Goddess

Yes, that is my assertion, based on his many campaign appearances where he gave screaming, spit-spewing speeches about "DON'T THINK YOU CAN GET ON A PLANE OR A TRAIN OR A BUS AND THINK YOU CAN PUT OUR CHILDREN, AND MY CHILDREN IN DANGER!!!!!!!!!!!!" And the crowds went wild. Much like when Hitler's speeches promised to get rid of those filthy Jews. Popular, yes. Correct or Moral? Don't forget that it was the people who hid the Jews that were breaking the law. And at the time that he was spewing his hate, it was already obvious that the jabs did not prevent anyone from getting or transmitting covid. But y'all ignored facts. And voted him in because he promised to persecute "anti-vaxxers". Is it any wonder he received pushback from the Freedom Convoy? Is it any wonder why you're all wanting to re-write history and pretend you didn't participate in the hatred?

Trudeau was voted in last time, based on his campaign of hate against "anti-vaxxers" (who a large majority of voters wanted jailed) and in spite of a long list of scandals, gov't waste of taxpayer money, and deficit budgets. I blame YOU. YOU chose him. And now look where we are.

Watch the proceedings.

You should really watch some of the proceedings from the many inquiries going on recently and currently. Also, there's even been quite a few "conflict of interest" scandals in the news - Mary Ng, Anita Anand, Trudeau himself, Frank Bayliss, Rouleau, etc. Many Libs gave sweet contracts to friends and family during the pandemic. In the ArrivScam inquiry, it also came out that many Libs are "double-dipping" - working in gov't positions while also picking up contracts to do other gov't work.

I was watching an interview (I think Tom Mulcair?) where he pointed out that this capital gains tax is really just another attack on the middle class. They've pretty much broken the lower end of the middle class, so now they're going after the upper middle class. Realizing that the large numbers of boomers are retiring and dying and leaving properties to their children - this tax takes that away. It's basically a very big inheritance tax.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying when someone tells me the sky is purple and I can see it's blue, they're lying. That's not BIAS.

🤣 True.

Maybe someone, somewhere in all of this, was really & truly seeking justice and tolerance once, but I feel like we've lost the plot along the way.

I'm feeling more and more that the "woke" movement has done nothing but unleash a lot of dark triad/cluster B personalities loose on everybody else. They use outlandish identities to terrorize the others. And turn anti-social rage and violence into an armor of untouchability and make lists of people to attack. Crybullies.

I just read this the other day and looked for the approp. topic to post it in: From MMA fighter Tamikka Brents after biological male Fallon Fox fractured her skull while, (quite literally) beating her senseless - What kind of biological male demands to play collision sports or fight with biological women and then persists in doing so even after injuring them over and over? Even after this guy broke her skull, she was too scared to just stand up and say “This was unfair because Fox is a man.” What does it tell the women who get hurt like this, to be told that they cannot complain or they’re a TERF? Just take your beating like a man? Is that where this really ought to go?

Ya, I know there's ones like that on both sides. I don't understand it - I've always voted for whichever party has the policies I think Canada needs at that moment in time. But I am a jaded voter - I think they're all the same, really. The last couple years, I've become much more active at writing my MP's and MLA's.

I have an acquaintance from another forum that I interact with on a few different platforms - really great guy. BUT - he's a huge Lib supporter, no matter what. I asked him one time if there was anything, any scandal, any wrongdoing, any criminality that Trudeau could do that would make him stop voting Lib and he basically told me......NO. He's always voted Lib and will continue to do so, no matter what.

Oh, get lost. He says he's FOR transparency and accountability, but also fully supports the current scandal-riddled gov't and hangs on every word they say. That was the extent of our difference.

Ya, I know. I want the gov't to leave me the F alone.

@CdnFox That Justin Transition - by Douglas Farrow (substack.com) The behaviour of this man, and of his party, is not merely irresponsible. It is criminal in character and treasonous in kind. It makes a mockery of Canada's fundamental law and openly repudiates the principles on which the country was built. It regards the nation-state as such, the country itself, as an anachronism. The Justin Transition is not a transition from nasty fossil fuels to beautiful green energy. (Ask the Chinese about that.) It's a transition from democracy to oligarchy. Yes, the prime minister is shameless. But so are we. We put him into power. We've been keeping him in power. It's not a few yuan here, a little strong-arming there, and a couple of rented busses that have kept him in power. It's not even the hopelessly compromised NDP. It's the urban voter in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. The urban voter has kept him in power.

Like Dr. Byram Bridle of Guelph University, Prof. Patrick Provost has been fired from Universite Laval. It simply won’t do to have professors of science speaking publicly on science, if the science on which they are speaking contains “malinformation,” meaning information inconvenient to vested interests. He took umbrage at the fact that innocent children were suffering the risks and reaping none of the alleged rewards of the Pfizer and Moderna products in question. That these were dangerous products, he knew both scientifically and from personal experience. It was okay for him to know that, but it was not okay for him to say that. And what are those interests? They are, of course, financial interests. Grants from Pfizer or Moderna, for example, or from the government departments and agencies with whom these companies partner. They are at the same time political interests, then, for the university itself is increasingly a pawn of such partnerships, to which narrative-control is absolutely indispensable. Those vested interests don’t give a damn about science as such. It is “The Science” they care about, because that is the kind of science you can be told by narrative-spinners to follow. And when you do follow it, so does your money. It flows to them. Letter to colleagues from Professor Provost 24-04-23 Professor Patrick Provost has been dismissed by Laval University because of his internal and public criticism of Covid-19 mRNA vaccines. On the eve of the Pascal holiday, Thursday 28 March 2024, the Vice-Rector of Human Resources and Finance at Université Laval, André Darveau, informed me in writing of my dismissal. After an immaculate 35-year career in academic research in the biomedical field, including 22 years as a Professor in the Faculty of Medicine at Université Laval and as a Researcher at the CHU de Québec Research Centre. I am probably the first professor to be dismissed in the exercise of his academic freedom since the Act respecting academic freedom in the university environment, which is supposed to protect it, came into force on 7 June 2022. My training and my interventions This decision follows a series of warnings and disciplinary sanctions which, at source, concern a single, sensitive, even explosive issue: my public and internal criticism of Covid-19 mRNA 'vaccines'. Trained as a biochemist, my research work has led me to develop expertise in RNA (over the last 20 years) and lipid nanoparticles (over the last 10 years), which are the two active ingredients in these new 'vaccines'. I am therefore in a position to understand and explain the concepts behind how these 'vaccines' work and, above all, to appreciate the risks they pose to human health. Pfizer's and Moderna's mRNA products are based on a completely new technology and are not "vaccines" - the definition of which was changed in September 2021 - in the traditional sense of the term as understood by the general public. Being aware of the potential risks, known and unknown, associated with these new "vaccines", I could not remain silent on such important issues, where lives were at stake, particularly those of children. So I decided to go public with my deep and legitimate concerns, which have evolved over time and are based on recognized concepts, solid scientific evidence and reasoning. The main purpose of my statements was to inform and alert the public, my colleagues, my superiors, government experts, doctors and those elected to represent us in the Quebec National Assembly. In a factual, analytical, thoughtful, well-sourced and respectful manner, but insistent (in the absence of a response), I appealed to my interlocutors to reason, prudence, transparency, collaboration, dialogue (or contradictory debates) and respect for the precautionary principle, the rules of ethics, oaths (e.g. the Hippocratic Oath) and medical codes of ethics (e.g. the Nuremberg Code), always with the avowed aim of wanting to 'ensure the protection of the public'. Why is it that only the public were open, receptive and interested in what I had to say, but that Vice-Rector André Darveau ultimately relieved me of my duties? The disappearance of debates Throughout my 35-year career in research, I have been in competition with my peers and I have worked hard to eventually make my mark as a professor and remain competitive in research. I have constantly been challenged, confronted, questioned, criticised and called upon to debate my work, my ideas and my opinions by my peers. Why haven't I been so in the last year or two, when I've made so many public appearances? Why have peers disappeared from adversarial public debate? Why do academics prefer to lodge complaints with Vice-Rector André Darveau's human resources department rather than put their (counter-)arguments to the public or to the main person concerned? Obtaining nearly 6 million dollars in government funding since the start of my career, training 60 highly qualified people, publishing around a hundred articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals (cited in over 16,000 other articles), and the recognition of my research work with 3 Discovery of the Year awards will not have been enough to be recognised as a valid or credible interlocutor and to open dialogue with my colleagues, my hierarchical superiors or the authorities, nor to resist the steamroller of a political narrative imposed without debate. Is this narrative so weak that it must be protected from criticism at all costs? At the cost of the career of a full professor and established researcher? What does it take to gain the ear of those in positions of authority in Quebec? My dismissal comes at the end of a saga that began 27 months ago with a complaint from a professor who disagreed with my comments. Rather than respecting the principle of collegiality and the academic freedom of its professors, allowing reconciliation, facilitating dialogue or debate, or offering mediation, Vice-Rector André Darveau's human resources department quickly ruled the complaint admissible, antagonized the professors involved, prohibited all exchange and discussion, and transported the debate behind closed doors. Is this a way for the human resources department of a university institution to properly manage interactions, disagreements and personal or opinion-based conflicts between the university's 4,075 teaching staff, including 1,665 professors (1,285 members of the SPUL)? Why hasn't Rector Sophie D'Amours' Université Laval encouraged its professors to express themselves freely, as she claims, and held debates within its walls or in the public arena, as Quebec society would have had a right to expect from the oldest French-language university in North America? Is this not the best way, in a spirit of openness and collegiality, to advance ideas, knowledge and, by extension, society? The judicialization of opinions and science The Vice-Rector of Human Resources and Finance at Université Laval has advocated the judicialization of opinions and science, and the prohibition of adversarial debates, whether public or scientific, throughout the last 27 months of the handling of my case, including the last 22 months under the direction of Vice-Rector Darveau, who took office in July 2022. With the help of lawyers, he applied a cumbersome administrative disciplinary process to deal with a total of eleven complaints (two of which were anonymous), all of which he deemed admissible. The first seven complaints led to four suspensions without pay for a total of six months, one week and one day. All are being challenged by way of grievance before the Labour Court. Why was I never given the chance to meet, discuss, explain or debate with Vice-Rector Darveau, who has a background in microbiology (BSc), virology (MSc) and biochemistry (PhD), and is therefore in a position to understand my arguments and scientific reasoning? Why judicialize what we can and should be debating between academics? A first suspension of 8 weeks without pay was imposed on 13 June 2022 following a complaint from a professor, followed by a second suspension of four months without pay on 23 January 2023 after a complaint from a citizen. The sixth complaint, which was to have led to my dismissal, was dropped on 14 February 2023, after Rector Sophie D'Amours received a letter from 280 colleagues supporting me, denouncing my treatment as "abusive" and asking that the disciplinary measures imposed on me be suspended. Dismissal contested The "culminating incident" that led to the dismissal was the lodging of (i) an anonymous complaint, the eighth, by a professor colleague for sharing, with colleagues in my department and my Research Axis, an e-mail with scientific content sent to the 125 Members of the National Assembly, and (ii) three complaints (including one anonymous), the ninth, tenth, and eleventh, among the 25,200 doctors in Quebec who received by post a letter intended to inform them more fully about the Covid-19 modified mRNA "vaccines". Following receipt of the letter, three other doctors, including one in public health, wrote to me for further information and clarification, which I was happy to provide. With regard to the grounds for my dismissal, I would like to make it clear that there is no question of scientific fraud, fabrication, falsification or destruction of research data, plagiarism, republication, inappropriate attribution of authorship, failure to disclose a conflict of interest, misrepresentation, mismanagement or misappropriation of research funds, undermining the integrity of a scientific peer review process and the awarding of funding, breach of ethics, threats, verbal or physical abuse, sexual assault, or a proven breach of the Act. The Syndicat des professeurs et professeures de l'Université Laval (SPUL) is contesting my dismissal by filing a grievance with the employer, which will be added to the grievances already before arbitrator Rosaire Houde of the Labour Tribunal. My dismissal comes at a time when the sanctions on which Vice-Rector Darveau bases his decision are still being contested through grievances before arbitrator Rosaire Houde. The sanctions imposed on the professors remain on their files for a period of two years, which in this case covers the exceptional period of crisis at Covid-19. Does this explain, at least in part, the Vice-Rector's eagerness to dismiss me? Without being able to be heard or even to discuss with the recipients of my correspondence, i.e. my fellow professors (who are experts in their field), my hierarchical superiors, government experts and elected members of the National Assembly who occupy positions of authority or decision-making. What then is the point of the relevant expertise that I have developed and the scientific knowledge that I have accumulated over the course of my career, thanks to the ongoing funding of my salary and research work by the government, if, when the time comes, I can't put it to the right people? Why do they turn a deaf ear or refuse to hear my well-founded and reasonable arguments? Why are they trying to silence me, without discussion or debate, and destroy my career as a teacher-researcher? Why am I being prevented from using my expertise and knowledge to help protect the public who pay my salary? Why was I dismissed for wanting to protect the public? More than nineteen of the twenty-seven scheduled hearing days have taken place so far since 22 March 2023. The next hearing days are scheduled for 29 and 30 April 2024, and 2 May 2024, followed by 28 May and 5 June 2024. Pleadings have already been scheduled for 20, 23 and 30 August 2024, and the arbitrator's decision on the first eight-week suspension without pay is expected towards the end of 2024 or early 2025, i.e. more than three years after the alleged offences. The arbitrator's decision will be decisive for the continuation of my professional career: a favourable ruling could mean the cancellation of the first suspension and influence the subsequent settlement of the other contested sanctions, which could pave the way for possible reinstatement. However, an unfavourable decision could put an end to my career as a research professor at Université Laval. The professorial function Academic freedom is the basis of the professorial function and what distinguishes it from other professions. The repeated attacks, the relentlessness and, ultimately, the dismissal to which I have fallen victim at Université Laval, following internal or public communications aimed at ensuring the protection of the public, in particular children aged 5 to 11, from the imposition of an experimental 'vaccine', raise many questions about the exercise of academic freedom. Clearly, debates between professors, the right to speak publicly, academic freedom, the role of professors in public debate and the mission of the university are all at stake. Can professors still claim academic freedom, which is the freedom to question and criticize society, government and even their own institution, without doctrinal, moral or ideological constraints or the risk of reprisals, always with the aim of protecting and improving the common good? Will professors have to submit to conditional academic freedom under strict supervision? For the academic freedom guaranteed by the conventions and protected by the law to be truly exercised, it must be free of institutional constraints and take precedence over any arbitrary process aimed at restricting it, and not be subordinated or subject to them. What use is a law, however carefully formulated, if it can be circumvented (e.g. by hijacking an administrative process) with impunity? Are we witnessing institutions interfering in the academic freedom of their professors? Are we witnessing a redefinition of the role of professors? At the same time, since the freedom of university professors is the very foundation of the defense of public interests, in the face of the growing power of private interests, are we witnessing a redefinition of the way in which our free and democratic society functions? How can we claim to live in a free and democratic society if professors are not free to express themselves or to criticize democratic institutions? It is difficult to see how professors who censor themselves and remain in their ivory towers can serve the interests of the society they are supposed to serve. The mission of universities and our society I've worked at Université Laval, the leading French-language university in North America, and at the Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, the largest French-language health research centre in North America, but these institutions have been incapable of allowing debate between its professors and researchers. Why is this? Are we witnessing a redefinition of the mission of universities? If adversarial debate is banned in our higher education institutions, where will it take place? If teachers can no longer express themselves freely within their institution or in the public arena, who will be able to express themselves freely in society? Are we witnessing the re-engineering of society, where we will no longer be able to freely express or debate our ideas or certain subjects, and where professors will censor themselves, rather than intervene in public debate or debate with their colleagues, in order to preserve their privileges? If there is to be a re-engineering of society, would it not be wise for university professors to initiate and participate in public debates? Otherwise, what use are professors? Why are professors who refuse or are incapable of engaging in dialogue or debate in a collegial spirit not summoned to explain themselves by Vice-Rector Darveau? Why do these professors remain employed by the university when they do not respect its values or mission? Finally, there may be reason to wonder about possible conflicts or links of interest in the management of finance and human resources at Université Laval. These two departments were merged in July 2022 and placed under the leadership of a single person, Vice-Rector André Darveau. When Mr Darveau arrived, the Vice-Rector for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion and Human Resources (VREDIRH) was renamed Vice-Rector for Human Resources and Finance (VRRHF). Do Université Laval's financial backers have any influence on the management of teaching staff by the VRRHF? Extract from the grievance contesting my dismissal I want to repeat one of the key questions he puts to us: “How can we claim to live in a free and democratic society if professors are not free to express themselves or to criticize democratic institutions?” It is not clear any more that we can claim that. The firing of Patrick Provost by Laval, like the firing of Martin Kulldorff by Harvard, testifies to the capture of our institutions of higher learning by the aforementioned vested interests.

True dat. But when they're taking a billion $ from the gov't - they're not going to bite the hand that feeds them. And when they see how the gov't treat journalists who DO hold them to account, again - they won't be going there. Careful. You sound exactly like that Diagolon guy 😉

I don't think that. It just doesn't jive with your habit of believing every single thing you read or hear on MSM. What you say and what you practice seem to be different.

You're wrong. I also think they should all be drug tested. The amount of twitching and sniffing going on at press conferences lately is starting to look really weird.

There are (or have been very recently) inquiries going on into nearly all of Trudeau's scandals that MSM let wither on the vine. I haven't seen any of this reported in the MSM, but admittedly, I haven't looked for it. But I have been watching the inquiry proceedings on all of them and let me tell you - the Canadian public has NO IDEA what's really been going on. When CSIS warned that Canadians are going to revolt when they find out how bad a situation we are really in - I believe it could happen. We've been robbed blind. And I wouldn't be the least surprised if we find out we are utterly bankrupt, when we finally get rid of Trudeau. The corruption has been absolutely RAMPANT and Canadians don't know anything about it, unless they are looking for the information on their own - thanks to our bought & paid for media covering everything up and not reporting on any of the inquiries. Seriously, you should watch them - it's disgusting what Trudeau and his cabinet have been getting away with.

Baloney. This is the JOB of the media - to hold authority to account. But there is a distinct lack of truly investigative journalists in the MSM. Alternative sources do it all the time AND they provide links and sources - not just quote nameless "experts". Who are these "experts"? what are they basing their views on?

Did you know they also just got another boost of $$ from Trudeau, then immediately gave themselves all giant bonuses AND fired 800 people?

They are OK with it when Trudeau does it. What they need to do - is imagine that same power in the hands of a politician they DON'T like. No politician should fund and control the media.

No, not everyone has biases. Agreed. And CBC outright lies.

Ahhh, you're one of those "there is no truth, we can't know the truth, so why bother trying to find out the truth" people. But MSM is unbiased??? OMG 🤣