jailed in New York on the rather Socratic charge of “corrupting the morals of youth” over the Broadway play “Sex” that she had written, produced, directed, and, of course, starred in herself. In the scene in the film, West’s character, Miss Flower Belle Lee finds herself, through the tongue of the character played by Margaret Hamilton, the actress who had portrayed the Wicked Witch of the West the previous year and who seems to have remained in character sans green makeup for this film, appearing before a judge. After one of her trademark flippant remarks, the judge asks her “young lady, are you trying to show your contempt for this court?” Her famous reply was “No, your honour, I’m doing my best to conceal it”.
I trust that you, my readers, will recognize that no such concealment is being attempted here. — Gerry T. Neal