Farewell Canada. Bill C-6 will be passed in days. SPREAD THIS NOW!!!!
Under the banner of Consumer protection as well as Health and Saftey, Canadians should prepare for a loss of basic human freedoms that were once protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights…..
Bill C-6 is about to have its 3rd and final reading before being passed into law. With a sense of desperate urgency I am now busy sending emails to Canadian Senators and MP’s to try and halt this draconian legislation, which will end Canadian freedoms as once enjoyed by so many.
I appeal to Canuck’s on this website to consider investing 15 minutes in this cause. I am including an email I just sent out to friends and family with a pre-written letter to Canadian Senators and MP’s, and a ‘cut and paste’ list of all Senator and MP’s email addresses.
If you are hazy on Bill C-6, be sure to check out the videos posted at the end of this article.
If you are concerned by this issue, now is the last opportunity to act! – not tomorrow, not after a few days, but NOW! Feel free to use all or parts of the email below….
Quote:
“Bill C-6 is about to be passed into law. In days it will receive its 3rd and final reading before becoming law. It deserves our effort (NOW) to stop this draconian removal of our basic Canadian civil liberties.” This Bill will also allow for mandatory, total population vaccination programs. Do we want that????
I am asking for 15 minutes of your time to cut and paste a pre-written letter (or create your own) to be sent to our Government Senators (email addresses included below). It’s rather easy to do.
First, here are a few comments about Bill C-6 from Dee Nicholson, National Communications Director for Freedom in Canadian Health Care
“Bill C-6 is unconstitutional: its language violates the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as follows:
a. search private property without a warrant;
b. seize private property without Court supervision;
c. destroy private property without Court supervision;
d. take control of businesses without Court supervision;
e. in some circumstances to keep seized private property without a Court order;
f. impose penalties without a Court order.”
(Learn more at http://www.falseflagflu.com/citizen_info_and_action.html)
and, more comments from a friend’s email (at very bottom of this page)…
The C-6 law would allow the Canadian government’s enforcement agents to:
* Raid your home or business with a simple ex parte application via telephone. (Are consumer products so risky that we have to move away from our current search warrant provisions?- Shawn Buckley)
* An inspector who is carrying out their functions or any person accompanying them may enter on or pass through or over private property, and they are not liable for doing so. (May as well throw out all those signs that say No Trespassing and Private Property!)
* The use of force to enter your home or private property with peace officers
* Confiscate your property, take samples free of charge and even charge you storage fees for the expense involved in storing all the products they stole from you
* The ability to amend Bill C-6 Schedule 1 through regulation alone (Very dangerous!)
Here’s the letter for Canadian Senators, to paste into a new email:
-Subject: Bill C-6
Dear Senator,
The denial of Due Process of law, being employed in Bill C-6 is unconstitutional. According to the Book of Criminal Procedure, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution Act are the supreme law of this country, and any legislation which voids our rights is “of no force or effect.” Why is our government not only passing an unconstitutional law, but fast-tracking it too? How can we trust that this legislation is for the good of the nation and all its citizens, when such manoeuvring is being used to pass it? This Bill must not be passed. It is unconstitutional, illegal and treasonous! You as Senators are there to protect us and not to take our rights away.
Sincerely, (your name)
MASS E-MAILING SENATORS, copy and paste all the address into your BCC in smaller groups in case your email program is limited.
Get the list here:
http://www.falseflagflu.com/docs/senator_emails.html
If you wish to do the same for MP’s (as I am doing as well as Senators) simply replace the “Dear Senator” in the letter to,. “Dear MP”, and cut and paste the following list of MP email addresses…(they are broken into small groups)
Get the full list of e-mail addresses here: http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E
“To do nothing is to bid farewell to freedoms for Canadians.”
Info from a Canadian website…..
“For Canadians at this moment, the most serious threat to their rights and freedoms is Bill C-6 which has been passed by our Parliament, and was recently in the Senate for 2nd Reading. The 3rd reading could pass it into Law. (Notice: 2nd reading has now been passed)”
If it passes, it would provide our Government with draconian means to remove supplements, to force-vaccinate the population, to remove all our Rights and Freedoms, including the right to Due Process, which has been our right since the Magna Carta was signed in 1215 AD.
More info at:
http://www.falseflagflu.com/citizen_info_and_action.html
http://www.care2.com/news/member/184653585/1255539
Read Bill C-6 Here For Yourself: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3633883&Language=e&Mode=1&File=29
Below is an email I received from another concerned person
UPDATE/FLASHBACK: Bill C-51, Codex and the SPP
UPDATE:
“Many will recall the intense opposition voiced against Bill C-51 which proposed sweeping changes to the Food and Drugs Act. There was also much contention surrounding Bill C-52, the Consumer Products Safety Act. Both Bills would have expanded the powers of Health Canada in areas of seizure and detention. After the last federal election in October 2008, the Harper government essentially reintroduced Bill C-52 as Bill C-6. It has now been passed in the House of Commons and is being debated in the Senate. Despite assurances by the Conservatives that C-6 has nothing to do with natural health products, there are still many concerns. Part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) agenda, involved the harmonization of regulations. Codex Alimentarius is about implementing a global food code and threatens health freedoms. Codex worldwide implementation is slated for December 31, 2009. Many initiatives such as Bill C-6 are moving forward under the guise of public safety and would expand governmental powers and could be used to violate civil liberties.”
FLASHBACK:
Bill C-51, Codex and the SPP
(Originally Published on June 20, 2008)
By Dana Gabriel
On April 8, 2008, Canada’s Health Minister introduced Bill C-51 which proposed sweeping changes to the Food and Drugs Act. The Canadian government has since been forced to make amendments because of intense grassroots pressure. There are fears that this Bill could lead to some vitamins, herbs, minerals, and dietary supplements no longer being available in the country. Through the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), Canada, the U.S., and Mexico are already busy harmonizing food and drug regulations into a North American Union structure. Some have suggested that this Bill would also bring Canadian law into compliance with the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Bill C-51 has the potential to take away the rights of people to freely choose natural medicine as an alternative to expensive drug-based products and treatments.
Bill C-51 will further encroach on civil liberties and increase police state measures. There is reason for concern because of the Bills ambiguous language in regards to raids and seizures. It has been referred to as a police state bill masquerading as a health bill. It will make it easier for Canadian officials to seize natural health products and remove them from store shelves. It grants inspectors the power to raid homes and businesses without a warrant and the power to seize bank accounts and property. Some might recall that in the early 90’s, the FDA engaged in paramilitary raids on American health food stores, holistic treatment centers, and other nutritional supplement businesses. This behavior created such a public outcry and backlash, leading Congress to pass the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) to protect the right of American consumers to purchase and use nutritional supplements.
If the Harper Conservative government thought that they were going to quietly pass Bill C-51, were they ever wrong. When word hit the Internet and blogosphere that up to 60% of natural health products currently sold in Canada could be outlawed, it sparked a swift and strong public reaction. In Bill C-51, the word drug has been replaced with “therapeutic products” and gives the government broad reaching powers to further regulate their sale. Health Minister Tony Clement has vowed to change the parts that lumped natural medicines in with pharmaceutical drugs. This includes a clearer definition of natural health products into the Food and Drugs Act. There have been other amendments made, but there are still many concerns surrounding Bill C-51. It might be safer to do away with it in its entirety and start from scratch.
It is the SPP working groups that are harmonizing regulations and laws, writing out policy initiatives and recommendations. They are the real power, laying the foundation for a North American Union. Part of the SPP calls for the “Identification and appropriate adoption of best practices in maintaining the safety, efficacy and quality of pharmaceutical products.” NDP MP Peter Julian said in the House of Commons that, “Bill C-51 would limit access to many health products and allow the fast-tracking of new drugs that have not been proven safe. Bill C-51 blends in with the SPP agenda, which is about harmonizing regulations across the board with the United States, resulting in lower standards.” There are fears that Bill C-51 will bring about a more U.S. style approach to food, drugs, and consumer product safety. This includes turning more power over to the drug companies with increased reliance on their testing and research. These same drug manufacturers would themselves be more responsible in fast-tracking the drug approval process and further looking after any safety concerns once the drug has hit the market. Under the Trilateral Cooperation Charter, the FDA is also working with Canada and Mexico in further harmonizing regulations between the three countries.
It is not just through the SPP and the Trilateral Cooperation Charter that the harmonizing of food and drugs is being achieved. The Codex Alimentarius Commission which is part of the United Nations is setting international guidelines for food products including dietary supplements. They are using muscle provided by the World Trade Organization to undermine and bypass domestic laws. Section Six of CAFTA talks about using the Codex codes as the regulatory standard for all signing nations. It is through the Codex guidelines that vitamins, minerals, and other natural supplements could become limited and even banned. Some fear that Bill C-51 is an attempt to place Canada under Codex control.
Many argue that Bill C-51 is unnecessary, and that there are already laws in place to protect consumers from natural health products. It’s not about keeping Canadians safe, it’s about further harmonizing our health and safety regulations into a North American Union. How can fast-tracking potentially dangerous new drugs and at the same time outlawing some beneficial natural medicines be good for anyone? One must understand that it is also about ensuring huge profits for Big Pharma. Bill C-51 should be rejected on the grounds that it threatens the ability of Canadians to choose alternative health products and treatments.
_________________________________________________________________________
An excellent video series that demonstrates some of the concerns surrounding Bill C-6
Please take your time to read this important article concerning the RFID Chip:
California RFID Bill One Step Away from Law
Thursday September 7th, 2006
The RFID Law Blog has published an article on the latest development in the California legislation concerning RFID technology. Last Thursday, the California Senate approved the bill in question by a wide margin of 30 to seven. There is now one remaining step for it to become law: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger must sign it.
The bill is sponsored by Senator Joe Simitian and calls for a number of regulations that would tighten the security and privacy-protection of RFID applications in California’s public sector. Among the regulations noted in the article:
Public entities must notify contactless (RFID) cardholders that their cards could expose them to identity theft.
Public entities must provide cardholders with a list of every RFID reader, including locations and exactly what information is collected.
Public entitles must maintain a website that cardholders can access to download a list of RFID reader locations.
Cardholders who suffer data theft due to hacking of their RFID cards will be allowed to seek restitution against the government agency that installed the RFID system for which the card was used.
RFID card systems must include one of the following opt-out capabilities:
Cards must have a physical switch the cardholder can flip to block wireless transmissions.
Systems must offer manual key punches at RFID access chokepoints so that cardholders can enter their access codes physically instead of using the wireless system.
A guard must be stationed at such locations to offer human, visual inspection of the cards.
The bill also advises a study on RFID risks and best practices to counter them.
The RFID Law Blog comes out quite strongly against the proposed legislation. First, it considers the bill a solution in search of a problem, noting that the theft of personal data from RFID cards is not a widely reported problem (unlike the theft of such data from hacked online databases, for example).
Second, the bill would probably stunt the adoption of contactless systems, as affected public institutions consider other technologies that are less regulated. “Do you think a library or public utility is going to pay someone to stand at each entrance to look at ID cards as employees enter, so they don’t have to risk having a hacker nearby with a high-powered scanner stealing their information during the 2 seconds that their ID card is waved in front of the door reader? It’s kind of silly. Instead of making RFID safer to use, the more likely scenario is that different solutions will get a second look – to avoid the cost and risk of deploying an RFID system.”
Third, while the existing legislation only addresses public institutions, it could likely have a spillover effect on private ones. The legislation would essentially stigmatize RFID as a risky technology, making the private sector more wary of deploying it.
The article notes that despite these issues, many of the industry stakeholders are actually not opposed to the bill (with the exception of the Security Industry Association). The reason is probably because in its current form the bill is a marked improvement over the original version, which would have imposed a sweeping three-year ban on certain applications of RFID systems in the public sector. However, this logic is not necessarily appropriate, argues the article. “Just because the legislation is ‘less bad’, it doesn’t mean that it is ‘good’. The IT and RFID industry in general have given Governor Schwarzenegger very little justification for vetoing legislation that passed by significant margins, when most are not even opposing the legislation themselves.” Without more push-back from heretofore quiet stakeholders, it is likely the bill will pass. “The only hope is that companies who have not been at the negotiating table speak up about why the legislation would make us less safe, rather than safer. Or customers who use RFID systems speak up about the impact this legislation might have on them.”
from: http://www.rfidupdate.com/articles/index.php?id=1197
note: this is not spam, this is a warning on how serious the NWO is getting!
This is completely abhorrent! Every country’s civilian and military population should be able to have the basic freedoms listed above and not have any problem with the government. I will spread this message to as many people as I know. I am sure, however, that the Canadian people will not stand for these pathetic rules in that pathetic Bill that the Canadian Government is trying to pass. The Canadian Legislation should not pass that law, although, I can not control that matter… YOU MUST RESIST AGAINST THEM!!
I’m actually reading bill C-6 right now. They have done a pretty good job at covering their tracks but there are still a few things that don’t sit right with me while reading..
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3633883&Language=e&Mode=1&File=29
Here is a rebuttal from the “Ottawa Skeptic”
http://www.ottawaskeptics.org/topics/alternative-medicine/191-is-bill-c-6-the-new-bill-c-51
So it would seem this may be a false alarm.. or is it? The thing I don’t like about that article is the author did not offer any proof other than to tell the reader to look at Schedule 1. Ok.. perhaps the nature product guys can relax (for now) they have schedule 1 to deal with. (I have only had the chance to skim through Schedual 1, but at first glance I don’t see the protection from Bill C-6 to the Natural Health producs.. further reading required though)
But right off the hop, I see possible problem areas. Lets start with this quote from the Bill..
“Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that a lack of full scientific certainty is not to be used as a reason for postponing measures that prevent adverse effects on human health if those effects could be serious or irreversible;”
Could this be also act as an H1N1 vaccine excuse for Parliament? Allowing them to look the other way, while the population is injected with a product that “lacks full scientific certainty”.
- The next problem I find that might be easily overlooked while reading the Bill is this statement:
“Any person who manufactures, imports, advertises, sells or tests a consumer product for commercial purposes shall prepare and maintain
(a) documents that indicate
(i) in the case of a retailer, the name and address of the person from whom they obtained the product and the location where and the period during which they sold the product, and
(ii) in the case of any other person, the name and address of the person from whom they obtained the product or to whom they sold it, or both, as applicable; ….
The Minister may, subject to any terms and conditions that he or she may specify, exempt a person from the requirement to keep documents in Canada if the Minister considers it unnecessary or impractical for the person to keep them in Canada.”
So if I decide to sell popsicle stick bird houses on my front lawn, will I have to report to the Minister for and exemption on keeping records of my $5.00 sales?
Does this mean that anyone who holds a vendors permit must now record every name and address of whom they sold their product to? I don’t know about you but there are already enough companies out there that asking you for your name and address before they can “cash you out”.
Will the collection of this information help them track and trace cash purchases much like they can debit and credit card??
Inspector Powers
Subject to subsection 21(1), an inspector may, for the purpose of verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with this Act or the regulations, at any reasonable time enter a place, including a conveyance, in which they have reasonable grounds to believe that a consumer product is manufactured, imported, packaged, stored, advertised, sold, labelled, tested or transported, or a document relating to the administration of this Act or the regulations is located
The inspector may, for the purpose referred to in subsection (1),
(a) examine or test anything — and take samples free of charge of an article to which this Act or the regulations apply — that is found in the place;
(c) examine a document that is found in the place, make a copy of it or take an extract from it;
(d) seize and detain for any time that may be necessary
(i) an article to which this Act or the regulations apply that is found in the place, or
(ii) the conveyance;
(e) order the owner or person having possession, care or control of an article to which this Act or the regulations apply that is found in the place — or of the conveyance — to move it or, for any time that may be necessary, not to move it or to restrict its movement;
(f) use or cause to be used a computer or other device that is at the place to examine a document that is contained in or available to a computer system or reproduce it or cause it to be reproduced in the form of a printout or other intelligible output and remove the output for examination or copying;
(g) use or cause to be used copying equipment that is at the place and remove the copies for examination;
(h) take photographs and make recordings and sketches; and
(i) order the owner or person in charge of the place or a person who manufactures, imports, packages, stores, advertises, sells, labels, tests or transports a consumer product at the place to establish their identity to the inspector’s satisfaction or to stop or start the activity.
4) An inspector who is carrying out their functions or any person accompanying them may enter on or pass through or over private property, and they are not liable for doing so.
21. (1) If the place mentioned in subsection 20(1) is a dwelling-house, an inspector may not enter it without the consent of the occupant except under the authority of a warrant issued under subsection (2). (thank goodness!)
A justice of the peace may, on ex parte application, issue a warrant authorizing, subject to the conditions specified in the warrant, the person who is named in it to enter a dwelling-house if the justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that
(a) the dwelling-house is a place described in subsection 20(1);
(b) entry to the dwelling-house is necessary for the purposes referred to in subsection 20(1); and
(c) entry to the dwelling-house was refused or there are reasonable grounds to believe that it will be refused or to believe that consent to entry cannot be obtained from the occupant.
Ex Parte: An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the controversy to be present. In Australian, Canadian, U.K., India, and U.S. legal doctrines, ex parte means a legal proceeding brought by one person in the absence of and without representation or notification of other parties. It is also used more loosely to refer to improper unilateral contacts with a court, arbitrator or represented party without notice to the other party or counsel for that party.
(3) In executing a warrant issued under subsection (2), the inspector may not use force unless they are accompanied by a peace officer and the use of force is authorized in the warrant.
4) If an inspector believes that it would not be practical to appear personally to make an application for a warrant under subsection (2), a warrant may be issued by telephone or other means of telecommunication on application submitted by telephone or other means of telecommunication and section 487.1 of the Criminal Code applies for that purpose with any necessary modifications
These are just a few that I picked out that didnt seem to sit right with me for whatever reason
Time for Canadians to stand straight in a United Digital Front !!!
That’s us -
Prime Minister Stephen Harper,
We the undersigned wish to express our opposition to Bill C-6 and ask that you abandon this unacceptable law immediately.
We call on you, as head of our democratically elected minority government to respect our rights and freedoms to use natural health products to maintain and protect our health.
While we accept the role of the pharmaceutical industry in providing the substances they do, we reject any preferential treatment of this industry, or any anticompetitive or restrictive of the natural health products industry.
We reject the merging together of “drugs” and natural health products into a new “therapeutic product” category subject to the same degree of regulatory oversight. This is completely inappropriate, and is not in our best interest.
We reject the proposed increasing of the size of government through its expansion into regulating all herbs, vitamins, supplements, bottled water, blueberries, dandelion greens. Your stated commitment is to smaller government and expanded freedom. Please constrain yourself to this commitment.
We specifically reject the backdoor provisions of this bill which would allow future changes to Canadian law to circumvent a vote in parliament. We don’t accept that US law, CODEX Alimentarius, UN documents, or other foreign laws could be injected into Canadian law, like a virus, by regulatory reference.
We are prepared to accept this as a momentary lapse in judgement which can easily be corrected by abandoning this bill and issuing an apology to the Canadian people (but hey, we’ll settle for the Bill-Kill).
We are proud, free, responsible people who have taken care of our health through our own personal choices, partly by using natural products with a long history of effectiveness and insist that your government protect and enhance these rights and freedoms.
TIME FOR CANADIANS TO STAND STRAIGHT IN A UNIFIED AND UNITED FRONT !
THAT’s US -