Commit to Information Integrity in Canada

Letter to those LOSING and those WINNING the 2025 Federal Election - We are in an information war and you all have roles to play.

Thank you to all who engaged in the democratic process these past few months - the candidates, their supporters, the voters, the civil service and thousands of volunteers doing elections related work behind the scenes.

While not all can actually WIN every race, all who came in behind the first place finisher have still GAINED winnings in many intangible ways… you have won a whack of insights that, had you stayed inactive, you might never have developed.

In particular, insights about the global information war in which we find ourselves…. “If only we could have gotten our message out better” will be a refrain repeated many times in many back rooms of the nation.

We at Canadian Shareable News invite you to commit to upholding Information Integrity in Canada, whether you have now been elected to office or are relegated to packing up your campaign paraphernalia and getting on with your lives.

https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/peace_security-paix_securite/declaration_information_integrity-integrite.aspx?lang=eng

We at Canadian Shareable News have “cherrypicked” parts of the declaration and are sharing the parts which we find most admirable.

We present these excerpts as guidelines for the Canadian information ecosystem moving forward. They reflect the various laws and ethics codes governing the media in Canada but which all too sadly, have NOT BEEN ADHERED TO since at the very least 2020. See Are our Canadian Media living up to their Ethical Standards?

To respect pluralistic media means to

• STOP using ad hominem attacks on those with alternate views. NO longer should journalists or politicians refer to those with other viewpoints as “conspiracy theorists”, “fascist”, “racist” etc. The exception is if it can be demonstrated with evidence, that statements being made are truly fascist or racist. Or that someone is truly sharing a theory pointing to nothing more that a potential nefarious intent that CANNOT BE backed up by any evidence at all. But to simply dismiss inconvenient alternate information without looking into it and sharing its supporting evidence as a regular feature of writing editorially balanced articles is to engage in intellectual laziness and journalistically unethical behaviour.

• And it means to seek out the independent and alternatively funded platforms, being open to which valuable perspectives and information they are sharing. As the information ecosystem gets increasingly complex, no single person or newsroom can keep tabs on all evidence being unearthed or all perspectives being discussed. By pooling research from among fellow information professionals. regardless of platform or political leanings, journalists can only IMPROVE and EXPAND their offerings.

To refrain from unduly restricting human rights online, especially the freedom of opinion and expression means to

• end the practice of shadow banning and restricting social media accounts of those with dissenting voices;

• to stop referring to any individuals or groups as “misinformation or disinformation providers”;

• to no longer compel speech (forcing a narrow range of terminology on others) or exclude from polite society those who engage with reality differently then oneself;

• to not allow regulatory bodies to remove professional licences to practice of their members who hold views and present evidence counter to any ‘prevailing narratives’ within a profession. (There should be no “prevailing narratives when there is a an open culture of respect for a range of view points in the first place.)

To abstain from conducting or sponsoring disinformation campaigns means to

• never again ignore all the early warnings and mandate the injection of toxic and needless products into the bodies of all citizens, as was done with the COVID-19 mandates under the guise of protecting public health. Here we have a case of top decision makers willfully spreading disinformation and NOT YET condemning themselves for having done so.

To condemn any acts re: the spreading of disinformation means to

• go far beyond that which is recommended in the Call2Halt19.ca initiative (stop the use of mRNA injections in Canada) but to call for the criminal prosecution of those who HAD the information indicating that their information campaign was indeed a disinformation campaign but who proceeded to mislead the public regardless.

The Global Declaration on Information Integrity Online essentially underscores the obligations outlined in Canadian media and broadcasting laws and ethics. It also makes the implicit explicit. THE WAY TO REALLY COUNTER DISINFORMATION IS NOT CENSORSHIP, but rather the PROVISION OF FREE AND OPEN EXCHANGE OF IDEAS AND EVIDENCE.

Protect access to media as one measure to counter disinformation

in other words…

What is the Global Declaration on Information Integrity Online?

Unfortunately, the words in the declaration shared above did not appear in a vacuum but rather, are part of the vast complex of global governance schemes that have been closing in on us ever more tightly in recent years. Following the re-election of the Liberals (now under Mark Carney) Canadians may well be leery of various pieces of legalization presented under the Trudeau Liberals which completely contradict this UN based global declaration.

(NOTE: While Canadian Shareable News is sharing the above excerpts of the Global Declaration, we are NOT endorsing the way the Global Declaration was included as part of the Pact for the Future documentation. We also do not support the three-day silence period used by the United Nations to force the completed documentation on the world’s population without their consent or approval. It is becoming clear that the UN’s collusion with corporate industrial players in the information business is just another case study of corporate fascism to add to the list we started here.)

According to this Canadian Federal government webpage, the Global Declaration is a document that was last modified on October 29, 2024 and signed by the following 36 countries:

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Czechia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Poland, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Uruguay, United States

This Declaration establishes a set of high-level international commitments by participating States to protect and promote information integrity online. It is grounded in international law, in particular human rights treaties, as the foundation of good governance that transcends borders, promotes equality and freedom of expression and the media. The Declaration also sets out participant States’ expectations that industry and online platforms adopt a human rights-respecting approach and employ business practices that contribute to a healthy information ecosystem online. It aims to build on the work of the Summit for Democracy Cohort on Information Integrity, the work of civil society, including the Forum on Information & Democracy and its various reports on the reliability of information, and aims to complement existing UN efforts underway such as the Code of Conduct for Information Integrity on Digital Platforms. The Declaration forges a positive pathway forward for the promotion of information integrity online, working together towards a rules-based, democratic, safe, and digitally inclusive world. This focus also enables us to strengthen existing multilateral and multi-stakeholder efforts to protect the information ecosystem. At the heart of this approach is our shared belief in working towards the full and meaningful access to, and use of, the Internet and other digital technologies for all.

Looking a little further, we find that

• a search for Summit for Democracy Cohort on Information Integrity leads to a inactive (possibly archived) webpage belonging to the US Department of State.

• a search for Code of Conduct for Information Integrity on Digital Platforms leads us to the globalist machinery of the United Nations. This policy paper was written in preparation for the UN Summit of the Future. The Summit, in turn, was held in September 2024, virtually unreported on in Canada’s mainstream media. Few Canadians are aware of this documentation or that the Hon. Bob Rae’s role was Canada’s delegate to the UN. Even fewer understand the role he plays in implementing this corporatist/fascist agenda, through his promotion of these types of initiatives coupled with his silence on key concerns.

  World leaders adopt a Pact for the Future that includes a Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations (A/RES/79/1). The Pact covers a broad range of themes, including peace and security, sustainable development, climate change, digital cooperation, human rights, gender, youth and future generations, and the transformation of global governance. https://www.un.org/en/summit-of-the-future

• One of the issues noted in the policy paper was that in Europe, for example, it was up to member states to determine what they themselves deemed to be ‘disinformation’. But the authors of the policy paper put forth the idea that determining the nature of ‘disinformation’ should be done on a global scale and NOT be left to local governments, especially not “authoritative” governments.

To protect users and the information environment from harmful content, digital platforms should be required to uniformly enforce internal guidelines for all content published on their platforms, including by political representatives. At the moment, for example, Facebook treats content published by politicians as “newsworthy” content that should, as a rule, be seen and heard, even if breaking the community standards. Considering that the users of digital platforms are not able to see balanced content due to the algorithmic setup promoting content with the highest engagement potential, we consider the exemption for political speech as dangerous, as it allows for hate speech and violent content to be used as a part of pre-election campaigning. (1) Such an exemption should only be applied in exceptional cases when necessary for informing citizens and/or the international community.

While the EU’s Code of Practice on Disinformation leaves the definition of illegal content to member states, the UN Code of Conduct is set to be universally applied, including in authoritative regimes. (2) Therefore, it would be preferable for it to draw upon international human rights law instruments to delineate the illegality of online content… To prevent Member States from arbitrarily defining independent media or fact-checkers, the Code should draw upon existing initiatives and Codes as references. Examples include the International Fact-Checking Network, ensuring that organizations engaged in fact-checking or combating mis- and disinformation adhere to the highest standards of methodology, ethics, and transparency….In pursuit of equitable and unbiased resource distribution, GLOBSEC recommends the establishment of a UN-based Fund for Information Integrity. This fund would serve as a crucial mechanism to support independent media, fact-checking organizations and vetted researchers globally. (3) The Fund’s support could derive not only from the Member States’ contributions but also from voluntary contributions by digital platforms, with the funding decision-making process led by the UN, distributing funds on a proportional geographic basis….

https://www.globsec.org/sites/default/files/2023-12/United%20Nations%20Code%20of%20Conduct%20for%20Information%20Integrity%20on%20Digital%20Platforms%20ver2%20web_0.pdf (page 3, undated but published prior to the September 2024 UN General Assembly)

Closeness to Corporate Fascism

Did you catch the details? Keep in mind that since 2019, the United Nations entered into a formal partnership with the world’s largest corporate lobby group, the World Economic Forum. This is the same group that has long been publishing handbooks intended to provide guidance to governments officials on nearly all topics in their bailiwick, naturally seeking to have governments implement actions beneficial to corporate over citizen interests.. (Search for “handbook” “guidance for governments” or “Agile”) for a look at countless documents generated by industry for governments, eerily reminiscent of corporate fascism. Instead of governments standing firm against corporate interests in favour of citizen needs and rights, we now see governments actually welcoming in those corporations allowing them the power to remove citizen rights and put corporate interests above citizen needs. Instead of our left-leaning politicians who bill themselves as being “on the side of ordinary Canadians instead of billionaires” drawing everyone’s attention to this corporate takeover of the UN, or Canadian mainstream media platforms doing so, we need to rely on outside agencies to publicize the concerns.

Even Politicians on Campaign to be barred from Critical Speech (1)

Instead of finding a technical solution to this problem: “users of digital platforms are not able to see balanced content due to the algorithmic setup promoting content with the highest engagement potential” the authors of the policy paper recommended having digital platform include enforcement against “harmful content” to include enforcement of the words of politicians, for example during campaign speeches. IN OTHER WORDS the voices that oppose government platforms could be deemed “harmful” and those candidates or elected officials who speak about alternative views, data, proposals etc. SHOULD BE DEEMED as “disinformation providers.” Did this policy proposal make it to the United Nations General Assembly? Were any revisions undertaken or did it fully pass? Most of us have no idea, since there was near ZERO reporting in the mainstream media on the happenings at the United Nations at the time the Pact for the Future was adopted. If these policies were eventually included and adopted, when do they officially kick in here in Canada? Again, without any mainstream reporting on these details, we have no answers. Imagine the consequence, regardless of which party is in government, of having ANYONE sharing views and policy proposals that counter the status quo, of being deemed guilty of “harmful” speech. Just as Amazon was selected to run communications for the US army, imagine corporations VOTING ON POLICIES that provide themselves with business opportunities like surveillance and tracking of communications of all Canadians in order to find and punish any whose views counter the “official, government” viewpoints. How many think tanks or charities funded by eager corporate interests sit on the voting floor at United Nations and World Health Assemblies and are allowed to participate in or influence voting? This question was NOT addressed by government-backed and corporate-funded “mainstream” media at such recent assemblies both last year and again now in 2025.

Global Control on Determining Disinformation (2)

Anyone from one part of the country who has noted that people from other parts DO NOT REALLY UNDERSTAND the local context, can worry about the policy proposal to have a CENTRALIZED GLOBAL COMMAND determining what is to be deemed “illegal” content, or to define which independent media and which fact-checkers should be seen as acceptable and unacceptable in each country. The authors of the policy paper propose that the UN Code of Conduct be created to set uniform information standards world wide. They also propose turning decision making powers over to the International Fact-Checking Network in the assumption that this association can truly “adhere to the highest standards of methodology, ethics, and transparency…

This is an assumption ONLY. Nearly anyone can be hired on and trained as a “fact checker” even without any specialized expertise. The IFCN is far from an unbiased, neutral organization. In fact, it is run by the Poynter Institute, which in turn is funded by some of the organizations and foundations launched by major “Agenda Contributors” to the World Economic Forum. Is Canada’s Ambassador to the UN, Hon. Bob Rae even aware of the desire of UN policy makers to determine “harmful” and “acceptable” speech, by means of the corporate backed and totally flawed “fact-checking network”?

Does he or his staff know whether all of the recommendations in this policy paper were imbedded in and adopted by government and foundation representatives as part of the UN Pact for the Future? Is he able to see how corporate interests have once again weaponized compassion and concern in order to push their agenda. The parallels to “public health” are chilling.

See this sequence of events as outlined by the Canadian COVID_Sense initiative found here: https://x.com/sense_covid/status/1904391898477076809. This is the introductory slide only:

In the case of censorship and “combatting disinformation”, BigPharma, along with BigFinance and Military Defense could be seen as 1) The Boss. These would be any entities in a position to set in motion information warfare techniques intended to maximize their sales potential.

2) There may be various sets of Brains involved, in particular those who found organizations ostensibly to “promote democracy” globally.

3)The United Nations continues in the role of The Front. Well intentioned, ill-informed individuals assume the UN is such a mild and benevolent organization whose guidelines are well thought through. Canadian citizens, bureaucrats and politicians who do not question the way in which global corporate influence is eroding ethical principles and practices in once-trusted institutions like the UN continue uncritcally believing in their benevolence.

4) & 5) In the role of Patsy and Muscle we might see anyone in charge of media ethics, editorial decision making, etc. in particular those who can build or destroy a journalist’s employability and reputation.

6) The Hostages in this case would be those journalists who have been conditioned NOT to investigate and write about issues identified by the “fact-checkers” as “disinformation” or “conspiracy theories”. 7) And in the role of the Victim are all the citizens who are unaware of

• the LIE of “safe and effective” COVID-19 injections spun by BigPharma

• the LIES behind the military conflicts in Palestine and Ukraine promoted and enforced by BigMilitary

• the LIES behind the many other narratives that profit BigCorp. (For a brief listing see the “cartoon” story in this post.)

Not only recommend corporate-backed “fact checkers” but send taxpayer monies to support them (3)

While these recommendations of the authors of the policy paper might sound positive:

recommends the establishment of a UN-based Fund for Information Integrity. This fund would serve as a crucial mechanism to support independent media, fact-checking organizations and vetted researchers globally.

clearly they are not. The term “independent” media refers to journalists who are supported by this fund… independent in name only. Note also that the researchers who receive fund support would need to be “vetted”. Clearly a UN-based fund would be in partnership with those with a vested interest in stopping critical voices from cutting into their profits. Similarly, Canada’s Institutes for Health Research had vetted Professor Timothy Caulfield and his Science Up First initiative and granted them fund support. Members of this initiative have been used as attack dogs against truly independent researchers and medical/scientific professionals with the courage to point at flaws in government policy around COVID-19. Not only are they not trained in fields of immunology, computational biology, or the treatment of vaccine injured patients, they totally lack the intellectual curiosity to try to learn the information ethical professionals are sharing DESPITE harms to their income and their ability to support themselves and their families financially. These kinds of “bought and paid for” “researchers” would the beneficiaries of the fund being proposed here.

It is clearly an irony that in supposedly supporting “information integrity”, UN policy makers are devising means that are the total opposite of the terms of the UN Declaration on Information Integrity itself.

See Part 2 - WHY Information Integrity is needed… when a longstanding journalist is impacted by our flawed information ecosystem.