Seven times the CBC’s bias was on full display | True North (

I would add at least one more, for it’s simple in-your-face bias.  Well, 2 more, really.  One would be any video from the CBC newsroom after they announced the first Trudeau win.  It was the freaking Mardi Gras!  Music, streamers, they actually did a conga line!  I’m pretty sure I heard someone holler out “Ding Dong, the witch is dead!”

The other one would be the night Trump won.  A certain talking head on a panel of three said, ominously (I’m not kidding; she has big eyes and she said this down-toned, nodding vigorously) “You know who else won an election?  Hitler.  Hitler won an election”. All she was missing was the discordant organ music.  That particular talking head has made a career, before and since then, of extremely anti-Trump biased features and articles in various CBC venues.  You know how some leftists are able to just blithely and arrogantly assume that anything that resembles “Make (whatever) Great Again” on a red hat is the equivalent of a swastika?  She’s got that, down pat.

So, “impartial and independent”?  Yeah, no.

Seven times the CBC showed they were anything but “impartial and independent”

It’s no secret that the CBC has a long-standing left-wing bias that permeates every aspect of its reporting. From its selective coverage of certain stories to its slanted opinion pieces, it’s clear that the CBC is more interested in pushing its own political agenda than in reporting the news objectively.

The CBC has been caught time and time again censoring or downplaying stories that don’t fit their liberal narrative, while exaggerating or sensationalizing stories that do.

CBC’s recent spat with Twitter over a “government funded media” label has many Canadians paying attention to the broadcaster’s political bias.

True North has compiled seven times the CBC’s bias against conservative politicians and causes was on full display in recent years.

Failed lawsuit against the Conservatives

A prime example of the state broadcaster’s left-wing bias and attempt to silence its critics on the right was when the CBC decided to sue the Conservative Party during the 2019 election.

The CBC alleged that the party’s use of excerpts from its programs infringed on the so-called ‘moral rights’ of two of its employees, news anchor Rosemary Barton and reporter John Paul Tasker.

In response at the time, the Conservatives criticized the CBC over their decision to launch a lawsuit on the eve of an election.

A year and a half after the electionTwo years ago, a federal court dismissed the CBC’s frivolous lawsuit.

Federal Court Justice Michael Phelan ruled that the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) did not violate CBC’s copyright when it used excerpts from the broadcaster’s footage in an online ad and tweets. He concluded that the CPC didn’t break any laws and were entirely under the “fair dealing” use of the materials.

“There was no evidence presented that a broadcaster’s segment disclosed in a partisan setting reflected adversely on the broadcaster,” ruled Phelan.

Invented Russian conspiracy theory about Freedom Convoy

It’s no secret that the Trudeau government was not a fan of the Freedom Convoy – and it appears the CBC weren’t either.

In Jan. 2022, the CBC went off the deep end with baseless accusations and conspiracy theories about the Convoy.

During a Power & Politics segment, a CBC anchor baselessly suggested that Russia was involved in organizing the Freedom Convoy, without any proof whatsoever.

“Given Canada’s support of Ukraine in this current crisis with Russia, I don’t know if it is far-fetched to ask, but there is concern that Russian actors could be continuing to fuel things as this protest grows, perhaps even instigating it from the outside?” asked Nil Köksal.

In reality, the Freedom Convoy was a grassroots movement of hardworking Canadians who were fed up with the government’s overreach and the infringements on their liberties during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Even the CBC Ombudsman called out their bias saying they relied on a “speculative question” without grounding.

“The fundamental flaw, in my view, was the use of a speculative question when it was not called for,” wrote Jack Nagler.

“Instead, Power & Politics presented its question without attribution. It was not clear to viewers whether anyone was offering evidence that Russia was involved in the convoy – or why they would have such a concern. Asking the question in this way left room for people to surmise that CBC believed such evidence existed.”

Devoting 500% more time to Kamala Harris than to Leslyn Lewis

The CBC is infatuated with the Democrats in the US, as indicated by CBC CEO Catherine Tait’s donation to the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 and the state broadcaster’s anti-Trump coverage throughout his presidency.

The CBC’s obsession with US politics and the Democrats was on full display when Canada’s state broadcaster n showed its left-wing bias during the 2020 Conservative leadership race.

The CBC gave more coverage to American Democrat vice-presidential nominee Kamala Harris as the “first woman of colour to compete on a major party’s presidential ticket” thanthey did the Canadian Conservative leadership candidate Leslyn Lewis – despite Lewis being the first black woman to run to lead the party.

According to a True North review of articles from the time, Harris received 500% more headlines from the CBC mentioning her name than Lewis. The CBC dedicated 45 headlines to the American left-wing politician compared to only nine headlines to the Conservative leadership candidate.

By law, the CBC is required to “be predominantly and distinctively Canadian, reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions.”

CBC selectively edited Erin O’Toole’s comment about defunding the broadcaster

Also during the 2020 Conservative leadership race, the CBC was caught red-handed trying to manipulate an interview by selectively editing candidate Erin O’Toole’s comments on defunding the public broadcaster.

During the interview on CBC’s The House, guest host David Cochrane asked O’Toole about his plan to defund the outlet.
His response and the question were entirely removed from the interview that was broadcast across Canada despite not removing any other portion of the interview.

“I did an interview with CBC Radio, but they edited out the question where they asked me about my plan to defund the CBC. Seems the CBC doesn’t want Canadians to hear my answer,” tweeted O’Toole.

In a lazy attempt to explain away the discrepancy, the CBC claimed they edited that part of the interview “for time.”

Citing a doctor that received $2 million in Pfizer funding to promote child vaccination

At the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, the CBC failed to report on important conflicts of interest when it came to the push for vaccination of 5-11-year-olds.

The CBC and other media outlets have failed to disclose nearly $2 million in funding from Pfizer Pharmaceuticals received by pediatrician Dr. Jim Kellner who was cited as an expert in articles by the broadcaster – clear example of the media’s bias towards the pro-vaccination narrative and their unwillingness to report on any potential conflicts of interest that could undermine it.

The CBC published one article titled, “Wondering about vaccinating younger kids against COVID-19? Alberta experts weigh in” without any reference to his long relationship with one of the chief manufacturers of the Covid-19 vaccine.

A search on the outlet’s website turned up Kellner’s name over 41 times.

Doubling down on misleading reporting about Freedom Convoy donations

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took the drastic measure of triggering the Emergencies Act to quash the Freedom Convoy last year based on misleading and biased analysis from the CBC.

The Liberals cited “the Broadcasting Corporation’s February 14, 2022 analysis of the data” regarding donations from as justifying their decision to freeze the bank accounts of protestors.

“The importance of this measure is highlighted by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s recent reporting about the crowdfunding website,, which indicated that the majority of the donations to the protests were made by donors outside of Canada,” claimed evidence submitted by the federal government.

Testimony by GiveSendGo executives and debunked CBC’s claims that a majority of the donations came from outside of Canada, saying that 63% of the donations were from Canadian sources.

Being accused of a “manufactured controversy” over story that relied on anonymous sources

CBC News’ political bias came through most recently when it refused to retract its story that accuses Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s office of meddling with Crown prosecutors over Coutts border blockades cases.

Although it printed the story based on anonymous sources and emails it had not seen, the CBC has stuck by the article, risking a lawsuit with Smith.

Not only has Smith called the article “defamatory,” itsit’s claims were debunked by the civil service and Crown prosecutors.

“The Premier calls on the CBC to retract its outrageous story and, further, that the CBC and the Official Opposition apologize to the Premier, Premier’s Office staff, Alberta Crown prosecutors and those in the Alberta Public Service, for the damage caused to their reputations and that of Alberta’s justice system,”wrote Smith in a statement.

–  Author:  Cosmin Dzsurdzsa, True North


What the hell is going on with all the news about drag queens interacting with kids? Until maybe 3 years ago there was no such thing, and nobody was even talking about it. Nobody was screeching about how right wingers all “hate” everyone who does drag, nobody was asking why drag queens suddenly have; not only some kind of “right” to do this but somehow society has a “duty” to not only allow it, but encourage it to the extreme! 5 years ago there would not have been a Liberal anywhere who would have supported this, and today they’ll go to war over it (the only reason being that the Conservatives don’t like it, really). And not one drag queen was doing much of anything outside of the clubs, and nobody cared. One wonders how society even functioned at all, previous to today’s progressive and tolerant views. How about we go back to the way it was before, when nobody cared? Nothing about this fight makes sense; it’s just one more shit-pile that the anti-conservatives grab from to draw attention to themselves.


Apparently Statistics Canada is doing a bunch of in-person polling in Swift Current, asking residents a few HUNDRED questions about their dealings with Saskatchewan Health. Apparently they’re paying people to sit with them and answer questions about Saskatchewan health care for a few hours. I’ve heard this from a couple of sources now, originally from a tictoker who was asking why Stats Canada has a bunch of trailers set up in a lot there.
This concerns me, because of the news a couple of days ago that the federal government was clawing back some money they’d given the provincial government because of Saskatchewan’s medical imaging deal: a private person can pay retail for an MRI but the MRI company has to then give one to someone on the provincial wait list for free. This, apparently, goes against a strict interpretation of the federal Health Act, and therefore Saskatchewan residents must PAY for being entrepreneurial and working against collectivism. Or some other stupid justification for slapping Saskatchewan residents for not all being rabid Trudeau fans, whatever.
This was Friday, and Sunday I’m hearing about a federal agency gathering information on how Saskatchewan people are accessing Saskatchewan health care, specifically. Giving away taxpayer’s money as incentive to get this data, as well. Anyone else care to connect the dots? Anyone else wonder if this is a case of the Trudeau Liberals gathering data for political purposes?

This is a video by a guy named Brad Skistimas, band called Five Times August, called “This Just In”. It’s the closest thing I’ve ever seen of a phenomenon I think of as “the left wing’s tactics used against itself”. There always seems to be some kind of left winger coming up with a way to make a right wing politician or personality seem ridiculous or clownish; and I’ve wondered if the right wing has the capability to do the same thing in return. This video is a pretty good representation of the kind of lampooning the left has been using against the right wing for a while now. I like this. It meets the ideology head on, and usually can only be achieved by someone who’s been on the left in the past and has a familiarity with how they think.


Here’s yet another example of what’s happening.  The article in the link, as presented by CBC and anyone reading this can see; is one of 5 separate stories on CBC denigrating the truckers’ convoy in Ottawa, today.  Every day there’s at least another 5 or 6 new stories, but I thought this one might have at least an attempt to show some balance in reporting.  I thought there might be some small chance that the Liberals who pollute our taxpayer funded news organization would act as actual reporters instead of mouthpieces.  Alas, I was wrong.

There’s several examples of people who have shunned those who think the convoy is good.  Then, thrown in at the end; there’s that one interview with a pro-trucker person, and I thought that maybe this is what it is; even if it’s showing that pro-truckers are as exclusionary and snobby and divisive as the antis are at least it’s another point of view. See, they’re all doing it!  But, that’s not even the case.  The one pro-trucker interviewed only admitted to thinking about unfriending people, but in the end decided it wasn’t worth it.  And, even in the example that biased Liberal mouthpiece network made the merest of attempts at balance in reporting; it showed the ugliness of the left wing as it was her who was unfriended by former friends for her pro truck stance.  There is not one example of a pro truck person unfriending an anti convoy person shown in this story, only the reverse.  The lesson?  That anti convoy Liberals are snobby exclusionary divisive assholes, and the really sad part of it is that those anti convoy snobby exclusionary divisive Liberal assholes don’t get it.  They’re all going to read this story and use it as just one more example of bias confirmation; blame the pro convoy people for not agreeing with them.  It’s very ironic that the Liberal press puts this story out as bias confirmation and anyone with basic comprehension skills is going to disagree with the point they’re trying to make, and they don’t even get it!

People are severing friendships over convoy protest, with some saying it shows ‘true colours’ | CBC News

People are severing friendships over convoy protest, with some saying it shows ‘true colours’

Friendships vulnerable when ‘core values’ at issue, psychologist says

Protesters gather near speeches during a demonstration in the downtown core on Feb. 1, 2022 in Ottawa. The convoy protest has added a new strain on relationships, prompting some with opposing views to sever ties. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

Langley, B.C., contractor Damian Conn says he can “agree to disagree” with friends who are opposed to vaccinations or believe in conspiracy theories and still maintain a relationship.

But when he realized he had friends who support the convoy protest in Ottawa — which is now entering its second week of demonstrations, snarling the nation’s capital, to call for an end to vaccine mandates and other public health measures related to COVID-19 — those relationships ended.

He’d known some of those friends since high school.

“It seems like this convoy has brought out everybody’s true colours with people you never would have thought had that certain close-minded train of thought,” he said.

“I think I’ve unfriended, like, 100 people — and that includes some family,” he said. ” I won’t even talk to them anymore.”

Protest comes down to core values, expert says

Over the course of the pandemic, there have been a number of stories of how disagreements over vaccination have ended friendships and relationships, and ripped families apart.

Last September, a Harris Poll survey conducted in the U.S. found that a combined 33 per cent of vaccinated respondents had in some way “cut ties or ended relationships” with at least some unvaccinated people in their lives.

But the convoy protest has added a new strain on relationships. Concerns and outrage over the participation of white nationalists, the presence of swastikas and Confederate flags at the rally and reports of harassing and intimidating behaviour by some protesters have prompted some to sever their friendships with rally supporters.

WATCH | The ‘worst display of Nazi propaganda in this country’ happening at convoy protest, advocate says: 

Protest convoy had ‘worst display of Nazi propaganda in this country,’ anti-hate advocate says

6 days ago


Canadian Anti-Hate Network chair Bernie Farber, who is the son of Holocaust survivors, says people can have opposing views when it comes to health care, but Ottawa’s protest convoy was taken over by ‘extremists with an agenda.’ 4:48

Beverley Fehr, a University of Winnipeg psychology professor who specializes in interpersonal relationships, said research indicates that political differences are not often “make-or-break” issues in friendships.

“But I think what the vaccine issue and now the protests are really bringing to light are issues that are highly tied to our core values,” she said.

These values include the idea of not just protecting yourself, but protecting others, she added. They also include feelings about racism, safety and personal choice versus the greater good — values that you hold that are so important, that they can’t be compromised.

When friends diverge in ways that really are connecting to their core values, it’s very challenging to keep the friendship together, she said.

“If that’s a core value for you, then it’s hard to meet in the middle.”

‘Going to have to unfriend you’

Many, like Conn, signalled their opposition to the rally by indicating they would be “unfriending” those who showed support for the controversial rally.

Vonica Flear, who lives in London, Ont., says you can’t separate from the extremist element of the protesters.

“If you are going to a rally or a protest … and you see flags that have swastikas on them, that’s a big sign that you are in the wrong place,” Flear said.

On Facebook, many users indicated they would be ‘unfriending’ those who showed support for the controversial convoy rally. (Facebook)

Flear said they were shocked to see that one of their friends from their Nova Scotia hometown posted that he had attended the rally. Flear, who has a master’s degree in biology, said they reached out to him, said they would talk about vaccinations, and clear up any misunderstandings or confusing science jargon related to getting a shot.

“But he just replied with something along the lines of ‘Canada is a free country’ or something like that,” Flear said.

“I think I just said, ‘if you are going to just blindly follow these people without questioning, I’m going to have to unfriend you. I don’t want to be associated with white supremacy.’ And so I unfriended him.”

‘Straw that broke the camel’s back’

Rachelle Bondy, a property manager in Windsor, Ont., went to Ottawa to support the convoy. Turns out, that was the “straw that broke the camel’s back” for a friend she’d known for 14 years, who wound up blocking and deleting her.

“She was very upset with me. Very upset and I wouldn’t budge. I wasn’t going to change my views,” Bondy said.

“I just thought, ‘I understand that you do not agree with me, I’m not sitting here calling you names, I’m not calling you racist. I’m not calling you a bad mother. I’m not calling you these things. You’re the one who’s getting upset about it.'”

Trucks are parked along the sidewalk and on Wellington Street outside the Office of the Prime Minister and Privy Council during a rally against COVID-19 restrictions on Parliament Hill in Ottawa Jan. 30, 2022. (Justin Tang/The Canadian Press)

Bondy said it was “really sad” because her friend had known her for so long.

I cannot believe this is where we’ve come to. Come to the point where our friendships depend on whether or not they know our medical status and what it is,” Bondy said.

‘Anyone who believes that is not my friend’

Following the weekend rally, Sheila Mills, from Salt Spring Island, B.C., posted on Facebook that anyone who believed the media’s negative spin of the protest and accusations of racism should unfriend her.

“Anyone who believes that is not my friend, they don’t know me well enough to be considered a friend,” Mills said.

“Anyone who is going to label all of those people as racist or supporting white supremacy. I lose respect.”

WATCH | Protesters say they won’t budge, and tensions are rising: 

Tensions rise as Ottawa protesters refuse to leave

2 days ago


Ottawa residents have grown more frustrated as protesters outside Parliament Hill refuse to budge and start building a structure. Police have started handing out tickets, but it’s unclear what more they will do. 4:19

Mills said she was very angry when she posted her comments, but has “calmed down” since and that she herself has not unfriended anyone. But she said that after her Facebook post, a few people unfriended her, including a family member.

She said that her support for the convoy, and opposition to vaccine mandates had probably lost her a lot of respect from some local community members.

“We live in a very small town and it’s very divided. You’re on one side or the other,” she said.

While some friendships may be ending over the protest, the protest itself shows no sign of stopping. New protests are planned this weekend in several cities, including Toronto and Quebec City, and several counter-protests are also in the works.


Mark Gollom


Mark Gollom is a Toronto-based reporter with CBC News. He covers Canadian and U.S. politics and current affairs.


I just don’t understand how this can not be in the news.  The Trudeau Liberals are spending $627,000 promoting feminism for Venezuelan politicians.  The 4 women that we’re throwing almost two thirds of a million taxpayer’s dollars at are going on a nice little tour, courtesy of you and me; travelling around the US.  Not coming here, mind you, but, feminism!  The same news organizations that frothed at the mouth for months over a 15 dollar glass of orange juice has NO MENTION of this story.  I searched “Venezuelan Project”, “Canada Funding Venezuela” and various other iterations on both the CTV and CBC websites; nothing.  It could have been an election issue, as it was actually introduced by the last Trudeau government but somehow nobody knew about it.  I just don’t understand how we don’t know about this; how the Canadian media just collectively decided to not report this.


Feds spend big bucks to boost feminism in Venezuela – The Western Standard (


The feds have spent $627,000 to promote feminism in socialist Venezuela.

And Blacklock’s Reporters says Foreign Affairs hired publicists at $567-a-day to “arrange high level media interviews” with women legislators.

Funding for the so-called “Venezuelan Project” is detailed in a July 19 funding agreement signed by department staff as MPs headed into an election campaign. Costs totaled $626,895.

Expenses included $66,822 for “greater public profile of the female members of the Venezuelan Interim Government.”

Four women legislators will be flown on a transatlantic publicity tour from Caracas to Brussels, Geneva, the Hague, Paris, New York and Washington, D.C., but they are not visiting Canada.

Publicists are to “arrange high-level media interviews, secure op-ed placements, arrange press conferences, etcetera.”

The department did not reply on Tuesday when asked to detail the value for Canadian taxpayers.

The Venezuela Project “aims to build the leadership capacities” of women legislators in the country, according to documents. Budgeted expenses included $88,986 for travel, meals and hotels to fly 27 women from Venezuela to attend European Union seminars and workshops.

The workshops would offer “tailored mentorship,” “training in diplomacy and negotiations,” “facilitation of high level diplomatic activities,” “development and execution of strategic communications” and “policy executions by mixed gender teams” to discuss “the importance of a gender inclusive political process.”

“The project shall aim to achieve the following expected results: Women of the Venezuelan Interim Government and National Assembly are more effective at negotiating and leading high-level diplomacy; greater public profile of the female members of the Venezuelan Interim Government and National Assembly; women are better able to influence and lead the Venezuelan Interim Government’s decision making and set policy,” wrote staff.

Other expenses included $125,685 to pay an executive assistant to accompany Venezuelan legislators, and the $110,880 expense of hiring a “Venezuelan Project Officer” on a sixteen-month contract. The department also agreed to pay $5,216 on room rentals for “diplomatic outreach” and $1,280 for Twitter and Facebook ads “to amplify communications product visibility.”

Venezuela is one of the world’s largest oil exporters, but suffered economic collapse in 2017. The central government defaulted on bonds as hyperinflation exceeded 146,000%, the worst of any country, according to the CIA World Factbook.

The country has no valid credit rating and remains “a major drug transit country and trafficking route in the Western Hemisphere largely destined for the Caribbean, the United States, West Africa and Europe for illegal drugs, predominantly cocaine,” said the Factbook.


Deaths from COVID ‘incredibly rare’ among children (

The link is to a article that shows the result of a lengthy study of Covid cases and mortality rates among children under 18 in Great Britain.  It’s full text is also at the bottom of this opinion piece.  It shows, in summary; that the functionable mortality rate of Covid for children is about 2 in a million, or one in 500 thousand.  Or 2 ten thousandths of one percent.  Of children who die of all causes combined.

I get that it’s horrible when people, especially children, get sick and die.  But there does come a time when Stalin’s rule should apply (a single death is a tragedy but a million deaths is a statistic).  It comes down to priorities on the largest of scales; of where do we draw the line?  Do we continue to lock down society, freeze all our economies, figure out some way to absorb the losses and hardship to entire sectors of the economy , permanently, for the sake of a single child?  Then there’s the aspect that everyone, including every child, is pretty much going to have to get it and either survive or not, at some point.  Remember, the issue was never to stop anyone and everyone from getting the disease; it was always to “flatten the curve” (remember?) so people who have other health concerns aren’t made to suffer or die because our collective health care infrastructures aren’t overwhelmed by Covid cases.  Right from the start the rulers of the world had the attitude that the disease can’t be “beaten”; the best we can hope for is that it gets assimilated into the milieu of medical issues we all have to deal with and mostly have always had to deal with.

I’m glad I’m not a politician in office now.  This is a hard decision to make; to put people at risk without being forced to pay a political price for it by an opposition more inclined to score cheap points than work for society overall.

The article, for those who don’t want to bother with clicking the link:

Deaths from COVID ‘incredibly rare’ among children

A pupil is reflected in a mirror performing a lateral flow test for Covid-19 in Chertsey, United Kingdom.

A child performing a lateral-flow test for COVID–19 in Chertsey, UK.Credit: Dan Kitwood/Getty

A comprehensive analysis of hospital admissions and reported deaths across England suggests that COVID-19 carries a lower risk of dying or requiring intensive care among children and young people than was previously thought.

In a series of preprints published on medRxiv13, a team of researchers picked through all hospital admissions and deaths reported for people younger than 18 in England. The studies found that COVID-19 caused 25 deaths in that age group between March 2020 and February 2021.

About half of those deaths were in individuals with an underlying complex disability with high health-care needs, such as tube feeding or assistance with breathing.

The studies did not evaluate rates of less-severe illness or debilitating ‘long COVID’ symptoms that can linger months after the acute phase of the infection has past. “The low rate of severe acute disease is important news, but this does not have to mean that COVID does not matter to children,” says paediatrician Danilo Buonsenso at the Gemelli University Hospital in Rome. “Please, let’s keep attention — as much as is feasible — on immunization.”

In one of the preprints, the researchers trawled for published accounts of COVID-19 among children and young people, and ultimately analysed data from 57 studies and 19 countries3. They then picked apart risk factors for severe disease and death from the data.

Study findings

Some conditions — including obesity and cardiac or neurological conditions — were associated with a higher risk of death or intensive-care treatment, the researchers found. But the absolute increase in risk was very small, study author Rachel Harwood, a paediatric surgical registrar at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool, UK, told reporters at a media briefing.

For the other two preprints, the researchers focused on England, drawing on nationwide health-care data on intensive-care admissions and deaths among those under 18 years old. The team found that, of 6,338 hospital admissions for COVID-19, 259 children and young people required treatment in paediatric intensive-care units.

Black children were more likely than their white counterparts to require intensive care, both for COVID-19 and for paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome, a rare syndrome associated with coronavirus infection. But overall, the need for intensive care was “incredibly rare” among these patients, says study author Joseph Ward of the University College London Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health.

Of 3,105 deaths from all causes among the 12 million or so people under 18 in England between March 2020 and February 2021, 25 were attributable to COVID-19 — a rate of about 2 for every million people in this age range. None had asthma or type-1 diabetes, the authors note, and about half had conditions that put them at a higher risk than healthy children of dying from any cause.

Taken together, the unusually comprehensive studies could provide some comfort to parents who have been shielding children who they thought might be vulnerable to severe complications from COVID-19. “There’s a general feeling among paediatricians that probably too many children were shielded during the first wave of the pandemic,” Russell Viner, who studies adolescent health at the University College London, told reporters.

In some cases, those efforts might have done more harm than good, added Elizabeth Whittaker, an infectious-disease specialist at Imperial College London. “Shields are very leaky,” she said. “The shields have not been perfect, and have probably caused more stress and anxiety for families than benefit.”

The work does not tackle the spectre of long COVID, but other studies suggest that it does occur in children — including in those who had mild initial symptoms or were asymptomatic — but less frequently than in adults.

Despite the very low death and intensive-care rates, Buonsenso hopes that schools will embrace measures such as masks and improved ventilation, and that parents will focus on immunization — for either their children, where possible, or themselves.

“When adults are immunized, fewer children are infected,” he says. “We need to do as much as possible to reduce COVID-19 infection in children.”

Nature 595, 639 (2021)



  1. 1.

    Ward, J. L. et al. Preprint at medRxiv (2021).

  2. 2.

    Smith, C. et al. Preprint at medRxiv (2021).

  3. 3.

    Harwood, R. et al. Preprint at medRxiv (2021).



Apparently actor/comedian Kevin Hart recently, in an interview, claimed that “America has never been this racist”, and a few other typical sky-is-falling leftist garbage talking points.  And comedian/talk show host Bill Maher’s taken him to task for it.  A quote:

“‘Texas lifted its COVID restrictions recently and their infection rates went down, in part because of people getting outside and letting the sun and wind do their thing,’ Maher said.

‘But to many liberals, that can’t be right because Texas and beach-loving Florida have Republican governors.'”.

That’s the problem.  I admit I’m going to have second thoughts about trusting any kind of data or conclusions presented by a source I consider to be left-wing.  I’ve simply seen way to many lies to not have those suspicions.  So I check them out, before making any public pronouncements regarding any of this questionable data.  I also doubt the more extreme stories coming from the right, but those who are my detractors choose to not notice those hesitations.  But to many left wingers, from my observations, simply discount any and all news that favours any and all right wing causes, or is sourced from anything that anyone has ever accused of being right wing, for being right wing and therefore a lie and can’t be trusted as the truth in any way.

Instead of having an inquiring mind; or a personality geared to learning these people are constantly presenting themselves as ultimate authorities on all things and therefore disdainful of having to learn anything new.  Instead of the first question upon finding new information being “is it true” it’s “where did it come from” and if the source is more Fox than CNN then the new information is immediately and forever discounted as being a right wing lie, no matter the proof and truth of the situation.  It’s only acceptable for political conversations when it comes from CNN, or some other accredited and trustworthy news source.  THEN it’s the truth.

I remember a last summer when one of the stories was how Trump had an environmental protest cleared out of a church parking lot, with tear gas and riot police, so he could walk up to a podium carrying a bible and make a speech.  Every mainstream media on both sides of the border ran with it.  There were close-ups of the bible, interviews with the protesters, and mention made of how many times Trump said the word “God” in his speech.  Apparently there was a DC led investigation into the event, and the results were made public just last week.  And it wasn’t Trump who cleared out the protesters.  His team and the Secret Service never lifted a finger or got involved in any way.  It was done by a completely different level of government, and those involved apparently didn’t even know at the time that Trump was going to be making an appearance.  So the whole story, covered extensively by every major media in at least 2 countries at the time, was complete and utter bullshit.  Are they covering the corrected version of the story?  Is anyone issuing any retractions?  No, none of that’s happening.

How many American voters changed their minds and cast in with Sleepy Joe over that story?  How close did Trump really get?  History was made, or changed (depending on your POV) by the actions of a small handful of news directors in ivory towers and their decisions to push anything that makes right wing public figures look bad and not pushing anything that goes against that narrative.

Here in Canada I’ve had conversations with people who live in the GTA who honestly believed that Andrew Scheer was secretly an American citizen and he only wanted to become Prime Minister so he could be called up for active duty in the American military (being an American citizen and all) and be given the chance to embarrass Canada and all Canadians (because he’s secretly and American citizen, donchaknow).  This whole concept is so wrong, and so stupid; that upon hearing it the first time I almost decided right then and there that if this guy is representative of Canadians I don’t want to be Canadian any more.  But what these Laurentians are really doing is just being lazy.  Their local Liberal candidates spread these lies, and the voters are just looking for an excuse, any old excuse, to not vote Conservative because their cool Liberal friends and candidates tell them that Conservatives aren’t “cool” so they don’t deserve to be popular.

These things all add up to the same thing: blind adherence to a left wing ideologically driven agenda because it’s just easier to, you know, do that instead of think about stuff to come to the correct decision.  So what if the science clearly shows that what the governors of Texas and Florida did had much better results than the fear-driven sky-is-falling left wing governors of many other states had whipped their subjects into?  Those governors are Republicans, so everything about them is to be completely ignored, if possible.  The left wing has decided that the governors of Michigan and New York are the better administrators and every decision they make, have ever made and ever will make will be the correct one, the more moral one, the one that’s going to be better for everyone (just you wait and see!).  And every decision made by those racist asshole immoral Christian inbred gun-totin’ NAZI Republicans is wrong, immoral, and only better for the rich white assholes who donate billions to the re-election funds of other racist asshole etc. etc. politicians.  And if anyone shows data, proof, video, or any other means of backing up any argument against what the Democrats have already said about anything involving any Republican anywhere then that data, in whatever form it’s presented; is either cherry picked, spun drastically to the right, or (most likely) outright lies.

So, yeah; Progressophobia.  It’s a thing.

New Rule: Progressophobia | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO) – YouTube


Mansur blasts Conservative party

full text at end of article

I’m seeing more and more of this, and the sad thing is that the only people who need to know about it appear to be blind to the reality.  I don’t know what it’s going to take to get the mandarins who run the Conservative Party of Canada to stop being so stupid and start being serious about representing Canadian conservatives instead of playing Liberal political games that only Liberals can win.  By stooping to their level O’Toole and company are tacitly admitting the basic hubris-based LPC core belief that they and they alone speak for Canada, that Canada and Canadians are Liberal and anyone who says anything different is un-Canadian, always has been and always will be.  And this ensures continued Liberal governments, or worse, until our Conservatives start speaking, at the top levels, for conservatives.

I agree with what Mansur and others have been saying for a while now: that the federal Conservative Party has been following the Liberal Party’s lead in courting votes from the Laurentians, exclusively, to the detriment of voters in the West, and to a lesser extent to the Maritimes.  Which is just stupid.  It plays into the LPC’s hands in at least two ways.  The Liberals will always win seats in that region, they own it like the Conservatives own the west.  So they can afford to play to that base as it’s their base to play to, whereas the CPC has to play catch up.  The LPC doesn’t care about the West, simply because the Laurentians have more seats, many more seats there.  The CPC will always have an uphill climb because of that, but to simply jump in the Liberal pool and claim dominance will never work.  The CPC’s base is the West; but we don’t have the numbers to make that relevant, unless it’s in combination with a significant bump in seats from the Laurentians.  As a simple planning technique it makes sense to play to that angle.  But it ignores the inevitable conflict between what the mostly Liberal Laurentian voter cares about and what the Western Conservative base cares about, and so far in too many cases O’Toole has chosen to be at least appearing to side with the Laurentians.  He, and his handlers, have yet to learn a basic lesson: you can’t out-Liberal Liberals.

As has been pointed out, ousting vocal opponents to party doctrine is really just another example of Conservatives acting like Liberals.  Silence is another example of this; like what Candice Bergen got when she was Trump-shamed.  Being censorious is yet another indicator of swamp-like conditions; as in the public disavowment of the Rebel.

The other way this feeds the Liberals is by splitting the right wing vote in the Conservative base.  Separatists are starting to come out of the woodwork, and every single vote that goes their way is a loss for O’Toole and might as well be a vote for the Liberals.  Western conservatives are facing a choice between supporting separatists or holding their noses and voting for anyone not named Trudeau; and that’s a shitty place for the party that carries the name of your leanings to put you in.  It’s playing games with the support the Conservative party has in the West; taking it for granted.

Solutions: first, either convince O’Toole to start speaking for conservatives or to get the hell out of the way for someone who can and will.  Right now, it’s a long list of those who can (Poilievre, Ambrose, Bergen, Rempel Garner, Lewis, and a few other possibles) and a short list of those who would (Lewis) if offered.  Canadian conservatives need a voice at the political level, as now we’ve only got the NP and the Rebel as a voice and that’s simply not going to do it (hence the separatist trend).  And we’re going to get a voice, one way or another.  The bad news is that means we’re going to be voting for someone other than the Conservatives, and the real bad news is that means more Trudeau, until he simply gets sick of being the smartest, most capable Canadian politician in any room he walks into and all that that means to every Canadian, everywhere.  The leader of the Conservative Party of Canada needs to be a leader of the conservatives in Canada, and that means stop apologizing for being conservative and start defending conservative concepts and conservatives.  And show some pride, dammit!  It’s the party of Confederation!

The second part of the solution is provincial in nature.  Both Saskatchewan and Alberta’s governing parties are going to be facing the biggest threat, on the face of it, from provincially based separatist parties.  In Saskatchewan that’s true, but in Alberta it translates into a more significant threat from the NDP as they’re better positioned to benefit from right wing vote splitting.  But there’s a good point for both provinces: both governing parties are independent from any federal parties.  So both the UCP and the Sask Party can make policies that are unique to their constituencies and don’t have to worry about stepping on any federal party’s toes; like the NDP has to wherever they are.  So both ruling parties can independently introduce initiatives to stave off the separatist vote by promising to address their concerns directly, taking the wind out of their sails.  Promise a referendum sometime in the next term that asks the question of whether the people of the province should consider an alternative federal arrangement; words to that effect.  Not strong enough of positions to be labelled separatist, but rather continuing on the populist themes that got both governments elected.

I say why not do this?  It solves a number of problems.  Anyone who was considering voting for the separatists don’t have to anymore (and it’s easier to hang on to voters than it is to gain them, many of these people would likely be looking for an excuse to continue to support the party they always have or at least have most recently).  The results of these referenda can be played almost any way you want to, unless it’s overwhelming in one direction or the other which makes it even easier to deal with either way.  And it would likely have an affect on how the federal government deals with the West, moving forward.  I wonder how many federal Liberal cabinet ministers would make the trip to the other side of the country (world) in efforts to keep the country together?

But, any way you look at it, the conservatives in Canada need a voice; they need to be heard at the political level moreso than they have been up to now from the party that claims (but fails) to speak for them.  Memes bragging about O’Toole’s military record aren’t going to do it.  O’Toole dancing to Gerald Butts’ fiddling isn’t going to do it either.  A lot of Conservatives voted for Dr. Lewis, and O’Toole et al forgets that at their peril.




Mansur Blasts Conservative Party

Mansur, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Western Ontario, believes the Conservative Party is trying too hard to be like the Liberals.

Political scientist Salim Mansur believes the Conservative Party led by Erin O’ Toole can’t win a majority because of its failure to champion conservative causes.

Mansur, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Western Ontario, believes the Conservative Party is trying too hard to be like the Liberals.

“People will vote for Liberal-lite if the smell of the Liberal Party is so damn bad that they can’t afford to lean toward the Liberals. So they will take a shot with the Liberal-lite for the moment, but as soon as the Liberals go collect themselves in terms of optics, in terms of public relations, they will go back to being Liberals again,” says Mansur.

Mansur is not impressed with the party’s decision to remove Jim Karahalios from leadership contention, and leadership candidate Derek Sloan from the Conservative caucus. He says the party ejects “anybody who questions and says that we are on the wrong track…with the issues of freedom of speech, freedom of worship, how this draconian lockdown is basically making rag of a paper out of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In an interview with the Western Standard, Mansur says he was removed as the Conservative candidate in London North Centre in 2019 because he stood against mass immigration, multiculturalism, and Islamism—despite being a Muslim himself.

“I spoke with the Conservative players in Toronto, they know me very well. And I said to them, ‘I’m happy to be out, done with your party, done with the bankrupt ideals and values of your party and your leadership. I’m done, but we are friends and I tell you… you write it down, you’re going to lose the 2019 election and you are never going to win another election where you can form a majority government during your lifetime or in my lifetime,” he says.

Nearly 18 months later, Mansur’s opinion hasn’t changed.

“The entire operation of the Conservative Party is basically focussed on trying to win in Ontario, that is in the GTA. And they’re not going to win it by becoming another Liberal Party. So whatever they do, they’re doomed. They saw it in 2015 and 2019 and they’re going to see it again whenever the election is called.”

Mansur says few Quebecers will vote for a Conservative who is not from their province and both the Conservatives and Liberals have their eyes fixed on Ontario.

“Your part of Canada is taken for granted. You don’t have to win west of Ontario to form a federal government. So it is not about the West, it is not about the Maritimes,” Mansur says.

“I’m just being crude to give you the mentality of the Liberals. They say, ‘F… the West. Who cares about the West?’ There’s more seats in Toronto than all of Saskatchewan and Alberta combined.”

Mansur, who ran as a Reform Party candidate in 2000, believes Conservatives can win if they appeal to old stock Canadians.

“They have to basically do exactly what they refuse to do, because the media is going to call them racists. They have to appease and represent the… dwindling majority… the white Canadian, that is, the Canadians who built this country,” Mansur says.

“Those are the issues, which the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and all of the press, the CBC are now going to call ‘white extremist.’ The issue of pro-life, the issue of religion, the defense of freedom of worship… We have to discuss the issue of migration and immigration because we cannot sustain these numbers. This is basically destroying our economy of the Canadian people who are here.

“And instead of meeting the requirements of Canadians who are at home, Mr. Trudeau and Conservatives are engaged and grandstanding on the UN stage. So does the Conservative Party have a leadership and a focus that is willing to address these issues and talk about these issues? The only people who are doing that is the PPC, but the PPC does not have the media behind it. That is another story.”

Mansur finished fifth in London North Centre as a PPC candidate in 2019 following his removal by the Conservatives. He believes that apart from rhetoric about balanced budgets, his former party lacks conviction.

“The Conservative Party does not want any issue that is that is in the context of small-C conservativism or social conservativism…Anything which is the concern of half of the Conservative voters across Canada, those issues have been sort of shelved and censored by the Conservative Party leadership.”

-by Lee Harding


The link I’ve got a few lines down is to a Wikipedia article describing in some detail a horrible crime committed some years ago where the victims were tortured and murdered.  I’m starting with this and including it as context for an important question I’ve had for a while about the highest-profile story of the year not directly connected to this damn plague.

Don’t check out the link if you’re the queasy type.  The crimes described in it are pretty bad, Bernardo bad.  Seriously, there are details the faint of heart should not know about.

Now, I get that this is from a few years ago but the question asked about it is relevant today: the simple existence of one race being represented by one side of the story and another race being represented by the other does not, by itself, prove that racism was or is a motivating factor.  The defenders from this story insist that because there was no evidence or proof that this crime involved black perpetrators and white victims doesn’t automatically make it a racial, or hate crime.  They say, quite clearly and repeatedly, that the 5 black people committing these horrible criminal acts on their innocent white victims didn’t do what they did because the victims were white; rather it was a crime of opportunity and it wouldn’t have mattered what race the victims were.  They can say that because it’s actually, apparently, true.  At least, there’s never been any evidence or testimony saying anything else, so the demons who did it don’t have to worry about being charged with hate crimes.

Now, look at the current situation: the race riots and deconstruction of our society, from the police and the corporate world on up.  What started all this?  Well, not to discount the volumes (libraries?) of issues and incidents leading up to it, but it really started with the death of George Floyd, did it not?  And why was that?  Because George died under the knee of a white police officer while pleading for his life.  And it was immediately labelled as a violent racist act by a violent, out of control racist police officer, part of the whole of society which is now and always has been oppressively racist; and must be immediately torn down and replaced with a new, woke, compassionate society of benevolent woke liberals and people of colour will never have to fear any white person; cop, soldier, or judge again.  Or some other socialist hallucination, who can tell anymore?

But the question I’ve always asked about this situation is “is it racist?”  The first thing I noticed about the video of the murder was the obvious non-caucasian racial makeup of two of the other police officers helping the white officer murder George Floyd.  So I looked closer, and didn’t find any incidents of any of the officers using racially offensive language, or communicating in any way that this was a racism – motivated activity.  So maybe what’s needed is a little Mark Furhman treatment; look into the officer’s past and find all the times he talked about certain races or made racially-denigrating remarks.  Surely we’d see a number of items in his official record demonstrating this white police officer’s blatant racist attitudes?  There’s gotta be a photo of his smiling face peeking out from under a white hood somewhere, right?  Turns out, there isn’t.  Or any other evidence, testimony, or even rumours of such things.

So here’s my take, and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong: the murder of George Floyd wasn’t racist, wasn’t racially motivated, and had not one little thing to do with racism.  The officer who murdered him wasn’t and as far as anyone knows or can prove, isn’t racist, and the murder itself was not a race crime committed by a racist, and in fact can’t even be considered as a hate crime in any way as far as hate crimes are defined today.  It was a fairly cold-blooded murder committed by a cold blooded asshole power-tripping cop.  Actually, I’m pretty sure that by the time it makes it’s way through the legal system it will be classified as an act of manslaughter.  He simply didn’t bother to check on the guy he was choking, not because he wanted the guy to die but because it was easier (as the guy wasn’t able to struggle and cause any more of a problem) to just sit there than take any further risks to his and his partners’ safety.  It was lazy, unprofessional, and criminally incompetent but I don’t think it can be proven to be deliberate.  Seriously, who can argue that the cop wanted Floyd to die when he could see at least one camera on him?  The cop’s going to murder someone on camera, because he’s secretly a bigot and doesn’t care who knows it?  Anyone who wants to make that argument should go to the nearest mirror and say it to yourself out loud, see if it makes any more sense than how stupid and unbelievable it looks written down.  Emphasize the cop part.

Then there’s the accompanying players: two of the officers participating in this “racist” murder are not caucasian.  Hello?  I have a problem with that.  Do I need to actually say why?  They’re just as guilty of manslaughter, but they probably won’t pay as high a price for it legally as the one who actually killed Floyd.  But they will pay a price, and will forever be branded as racist cops who killed an innocent black man.

So, go back to the original story.  Why is black on white not racist, but white on black is, always, whether there’s proof of it (either way) or not? Here’s another question: why am I not seeing more people ask this question?

© 2012 atokenconservative Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha