Connect with us

Opinion

Making Your Opinion Known:  To Petition or Not to Petition?

Published

8 minute read

We all see the petition campaigns on Facebook.

“Sue Smith” has just signed to support a Ban Plastic Single Use Straw Campaign..She wants you to help.  Click here to let the Canadian Government know you want them banned.

Online petitions do work, they gather thousands and sometimes millions of signatures from well meaning people who want to see the right thing done for the right reasons.  However, over the last week I have noticed something that demands a closer look.

Change.org, CitizenGo,org, GoPetition, SumOfUS and iPetition are just a few of the companies whose primary goal is to allow citizens to make their concerns known around the world.  To be fair, there are many great causes that have been advanced by these platforms for democracy, but as noted, they are not all created equal.

We should look for a couple of things when we consider signing on the digital line.

Firstly, what happens to our well-intentioned electronic signature?

Your signature and information is used by the petitioner, but after that it may be sold as part of an electronic mailing list to target you with unsolicited offers and other related petitions.  You may get spam related to retail, political and social campaigns and newsletters.

Secondly, what is the petition for and what other causes do they espouse?

I will use the SumOfUs example.

I am a Canadian and SumOfUs has had some good campaigns, but this week I was caught aback by back to back requests.

The first one is aimed at the TD Bank and states the following:

MASSIVE NEWS — thanks to your pressure over the last two years, TD Bank just announced it is pulling the plug on fossil fuels and going net-zero by 2050.

This win is a testament to the strength of our people powered movement to combat climate change.

In 2019, TD executives underestimated the power of our movement and relayed to me that a plan to defund fossil fuels just wasn’t possible before 2050.

But thanks to all of the hard work of SumOfUs members like you over the past two years, TD executives JUST announced a plan to move away from funding fossil fuels.

I think this is an atrocious announcement and signals to me that the TD Bank has bought in to Agenda 21 and 2030/2050 from the UN of which Climate Change AND Net Zero are tenets.

Why would I, as a citizen of Alberta who benefits from the Oil Industry, continue to support this group?

Another one that caught my attention was aimed at Big Tech and their censorship and its influence on the Republican view on the election…In specific, censorship of

Joe Biden has won the US Presidency — but not on social media.

Tech giants like Facebook and YouTube have created toxic algorithms that push people to extreme content, littered with hate speech and lies. It’s one of the ways groups spreading election disinformation are able to grow by the tens of thousands in a matter of hours.

But massive pressure forced the tech giants to take new measures to slow the spread of disinformation — and evidence suggests they worked. This shows us the platforms *can* act if we force them to.

So let’s keep up the pressure on the tech platforms now more than ever, to stop disinformation and detox their algorithms. Join the call and share this widely!

Tell Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter: stop the spread of disinformation — detox your algorithms!

But our community has been relentless with our pressure on the platforms, and we’re finally seeing them act — with Facebook reducing the reach of pages and groups spreading election disinformation, and Twitter labeling Trump’s disinformation over a dozen times and counting.

Thirdly, if for instance, SumOfUs promotes such petitions, it should not be too difficult to ascertain who their masters are.  By supporting such corporations, we are supporting the Soros and Gates of this world and their agendas.

Fourthly, every petition company uses two strategies to generate income and to extend their influence.  They ask you to share on social media that you support their effort and they ask for a donation to help them meet targets.  Share and you may help, but more likely you have just given them one more signee and funder to target.

Fifthly, do online petitions really help?

If we believe the emails, they do indeed often help a special interest group in their lobby or get an issue noticed by a social media audience.  There is also the claim that an online petition got Trump banned from Britain as well.  However, getting a specific message out to a large corporation is difficult and this is just one tool.  Often these are just phishing expeditions but targeted audiences do impact decisions.

Sixthly, are the causes legitimate?  The death of George Floyd was unfortunate but the petition that followed changed history.  Most people are not aware that many other coloured men died that day from police activity as well.  The violence that followed in the days afterward may have been avoided by the attention drawn to the issue by the petition.

Lastly, if you are truly concerned about an issue or special interest group, by all means sign the petition, then send real letters, phone, send emails, demonstrate or ask hard questions.  Often companies do not understand the impact of their policies and can change.  Make your voice heard.

Photo by Jeff Stokoe

Locally, in my protection of history, I had stated a petition to protect and save Red Deers oldest building (1899) and over the course of a month had garnered close to 400 signatures.  During the process, others helped by manning tables and getting signatures.  In the end, we did not save the building, but did manage to change official policy and make international news.  You never know what your actions will do if you empower people and value their opinions.

Petition organizer tries to save historic Red Deer hotel | CBC News

The silent man loses every argument and those who rustle the bushes have a chance of changing the landscape one leaf at a time.

Get involved but be cautious.

 

Tim Lasiuta is a Red Deer writer, entrepreneur and communicator. He has interests in history and the future for our country.

Follow Author

espionage

Scathing Report Reveals How Deadly Pathogens and Sensitive Research Walked Out the Door Under Justin Trudeau’s Watch

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

And here’s the ultimate shock: Dr. Qiu and Mr. Cheng were not arrested or detained. They were not prosecuted for espionage or national security violations. Instead, under the watchful eye of Justin Trudeau’s government, they were allowed to simply leave.

Imagine for a moment that Canada’s top research lab, handling the most dangerous pathogens in the world—Ebola, Henipah, you name it—was left wide open to foreign actors. Not just any foreign actors, but researchers with direct links to the Chinese Communist Party, its military, and its notorious Thousand Talents Program, which is designed to poach foreign research for China’s own strategic and military gain. It sounds like something out of a bad spy thriller, right? But it’s not fiction; it’s happening in Canada, and no one in Ottawa seemed interested in sounding the alarm.

As detailed in the newly released Interim Report of the Special Committee on the Canada–People’s Republic of China Relationship, titled The Nexus Between Science and National Security in Canada: The Case of the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, what we’re seeing is an astonishing lapse in oversight and a clear failure by the Canadian government to protect its own assets. Under the chairmanship of Ken Hardie, this committee has exposed one of the most significant threats to Canada’s national security in recent years. And yet, it’s clear from Ottawa’s inaction that they’re more concerned about diplomacy than defending the integrity of Canada’s scientific research.

Here’s the story: Dr. Xiangguo Qiu and her husband Keding Cheng, both highly placed researchers at Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory (NML) in Winnipeg, were discovered to have sent live samples of deadly pathogens to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Yes, you heard that right—the same lab in China where U.S. officials raised concerns about safety standards, the same lab with ties to China’s military bio-defense programs. The duo apparently facilitated the transfer of these dangerous viruses, without ever informing their Canadian superiors of their deep, undisclosed ties to the Chinese Academy of Military Medical Sciences. And instead of acting immediately, Canada’s Public Health Agency dragged its feet for nearly 18 months, leaving these individuals with full access to our country’s most secure lab until they were finally escorted out.

The kicker? Dr. Qiu was not only tied to China’s state-run labs; she was a part of China’s Thousand Talents Program, an initiative infamous for recruiting scientists to advance Chinese military and technological aims abroad. The intelligence community has been ringing the bell on this program for years, pointing out that it’s often used to extract intellectual property and cutting-edge technology from unsuspecting Western institutions. Yet, for years, our own government allowed researchers with links to this very program to operate freely inside our lab, handling the kinds of materials that could cause a pandemic.

So what did Ottawa do in response to all of this? They waited. The government sat on its hands, allowing these researchers to continue their work, their connections to China notwithstanding. When the red flags became impossible to ignore, what did Ottawa do? They spent another year “investigating” before finally revoking their security clearances and escorting them out of the lab. Incredibly, these two were essentially free to operate, with minimal oversight, until they were finally fired. No public condemnation, no mention of betrayal. Just a quiet, bureaucratic exit.

And here’s the ultimate shock: Dr. Qiu and Mr. Cheng were not arrested or detained. They were not prosecuted for espionage or national security violations. Instead, under the watchful eye of Justin Trudeau’s government, they were allowed to simply leave. The RCMP concluded an investigation but chose not to charge them, despite clear evidence of security breaches, undisclosed foreign affiliations, and access to sensitive biological data. Now, these individuals are reportedly back in China, free to use the knowledge they gained at the NML in any way they—or their government—sees fit. This is what happens when national security is treated as an afterthought.

Think about the stakes here. These scientists facilitated the transfer of live, deadly virus samples—Ebola and Henipah, no less—to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a lab linked to China’s bio-defense ambitions. Had any of these samples been mishandled or compromised during transit, we could have seen an epidemic that would make COVID look like a mild cough. And yet, Ottawa’s response? They let them leave the country, free to take that sensitive information and those deadly pathogens with them.

This isn’t just a case of two rogue scientists. It’s a textbook example of Ottawa’s endless naivety when it comes to China—a government so desperate to avoid rocking the diplomatic boat that it overlooked the most basic principles of national security. And while Canadian leadership dithers, China’s influence operations continue to infiltrate our most secure facilities, capitalizing on our open doors and blind trust. This isn’t about science—it’s about sovereignty. And if Canada’s leaders are too timid to confront the truth about foreign interference, it’s the rest of us who will suffer the consequences.

In any other country, this would have been treated as a scandal of epic proportions. But here in Canada, under Trudeau’s watch, we not only allowed suspected national security threats to operate in a top-level lab, but we gave them the green light to walk away and take their knowledge straight to a foreign power. This report is a wake-up call, but whether Ottawa will finally act to protect Canada’s interests remains to be seen.

The report spells out these security lapses in brutal detail. Not only was cybersecurity alarmingly lax, but access protocols were so outdated that foreign entities had unregulated access to sensitive research and biological materials. This wasn’t just a mishap; this was a failure of leadership on every level, starting at the top. The government’s own Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) had flagged China’s intent to poach scientific research for years. And yet, they ignored that, allowing China, a known aggressor in intellectual property theft, to waltz in and access sensitive data with minimal checks.

Then there’s the espionage risk. It’s clear that China has been targeting Canada’s scientific research for its own military development. This is not speculation; it’s reality. China’s Thousand Talents Program, which the report scrutinizes, is essentially a recruitment and resource-gathering initiative. It encourages Chinese researchers to siphon scientific advancements from abroad and bring them home—not for the betterment of the world, but for China’s military ambitions. The report finally calls this out as a threat, recommending that Canada sever research partnerships with Chinese institutions in high-stakes fields like artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and quantum science.

But here’s the kicker—the recommendations themselves. They make sense, of course. Canada desperately needs to beef up its lab security and stop outsourcing critical research to hostile nations. The report outlines several sensible measures: enhanced security protocols, regular cybersecurity assessments, and yes, a hard stop on partnerships with Chinese research entities in sensitive areas. But what’s troubling is that it took this long and this much incompetence for these ideas to even make it to paper.

Let’s be clear: updating national security policies shouldn’t be a new idea, yet we learn from this report that Canada’s policies haven’t seen a significant update since 2004. Think about that—back then, the world had barely even heard of Facebook. Since then, we’ve entered an era where China has risen as a global tech superpower, yet Ottawa has done next to nothing to adapt. We’re only now beginning to take steps that would have been considered basic precautions a decade ago.

Another recommendation—the establishment of a “List of Trusted Countries”—highlights just how overdue these changes are. The committee suggests that research access should be limited to trusted allies. It’s a painfully obvious measure, but one the government has been too naïve or complacent to enact. We’re talking about limiting sensitive access to allies, not adversaries—a straightforward move that apparently requires a parliamentary committee to remind the government to consider.

So, here’s the good news buried in this report: finally, someone in Ottawa acknowledges that foreign actors, and particularly China, pose a real threat to Canada’s scientific integrity and national security. The recommendations to update policies, bolster security measures, and increase oversight are crucial first steps to protecting Canadian interests. We finally have a report that states the obvious: Canada’s national labs are vulnerable, and it’s about time we stop treating foreign research partners as benign collaborators.

But the real story here isn’t in the recommendations themselves—it’s in what this report reveals about Canada’s persistent, dangerous naivety. The Canadian government allowed this exposure to go on for years, despite clear signs that Chinese actors were exploiting our openness. And the delays! Eighteen months passed between the initial security breach and the firing of these researchers. That delay isn’t just bureaucratic; it’s reckless. The report also conveniently dances around calling China a direct adversary. This soft language is a transparent attempt to avoid upsetting the diplomatic apple cart, even as the Chinese Communist Party plunders Canadian resources right under our noses.

By failing to designate the NML as a facility of national security interest, Ottawa has, in essence, downplayed the real risks tied to foreign interference. This is a lab that deals with viruses capable of sparking pandemics, and yet, our government didn’t even think to prioritize its protection until foreign espionage scandals blew up in public view.

This report is a reality check, but it’s also an indictment. It reveals that Canada’s leaders have been asleep at the wheel while China set its sights on our labs, our technology, and our national interests. Yes, it’s a step forward—but the fact that it took this level of security failure and foreign interference for Ottawa to even begin addressing these issues is a damning testament to their refusal to confront the truth about China.

And here’s the real kicker: nothing in this report guarantees that these recommendations will be enforced. Without the political will to label China as the strategic adversary it is, all of this could end up as little more than lip service. Meanwhile, we had traitors who betrayed Canada, exposing sensitive research to a foreign power—and what did Justin Trudeau do? He let them walk. No charges, no accountability—just a quiet “thanks for coming.” Once again, it will be Canadians—not the bureaucrats in Ottawa—who pay the price for this government’s cowardice.

If Justin Trudeau can’t stand up to China, then it’s time we find a leader who can.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Health

RFK Jr. talks fluoride, vaccines with MSNBC the day after Trump’s victory

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Stephen Kokx

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. promised a shake-up of government agencies with the intention to make America healthier.

Medical freedom activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. gave a revealing interview to MSNBC today about his plan to make America healthy again after Donald Trump’s landslide victory.

Kennedy was in West Palm Beach, Florida. He was asked a variety of questions near and dear to the hearts of pharmaceutical companies, including vaccines, fluoridated water, and whether various health agencies need to be eliminated altogether.

Some departments at the Food and Drug Administration “have to go,” Kennedy said. “The nutrition departments … they’re not protecting our kids.”

Kennedy was quick to note, however, that “to eliminate the agencies, as long as it requires Congressional approval, I wouldn’t be doing that … (but) I can get the corruption out of the agencies.”

On the subject of fluoridated water, Kennedy remarked that while he wouldn’t ban it outright, there is overwhelming evidence it lowers IQ in children and that he would provide “good information about the science” to cities that use it.

“I think fluoride is on the way out,” he said, pointing to a recent ruling by a federal judge calling on the FDA to more tightly regulate the compound.

Jamel Holley is an adviser to Kennedy. He posted on X this morning that at 1 p.m. EST today there was to be a teleconference meeting involving CEOs of some of the most powerful Big Pharma companies in the country. LifeSite has not been able to verify if the meeting occurred, though given that Kennedy’s agenda threatens to frustrate their plans, it would not be unrealistic they are coordinating for the future.

Several social media users joked about what pharma executives are likely thinking now that Kennedy will be overseeing their companies.

During Kennedy’s interview, his slammed the government’s handling of COVID-19 when he was pressed on how he would have managed the pandemic differently.

“(The American people) should not have confidence in the people who are managing our pandemic. We have the worst record of any country in the world. We have 16% of COVID deaths in the United States of America. We only have 4.2% of the globe’s population. So whatever we were doing in this country was the worst of every country in the world,” he forcefully replied.

Kennedy was also pressed on the subject of vaccines, which he has often warned about on the campaign trail.

“I’m not gonna take away anybody’s vaccines,” he said. “If vaccines are working for somebody, I’m not gonna take them away. People ought to have a choice and that choice ought to be informed by the best information. So I’m gonna make sure the scientific safety studies and efficacies are out there and people can make individual assessments about whether that product is gonna be good for them.”

Last weekend, Trump told NBC News that Kennedy’s desire to remove fluoride from public water supplies “sounds okay to me.” Trump has told attendees at his political rallies that he wants to allow Kennedy to “go wild” on health, food, and medicine.

The Washington Post reported that Kennedy is urging Trump to pick Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo as his nominee for the Health and Human Services Department. Ladapo notably refused to push many of the mainstream media’s talking points surrounding COVID-19. He also questioned and even expressed opposition to the shot itself, calling it at one point the “antichrist of all products.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X