Government Passes Anti-Constitutional Surveillance Law During Ottawa Shooting

A terrible tragedy befell the nation’s capital yesterday, when a shooter opened fire at government sites in Ottawa. A full investigation must begin to assemble the details, as the flames of hysteria are fanned in the public consciousness. The words “terror” and “terrorism” have been tossed around so casually, that nowadays any hardened criminal would classify as a terrorist according to the Harper Government and mainstream news sources. For that matter, political activists who take issue with the government’s policies at home and abroad are referenced in the same manner.


On the opposite end of the spectrum, social media is rife with suspicion that this horrendous event may represent a false flag operation, to assist the government’s dismantling of civil liberty and human rights in the name of war, profit, political posturing and public control.


That’s not to say this wasn’t an act of terrorism. Maybe it was, but surely it’s too early to reach a conclusion when the names of suspects hadn’t been released to hypothesize a motive. Or had they?


At 10:13am EDT, The Globe and Mail‘s Josh Wingrove reported that tactical officers were pointing guns at every parliamentary journalist on site.  (Via Twitter)




At 12:11pm EDT, The CBC’s Kady O’Malley reported her group was ordered to leave a local rooftop by police, as they continued to search for a culprit and attempted to secure the area.




By 1:14pm EDT, Ms. O’Malley reported a continuing lockdown that blanketed Ottawa. She was unclear if the event was over, as no further information was available.




While Canadian news personalities were at police gunpoint, American outlets like CBS News and the Associated Press had a full story to sell, complete with the dead shooter’s name.


Before the scene was secure at 10:54am EDT, a joint release was published to identify the culprit. It stated,


The gunmen has been identified by U.S. officials to CBS News as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a Canadian national born in 1982.”




By 4:58pm EDT, the story was edited to remove the shooter’s name, or any mention of the U.S. government’s knowledge.






The only problem is that no one could update the Google database quick enough with these changes, so the original information still appeared with search results.




This story was altered again in the evening, when the Canadian government allowed the name of a shooter to be released and American media added law enforcement to their list of official sources.  They also added a middle name, Abdul, to emphasize the suspect’s Islamic ties with an accusation of terrorism.




As members of parliament begin to piece this tragedy together, they’re advised to inquire how American intelligence knew the name of a ‘possible terrorist’ as the mayhem was still unfolding. How did Americans know when Canadians didn’t, and how was the information so widespread that foreign media and Google had access to distribute, but domestic reporters on the scene did not.


Canadian parliamentary bureau chiefs didn’t posses the same information as their U.S. counterparts and they faced the barrel of police guns as a narrative was provided on their behalf by another country. If this is dubbed an act of terrorism that American sources had knowledge to pre-report, then why weren’t steps taken to prevent the violence?


Many have questioned how a gunman could enter parliament with a rifle unnoticed, despite the massive security and busy lineups. Some are calling for greater state police control and warmed to relinquishing their Charter rights, in an effort to fight the new war on domestic terrorism. Something has to justify police militarization since the War on Drugs has been transformed into a lucrative product of capitalism.


All Canadians who pay attention to the news are acutely aware of a creeping police state and the loss of privacy rights in the tradeoff. In fact, one Liberal MP, Joyce Murray, proposed Bill C-622 to gain oversight of CSIS and CSEC, so law enforcement can’t overstep its bounds to the degree that’s been revealed through Snowden leaks.


This shooting event also occurs at a time when the Mayor of Ottawa is seeking re-election, with a history of accommodating CSEC as a business partner.


The journalist who brought these Snowden leaks to light is in town to promote his new book about the overreaching powers of a surveillance state. Glenn Greenwald will be speaking just a few blocks from Parliament Hill, in the same neighbourhood that’s under lockdown. It’s purely coincidental that he wrote a scathing piece about the Canadian government and co-dependent media’s abuse of the word “terrorism” a day earlier.


Meanwhile, the NDP noticed a different terrorism anomaly regarding the violence in Quebec on the day before as well. The Prime Minister’s Office was accused of planting a foreboding comment in Question Period, that preempted police reports of a “possible terror attack against soldiers”.


Public Safety Minster Steve Blaney reported the Monday event was “clearly linked to terrorist ideology”, but the Toronto Star reported multiple witnesses saw the suspect with his hands in the air, when at least one police officer opened fire. They also say a knife was “lodged into the ground near where the incident occurred”.


Well, that’s what the original story by Allan Woods, Bruce Campion-Smith, Joanna Smith, Tonda MacCharles and Les Whittington stated. A syndicated copy had to be located at the Cambridge Times, because a newer, edited version at the Toronto Star appeared dramatically altered by Tuesday.




Forsaking journalism ethics, the Toronto Star surprised industry watchers by editing this story without providing a notice to reflect the consequential changes. Now the article claims the suspect was an Islamic radical, who emerged from the vehicle with a knife in his hands. There is no mention of any witnesses who saw his hands in the air and the knife was no longer lodged in the ground. All information from witnesses was removed without explanation, or apology for reporting incorrectly at the onset, if indeed the witnesses were mistaken. The French press at TVA still values the eye witness accounts, but no English speaking media reflects these reports from the scene.


This TorStar article was more than edited and qualifies as being replaced entirely, having lost its tone, facts and spirit from the original published version. It was radically changed to support the government’s narrative and censored independent sources that previously appeared, replacing them with quotes from the Harper administration that focus on the suspect’s motive for Islamic terrorism.




If it wasn’t for smaller newspapers syndicating the Toronto Star‘s original content, there would be no proof of the first comprehensive version. Professional journalists don’t normally condone editors changing the spirit of their work without a caveat, especially when five reporters collaborated to produce the same entry. The history created by print newspapers also couldn’t be erased with the click of a button, before the press migrated to internet-based reporting that appears to lack mechanisms of accountability.


These two examples oppose each other due to the disparity between facts and there is no footnote to reflect this glaring incongruency. The Toronto Star has been a leader in journalism ethics and wouldn’t alter published pieces to discredit their own reporting without a reason being provided. That is, until they and a bevy of established journalists who remained silent, had a taste of the politics of fear.


Any reasonable person should be afraid when gunshots are flying from hostile individuals, but will fear be allowed to dictate a terrorism narrative in place of the facts? The Opposition’s privacy and ethics critic, MP Charlie Angus, also describes gunshots around 10am EDT, while American media had solved the event by 10:54am EDT and members of parliament were being detained without access to the same information.


If the U.S government could assess a terrorist attack on Canadian soil before the Canadian government was aware, then why was it not prevented? On the same token, if the Canadian government was in the middle of mayhem, then how did Americans obtain information that wasn’t available to affected bureaucrats, from their own intelligence and law enforcement agencies? What powers does America have over Canada that Canada doesn’t have itself? If a shooting on government property can be solved before it’s even finished, then why wasn’t CSIS, CSEC, DHS and the NSA capable of early intervention? After all, the Wednesday shooter was already placed on the government’s watch-list.


The timing is incredible and may very well be motivated by the war against ISIS/ISIL. Canada shed its peacekeeping status for more aggressive combat that generates profits for the Canada Pension Plan, with the potential to invite ideological backlash. This is not disputed. An unbiased investigation is required, but the public should be patient for confirmed, judicial facts; bearing in mind political motives, various narratives and the race to sell fear.


On the very day terrorism was alleged in Quebec, the Harper Government passed Bill C-13 without much notice from the peanut gallery. Until Monday, Bill C-13 was one of the most controversial pieces of legislation that was presented under the guise of cyber-bullying, but even the mother of Amanda Todd spoke against the exploitation of her daughter’s death as a tool to create a warrantless surveillance state in this vein.


Due to terrorism accusations made by the Harper Government that took up most of the day, no mainstream news reported the bill’s passage later in the same day. CBC was the only major outlet to mention the bill on Monday, but they neglected to note the House of Commons vote or passage of this legislation at any point in the story. They presented the information as incremental progress while failing to report its successful, parliamentary completion.


This too presents a problem with ethical journalism, but CBC has seen its fair share of challenges since the Harper Government appointed ten Conservative donors to the board of directors, with influence over the public broadcaster’s direction.


Regardless, the only mention of Bill C-13 passing arises from a Saanich News editorial. The smaller publication urges everyone to be vigilant as this legislation completes the last step of approval (ascent) with senate, that is dominated by a Conservative majority.


Surprisingly, the senate passed a first reading of Bill C-13 the very next day. It accomplished that hurdle expediently on Tuesday, but this wasn’t reported by any source whatsoever. Senators then scheduled a second reading in two days’ time, on Thursday, October 23, 2014. The only lapse in this process was the Wednesday parliamentary shooting.


By today Bill C-13 may see the quickest passage through any bureaucracy in the democratic world, without the public or media noticing and while legislators are reeling from the ominous smell of gun smoke. Neither the parliamentary reporters who stared down the barrel of a police gun on Tuesday, nor the members of parliament who were barricaded, would be rested very well.


Plus there’s an RCMP press conference about the Wednesday shooting that will surely distract attention from the new law. In the days ahead, it’s likely they’ll tout Bill C-13 as a way to catch terrorists, also under the guise of cyberbulling and even though being watch-listed with preexisting surveillance powers didn’t prevent Michael Zehaf-Bibeau from taking action.


This brings us to what’s at stake. The taboo that nobody wants to evaluate. The decision senators will have to make while recovering from a psychologically traumatic breach of personal security.


We’re talking about public data surveillance, or what closely resembles stalking.


There are plenty of ambiguous words used to describe big data monitoring, but few understand what it means or how deeply it’s abused behind the sealed doors at CSEC. Warrantless internet surveillance has the potential to track a target’s GPS movements with updating by the minute. It can penetrate the entire chain of communication between an individual and their contacts, including strangers who make reference to the target by any degree of separation across the world wide web. The technology has predictive behaviour capabilities. Every citizen caught in this widespread dragnet is psychologically assessed through language semantics and assigned a persuasion, to determine if any of them presents a public relations issue, or if the original target has too much influence to garner support for their business, political and/or social beliefs.


Five Eyes governments have established media surveillance programs specifically. They surveil news topics and journalists, to monitor the reporter’s effect on public perception. When anyone posts a news link on any form of social media, all comments are collected and ranked for government and law enforcement dissemination. Canada spent $20 million and hired 3,300 staff to spy on journalists and political opponents since 2012. The European Commission and United States does the same, in this vacuum of nonexistent legislation to protect the public’s privacy in the modern age. Instead of updating constitutional rights to reflect modern technology, they’ve crafted legislation like Bill C-13 that revokes those rights entirely.


This goes beyond the confines of metadata and only the Privacy Commissioner of Ontario has taken up the cause, likely to the chagrin of political parties that have begun to use similar technology against their opponents during elections. Whatever good this intrusive spying could accomplish is outweighed by the bad. Michael Sona only possessed a list of phone numbers and intentions, let alone mapping of the entire public’s thoughts and updates on the location of political foes by the minute.


If anyone physically tailed a political candidate, volunteer or supporter every minute of the day and night, or attempted to record every one of their exchanges, it would be considered criminal harassment. If that person also tailed every contact who spoke about their target and psychologically assessed them to create charts, it would surpass Hollywood’s fascination with the complex plotting of serial offenders.


But this isn’t fiction and warrantless internet surveillance can be used to harm a civilian, based on their political beliefs. In the United States it’s already used to surveil judges, adding a difficult challenge to the essence and appearance of democracy. The dialogue is strictly controlled to conceal these uses and they’re couched in the terrorist argument, to discourage the public from searching deeper.


Residents have been told if they don’t break the law, there is nothing to fear. This subverts any purpose of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and replaces that document with a Trust Me clause from the government. It replaces the core legal relationship between citizens and law enforcement, with unrestrained power and no oversight to justify its use. It imperils evidentiary laws that are designed to protect the innocent.


Beyond the dry language of legislation, this is how the words of Bill C-13 can be utilized by an aggressive government and the Five Eyes intelligence community. Suggested reading provides the history and development of technology and related policies in Canada, the United States and Europe. It was becoming law in Canada when the airwaves were filled with terrorism accusations and the government expected no one would notice. It also relates to media surveillance that could explain a few altered stories, deleted posts and political misunderstanding.


Edit, November 22, 2014:  Liberal Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette published a diary of events during the Ottawa shooting, while barricaded in an office with numerous colleagues.  Her honest and forthright account also challenges the Harper government and American explanations.  The timed entries conflict with media reports, as documented above.  She further includes mention of a second shooter.

Posted on October 23, 2014, in Canadian Politics, Ontario Politics, US Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 57 Comments.

  1. Canada’s coup d’état is in slow motion

    Death of the Liberal Class 10/22/2010. Is Chris Hedges right? Have the pillars which protect a liberal democracy – the press, liberal religious institutions, labour unions, universities and the Democratic Party in the U.S. – sold out to corporate interests?

    Chris Hedges on the loss of democracy from major American institutions, including education, religion, politics and unions and of the growing corporate class.

  2. In debate, the NDP pointed out it had proposed 17 amendments to the bill at the committee stage, but all were rejected by the Conservatives, who dominate the committee. The Liberals proposed no amendments.

  3. Reblogged this on Starship Earth: The Big Picture and commented:
    Now, we’re getting closer to the truth…

  4. it is 9/11 all over again here in Canada. It is obvious this was planted hello. Now Canada is not a democray any more either.

  5. This article is inaccurate. This bill hasn’t actually passed yet. It’s gone through two senate readings and has one more to go before it can be passed. This is probably why no other news source was reporting on it ‘passing’. It does look likely that it will pass but it has not happened yet.

    OCTOBER 20, 2014”

    Lindsay Grace, Doesn’t this mean it HAS passed?

    • No Maria, it doesn’t. There’s multiple stages. You should really read up on the process if you want to be better informed.

    • Hi Maria,

      That just means that it was passed by the House of Commons (3 readings I believe). It then needs to go through 3 Senate readings and then it needs Royal Assent. It would come into force about 3 months after Royal Assent from what I can tell. Royal Assent is really just a formality though. This website might give you a better picture of the process:

      Hope that helps!

    • PS. Luke, there’s no need to be condescending. Maria asked a legitimate question about a political process that most Canadians have no idea about. If you have knowledge on the subject you could have given a bit of an explanation or provided resources to help her learn.

  7. Government equals dumbermen.

  8. I don’t get it. The Summary for C-13 clearly states that warrants are still required. It simply extends these warrants to all media. Am I missing something? I don’t see any sweeping permissions for authorities to spy on people. Is this really as bad as everyone says?

  9. Was enjoying and convinced of the article until you said what I’ll paste below from it.
    Why the change of heart – Well when the Liberals were in power the dominated CBC sand ran it like their own post WWII broadcasting source. These positions were put in to balance out control – looks like you are your story just twisted

    This too presents a problem with ethical journalism, but CBC has seen its fair share of challenges since the Harper Government appointed ten Conservative donors to the board of directors, with influence over the public broadcaster’s direction.

  10. It gets worse. The Conservatives are understood to be considering new legislation that would make it an offence to condone terrorist acts online.

    CBC, the Glob n Mail have some explaining to do.

  11. This is an interesting article but it really needs to be better written and broken up. There is far too much information being thrown at the reader. Stories like this need to be told so make it easier by providing sub-headlines, clear tangents and formatting, and a concise style.

    Otherwise it is disheartening to see such discrepancies, whatever the cause may be. On the issue of the shooters identity I would suggest it is only an assumption that Canadian officials or news outlets did not know.

    That the American news choose to report it does not necessarily indicate they knew more than Canada, only that they were going to trust their source more and stick their necks out. Something the more reactive media in the US is well-known to do.

  12. This is what technology has done. We get footage from the scene and people can see things we otherwise would not ever get to see.

    • Cars have windows, one of the guys was right next to the car. is it not plausible that he saw the gun through the window and yelled, this guys got a gun? and everyone’s just runs? each of these individuals was close enough to the vehicle to see the gun through the window. you ass hat!

      • Also, the maker of this YouTube video doesn’t seem to know that one can’t drive a car from the street onto the hill. The shooter parked the car on the street, ran through the barriers at the foot of the hill to the ministerial car. So at the end of the video when he queries why the shooter would park one car and then run to a second car, he obviously doesn’t understand there is a physical barrier preventing someone from driving up onto the hill. He’s obviously never been there to see it for himself.

  13. Reblogged this on About Meg and commented:
    the one strength of social media – passing on the info

  14. this is fucking ridiculous. this soldier isn’t even home yet, hasn’t had any service…yet you’re worried about press censorship. get your heads out of your fucking asses for two minutes. waaa waaa the press was kicked out of a locked down zone after a gunman went on a rampage. who gives a shit if the american news agencies posted this asshole’s name.

    seriously. grow the fuck up. someone’s dead…your personal liberties can take a backseat for a few hours.

    • No Michael, you need to get your head out of your ass. If one death is enough for you to turn your back on our rights and freedoms and allow the government total autonomy, you are a fool. Our personal liberties were built by a lot of people who have risked and gave their lives for it. I will again reiterate what a fool you are to think that it is the other way around.

      • Grow the fuck up, seriously don’t fall to one of these everything is a conspiracy because it makes you look like a piece of shit, take a minute and remember what happened. Fuck the media they don’t deserve to be there, no one does.

    • The death of one soldier is tragic, but their purpose is and always is, to protect our liberties. A soldier does not sign up for the job and say, “but if I die, please repeal everyone’s freedom, for the greater good” Their death was for our freedom, for our liberty. If you can’t understand that, you are too stupid to call yourself a Canadian.

    • You’re an idoit. Its not about liberties while it was happening its the aftermath and fast tracking ofclaww that violate our civil rights and liberties. The charter of rights and freedoms was created for a fucking reason

  15. Simon Goodwin – The rub is the enforcement provisions. It’s letting police officers give Bell, Shaw, and Rogers a call and asking for all those IP address and names, and then throwing these perps in prison, provided, of course, “reasonable grounds for suspicion,” otherwise known as the ‘pinky-swear provision’. The bill plainly opens the door to police getting information without a warrant – through the immunity provisions that apply broadly, not just to telecoms, the bill’s thresholds for warrants are too low and the cyberbullying law is too broad and vague.

  16. Great article, that clearly points out that MSM is not to be trusted although I already knew this. The piece on the CBS having this information prior me ever knowing about this shooting is outrageous and makes this whole incident even worse then it is. The fact that our government has the audacity to do this is truly concerning, but they will get away with it, as everyone buys into the “terrorism” lies that are being spread, through that in with ebola (which is a bunch of bs) and people are lining up to give their freedom’s away. The path we are going down is a path of destruction and we need to change this asap.

  17. Canada is losing its Soul!

    The tragedies of the last few days should give Canadians pause, a time to think, about who we really are as a people!

    Losing a Soldier at any time is tragic, but at the War Memorial, and Standing on Guard, unarmed for every service man or woman who has lost life or limb, and mental health, to protect and promote our National Promise gives every Canadian a National Opportunity to consider the most important election in this country’s history in 2015 a watershed moment!

    We can honour the sacrifice made by our slain soldiers in this week by electing a government that will Serve the Leadership and Will of a Real Majority of Canadians! 338 seats will be available in 2015 when the writ is dropped! Electing a Non-Partisan “Courageous Canadian” in every federal riding in the country who will be committed to answering the call of his or her constituents through Free and Un-whipped Votes on all Legislation and Motions put to the People of Canada will give the economic and democratic power to the Peoples of this great country!

    If we aspire to be the very best example to the world of a democracy, then the ballot boxes of the Nation will be our greatest opportunity to recognize the the loss of Mr. Cirillio by electing a government that will Stand on Guard for Canadians First, for a government that answers the call of these times to present Canada as a Light to the World for Truth and Justice and Freedom for all who call themselves, and those yet to come, Canadian!

    By removing Partisan Politics from our Governance, and electing Members of Parliament committed to transferring the power to a Real Majority of Canadians we will embrace another 150 years of our National Sovereign Will to direct our affairs according to the Vision of the most important Shareholders in this country!

    Our Fathers of Confederation had a Vision that has sustained us thus far, but we must honour them, and pick of the Torch that they have handed us through the Constitution and make decisions that will restore our Foundation and to be governed by the Sovereign Minds and Hearts of Canadians!

    We can pick up the Torch for our fallen soldiers of this past week and use our ballots to protect the Promise of Canada!

    We can Keep our Soul Sovereign and Free!

  18. Timothy Hickey……….would you like to be our new Prime Minister? Oh how I wish that all you say could be so easily attained.

    • get enough people to vote for him, and he can be prime minister. all he has to do is register and be a born canadian citizen. Hell, you’re favourite cab driver has the opertunity to run for prime minister.

      • The guy who controls the most seats is the one holding the title of Prime Minister. So that favourite cab driver of yours is going to need enough candidates who support him as well as get elected himself. Lo and behold that’s why the Party leader with the most seats winds up in the big chair.

  19. If I am ever put into a situation where I absalutely don’t agree with it. I’ll retaliate. Regardless of who the good or the bad guy is in the grand schema of things, the bottom line is the simple fact that there is such a thick ferver around what is going on. It is not with in the power of any one to tell you how you can or cannot defend yourself. For a piece of paper to be used against a population to satisfy a very small entitys requirement for piece of mind, I totally and unrestrictedly don’t care. If those to whom in which we have requested to defend us by a majority or even a minority vote, ever do what they have not been requested to do (defend our rights, not control us) We are the ones in control. If we’re not the ones in control by power of casting vote. Than, what is better? Sitting on our duffs passificated by the latest tweet from a person whoms only quality is visual. Is the greatest gift in life you deserve and will ever get. If what you’ve seen freaks you out, either put the keyboard to good use and and do what ever you can to slow the gears of success that turning in their favor, or go literally and peacefully get your ass to the parlament building and push that atomiton right off his chair. Freedom is not a privelege, defence is not a privelege, life, blood, air, and satisfaction from our daily labors are our rights. If I think I’m safer in a damn mountain than in a camp because some one has the damn sniffles. Than fuck off. If I feel safer literally carrying a ‘restricted’ item to neutralize an indavidual that is going to go out of his way to bring grevious harm on me or any one in visual range of me, than I should be the one deciding where the chalk lines get put. Not them. Having a country that defines what we can do so ‘it’ can feel safe over our own safety is not what we asked them to do for us. They signed up knowing that they’re in real danger of enduring what they’re asked to do. The best part is, there are enough indaviduals who did not vote for the people who have the powers to decide some very consequencial choices that absalutely did not want. What if what they decide puts us in a position to starve, or face a war with some one we as sensible people have absalutely no desire to go against and end up speaking their language. There are so many methods that can be deployed to bring these hazardeous activities being chosen for us with out us. I never asked for you. I did not give you permission to sell enough of our fresh water for us to consider ourselves as not having our own fresh water with out asking the US for it. I didn’t give you a go ahead on that one. If I have to pay some one for water, I’ll get water any damn way I chose!

  20. Reblogged this on Today,s Thought and commented:
    What Harper did on the day of the Ottawa shooting. Bill C-13

  21. Amy and Others, you may be interested in the Timeline, which is quite different than what we’re being fed. You may be interested in the story of the ‘tourist’ taking the picture of Bibeau and how it was uploaded to twitter.

  22. The shooter was known to police before the shooting. The surveillance powers the police already had were enough to find him. More surveillance would not have prevented the shooting.

    We are not fooled.

  23. You may be raising some legitimate questions for examination for discussion, but you’re credibility is a bit shaky when you say the Josh Wingrove tweet about cops pointing their guns at reporters has been removed from twitter. It has not been removed. I am looking at it right now.

  24. I am deeply appreciative of much of what you have to say… but I’ve looked at Bill C-13. It looks like it’s mostly about DNA? Can you illuminate? Where are our Rights and Freedoms being taken away. I want to know because if this is true… that Harper pushed something through that changes our constitutional rights… our charter of rights and freedoms… I want to know!!!

  25. Moncton was a trial run for this BS event. Check out the “cops” wearing running shoes and torn jeans and khakis and waving their guns around like no real cops would ever do. The production values are BS. Notice how propaganda arm CBC unleashed the Ghomeshi crapfest right after this. They probably produced the lousy footage.

  1. Pingback: Government Passes Anti-Constitutional Surveillance Law During Ottawa Shooting | The Big Picture, The Fine Print

  2. Pingback: Government Passes Anti-Constitutional Surveillance Law During Ottawa Shooting | About Meg

  3. Pingback: My Nation"s Capital Under Attack - Page 8 -

  4. Pingback: Government Passes Anti-Constitutional Surveillance Law During Ottawa Shooting | Counter Information

  5. Pingback: Government Passes Anti-Constitutional Surveillance Law During Ottawa Shooting | The TrueFoundLander

  6. Pingback: Breaking News! Canadian Parliament under fire... - Page 5

  7. Pingback: The Rise of the Canadian Surveillance State | Whoa! Canada

  8. Pingback: Government Passes Anti-Constitutional Surveillance Law During Ottawa Shooting | Vegan -Health and Hope

  9. Pingback: The 5 Eyes Spy, and State Sponsored Terror | Ronmamita's Blog

  10. Pingback: “Opportunity” For A Concerted Assault on Our Liberties? | mightyturk

  11. Pingback: Toronto Star Loses Its Religion For Jian Ghomeshi | FreeThePressCanada

  12. Pingback: Harper, The Ottawa Shooter, and Selling of War by Anthony J. Hall

  13. Pingback: CIA Coup d’Etat in Canada « Truth Is Rising

  14. Pingback: Affaire d’Ottawa: Verrouillage du narratif, muselage de la presse et passage de loi liberticide le jour même (C-13) la thèse du faux-drapeau se précise… | Resistance71 Blog

  15. Pingback: The Silent War: A 21st Century Crisis | Ronmamita's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: