Feds keep 860 million pages of historical records inaccessible to Canadians

Nearly 860 million pages of historical records held by Library and Archives Canada remain inaccessible to the public, according to internal federal documents obtained by Blacklock’s Reporter.

An April 21 briefing note, Comprehensive Expenditure Review, revealed an estimated 78% of the federal archives remain closed, leaving only 22% to 25% of records accessible to Canadians either online or in person.

“Seventy-eight percent of records, 860 million pages, are still inaccessible, underscoring the need for continued effort and reform,” said the note, according to Blacklock’s.

Officials blamed the enormous backlog partly on the labour-intensive process of retrieving and digitizing paper records.

“Boxes must be physically retrieved from storage and transported from one building to another,” managers wrote.

Staff must then inspect pages, remove paper clips and staples, determine which scanning equipment to use and review digitized files for legibility. Fragile or mould-damaged documents can require conservation work, while classified records create additional complications.

The problem isn’t new.

A 2021 internal evaluation found Library and Archives Canada’s backlog of private archival material stretched an estimated eight kilometres of cartons, with staff acknowledging the material was unavailable to researchers.

The Auditor General raised similar concerns more than a decade ago.

A 2014 audit found Library and Archives Canada was warehousing boxes without even processing them to determine exactly what they contained or whether the records were historically significant.

“Until the boxes are processed Library and Archives Canada will not know what is in them,” auditors wrote.

Among the warehoused material were 24,000 Department of National Defence records, some dating as far back as the Boer War, along with another 5,200 cartons from the Department of Justice.

Keep reading

Judge Rules For Doctor Who Prescribed Ivermectin For COVID-19

A doctor’s lawsuit against Maine’s medical board can proceed, a federal judge has ruled.

An order from the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine that Dr. Meryl Nass undergo a psychological evaluation for allegedly spreading misinformation about COVID-19 was “based on no evidence or process,” including no probable cause, U.S. District Judge Lance Walker said in an Aug. 20 decision.

“In judicial proceedings, at a minimum probable cause findings ordinarily are required to justify pretrial impositions. In this case, as alleged, the Board dispensed with preliminary proceedings altogether,” Walker wrote.

The process appeared to have “lacked any safeguards to protect against agency zeal and resembled investigatory action imposed, somewhat ironically, in the absence of evidence rather than the initiation of an impartial, sober, thoughtful judicial process designed to assess the truth of facts to arrive at the existence of probable cause to justify such a sanction,” he also said.

The board did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

“I am happy to report that I will eagerly move forward with the legal case to clear my name and defend the free speech right of medical practitioners to tell the truth to their patients, especially if it goes against government or medical orthodoxy,” Nass said in a blog post.

Maine’s medical board in 2022 suspended Nass’s license after receiving a complaint from a person who was not her patient that the doctor was spreading misinformation about COVID-19 because she noted that people who recovered from the illness had protection against re-infection.

Board members also took issue with how Nass prescribed ivermectin to a COVID-19 patient and lied to a pharmacist about why she prescribed hydroxychloroquine to another patient. It was for COVID-19, not for Lyme disease.

The board ordered Nass to undergo a psychological evaluation in order to get her license back, among other conditions. State law only authorizes such an order when a licensee “may be unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of mental illness, alcohol intemperance, excessive use of drugs, narcotics, or as a result of a mental or physical condition interfering with the competent practice of medicine,” Walker noted in the new ruling.

“The record before the Board did not include any suggestion or information that Dr. Nass suffered from drug or alcohol abuse or a physical condition, suggesting that, if anything, the Board considered Dr. Nass’s opinions to be the product of not independent thought but a mental illness or mental condition,” he said. “Alternatively, the imposition of this sanction would suggest that the Board was making an example out of Dr. Nass.”

The Maine Superior Court previously voided the psychological evaluation order, concluding it was arbitrary and capricious.

After that court ruled, Maine’s medical board asked the federal court in Maine to throw out Nass’s lawsuit.

Walker sided with the board regarding its actions apart from the evaluation, finding members enjoyed immunity for their conduct during the hearing on the allegations against Nass and for their determination to suspend her license.

But the case can move forward regarding the psychological evaluation order, he said.

“The scope of what remains of Dr. Nass’s claims will need to be addressed in later proceedings but includes, at a minimum, the requirement that she submit to a psychological evaluation,” the ruling stated.

Nass told The Epoch Times in an email that her license remains suspended because the board imposed conditions that would have prevented her from practicing independently, including requiring her to send her charts regularly to the board for review.

“The reason I wanted a license was so that if another pandemic happened, I would be able to provide the appropriate care to patients as I saw fit, which might not be what the government recommended,” Nass said. “Since the conditions the Board imposed precluded that, I did not seek to regain the license, which remains suspended.”

Nass also said she recently moved to New Hampshire.

Keep reading

A Law That the People It Targets Can Defeat With a Felt-Tip Pen

The Online Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill was introduced on 24 August 2026 – the very day I arrived back in New Zealand after nearly a month away.

Readers of “A Halflings View” will be well aware of my views about bans or restrictions on access to social media platform by the young. Although the news media have trumpeted the present proposals as a “ban” it is not. It actually constitutes a form of limited restriction.

This article is very much a “first impression” view of the Bill. Much of the material and commentary is gathered from earlier writings I have produced on the subject as well as from other sources among them Ani O’Brien, “Thought Crimes” (Substack) — “Hear me out: Ban the hardware not the software”; the New Zealand Initiative; Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster; UNICEF Aotearoa (Susan Glasgow); Australia’s eSafety Commissioner three-month evaluation (July 2026); UK Ofcom/House of Lords material and reporting on the Online Safety Act; and US litigation (NetChoice; the Louisiana and Arkansas decisions).

Furthermore, this article (and indeed the Bill itself) will not be the final word.

The Bill has not yet had its First Reading and that is unlikely before Parliament rises. But Prime Minister Luxon and Erica Stanford were determined to push this ill-advised proposal ahead at pace, even although what it really amounts to is an announcement until the Bill has its First Reading. And it may even fall at that fence. If it makes it, Select Committee submissions and further commentary will accumulate quickly.

Hence the critique reflects the position as at the time of publication of this article.

What the Bill actually does

The Online Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill, introduced to Parliament on 24 August 2026 by Education Minister Erica Stanford, is a stand-alone statute built on two load-bearing duties.

The first (clause 11) requires operators of “age-restricted platforms” to take reasonable steps to stop New Zealanders under 16 from holding an account. The second (clause 14) requires those operators to produce an annual, written child safety risk assessment covering all under-18s who use the platform.

Behind these sit an enforcement apparatus of warnings, enforceable undertakings, corrective notices, tiered pecuniary penalties (up to the greater of NZ$40 million or 10% of global turnover), and, as a last resort, service restriction orders and access restriction orders that would conscript ISPs, app stores and ancillary providers into preventing access to the platform from New Zealand.

The regulator is the Secretary of Internal Affairs — the chief executive of the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA). More on this disturbing aspect later.

Much of the drafting is careful.

It regulates the account, not the child, so no penalty falls on minors or parents.

It explicitly forbids treating manual date-of-birth entry as a “reasonable step”.

It goes beyond the Privacy Act by requiring destruction of age-assurance data.

The Bill is also more sophisticated than the “ban” it is marketed as. As I have argued on earlier occasions about similar proposals, this is a set of managed restrictions on account-holding, not a prohibition on children seeing content. Publicly available material remains reachable.

But the care in the drafting cannot rescue the concept.

The Bill imports a policy model that has already been trialled next door in Australia and in Britain, and the trials are in.

What follows is the case against it — a case now supported by a striking amount of hard evidence rather than speculation — followed by the specific problem of handing the whole scheme to the DIA.

The central flaw: a “targeted” measure that touches everyone

The Bill’s rhetorical appeal rests on the idea that it targets under-16s. Its mechanism does not.

To reliably prevent a 15-year-old from holding an account, a platform must satisfy itself about the age of every account-holder — which in practice means age-assuring the entire adult population as well.

Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster made the point bluntly when the policy was first floated. Keeping under-16s out means everyone over 16 has to prove they are over 16. The New Zealand Initiative put it the same way — everyone will have to demonstrate they are not under sixteen, including you.

This is the paradox the Bill never resolves, and it is not a drafting quibble but the whole problem.

Clause 11 forbids the “cheap check” (a manual date of birth entry) and forbids relying solely on formal ID or a digital identity service, which forces platforms toward either document upload, facial age-estimation, or “age inference” from behavioural and device signals.

Keep reading

Court Backs DMCA Takedown of Public Meeting Videos

The US copyright system is often used as a tool of censorship, and a recent court ruling shows that there is little to stop this from happening.

The way the system is set up, it provides a powerful tool for anyone to unceremoniously remove content from the internet, with no questions asked. At least not initially.

That tool is the DMCA takedown notice, and the law that underpins it, and the whole system, is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). One of its sections, 512(f), is meant to deter abuse of this process, but as the court decision shows, it is toothless.

The case concerns a local news outlet in Massachusetts that had its YouTube channel taken down because of videos it posted about local government meetings.

The city of Waltham had outsourced the recording of its meetings to a contractor, Waltham Community Access Corporation (WCAC), and it was this entity that sent the DMCA notices to YouTube, targeting 15 videos on the Channel 781 News outlet.

This resulted in YouTube temporarily deactivating the channel.

But the court found that WCAC had done nothing wrong, and that its consideration of the fair use doctrine was sufficient, even though it was minimal.

The court’s decision was to grant summary judgment to WCAC and dismiss the claim that the takedowns were a misrepresentation under Section 512(f) of the DMCA.

We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.

Keep reading

Shapiro Tries To Arm Pennsylvania Health Bureaucrats With Warrantless Entry Powers And Forced Vaccine Databases — Voters Already Said No Once

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro is pursuing autocratic powers for public health that Pennsylvania voters removed five years ago, and he is doing it behind the scenes through regulations not legislation.

A 502-page proposal for modifications to the Pennsylvania health code, published on August 8, grants the Pennsylvania Department of Health vast new powers to enter premises without warrants, access medical records without consent, direct a statewide vaccine data system, impose masking mandates during an outbreak, as well as masking mandates in an effort of “prevention” for any “condition” the department has determined warrants an intervention.

It is important to digest the implications of this. The proposed regulations define “condition” to mean “noninfectious medical ailment or other health-related event”. That gives far reaching powers to the department of health in the guise of public health.

“The administration’s draft rules on masks and infectious diseases are deeply troubling,” said Pennsylvania lawmaker Michele Brooks. “These include standards that establish ‘rule by fiat’ for the imposition of masking, distancing, and virtually any other disease control measures; a state vaccine registry with mandatory reporting; the power to control attendance at funerals; and the broadest powers to track and collect private health information and to enter private property.”

Pennsylvanians know where this goes. Former Governor Tom Wolf instituted some of the most draconian COVID-19 lockdown orders in the U.S. from March 2020 to June 2021. Shapiro, then Attorney General, issued the mandates, and in defense of the state’s school mask mandate, called concerned parents “self-centered” in a 2021 filing to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ultimately handed down a judgment against Shapiro, ruling the Department of Health acted outside of its authority. However, the Court did write that the Department of Health had the ability to change its own rules. Shapiro seems to have taken this to heart.

In May 2021, Pennsylvanians passed a constitutional amendment constraining governors’ emergency powers to three weeks. Shapiro’s regulatory maneuver is designed to circumvent this democratic outcome entirely, granting a permanent, non-emergency power to a department he controls.

Randall Wenger, chief counsel of the Independence Law Center, fearful that health care workers will be allowed to access schools and interrogate children in private, said that parents deserve the right to care for their children as they see fit. “These regulations allow a bureaucrat to go into a school to meet with a child without parents’ knowledge and telling the school officials that they can’t even interfere with this. That’s unconscionable,” Wenger told The Daily Wire.

Shapiro comes from the Democrat buzz saw of presidential candidates and is potentially running in 2028. What he is doing in Pennsylvania is not public health — it is building a system of surveillance and compliance to be used nationwide. Pennsylvania did not vote for this system. Shapiro is doing it anyway, and whether the legislative branch steps in tells us how much the voters value the limits to power they voted for this year.

Keep reading

FCC Deals Blow to Montana Residents Fighting 260-Foot Cell Tower

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Thursday ruled against a group of Montana residents seeking to prevent construction of a 260-foot cell tower that they say would harm nearby wildlife, including nesting eagles, and the environment.

The FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau sided with Harmoni Towers, concluding the company isn’t required to do any further research on how the proposed tower might negatively impact the local environment — even though the company’s “environmental assessment” contained errors and overlooked key information, according to W. Scott McCollough, lead attorney for Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless cases.

Members of the nonprofit Stewards of the Swan Valley, who opposed the tower, allege that if built, the tower would harm a host of non-human species, including mammals, birds, insects, amphibians, reptiles and flora.

The proposed tower site is near Condon, Montana, in the state’s Swan Valley, prized for its spectacular wilderness views.

“This is a horrible place for a cell tower with a strobe light on it,” resident Peter Guynn told The Defender. “It announces to the world that this is no longer a natural place.” Guynn called the FCC’s decision “egregious.”

In February, opponents of the tower filed comments, pointing out that Harmoni Towers failed to consider the published evidence on how the radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted by cell towers affects non-human species.

The FCC said the company’s environmental assessment wasn’t required to address the effect on non-human species, arguing that the agency’s RF radiation exposure limits pertain only to the human environment.

“We find that the tower will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment,” the FCC wrote.

McCollough told The Defender, “Essentially, the FCC covered both its eyes so that it couldn’t see an impact.”

The residents are considering next steps, McCollough said. The FCC’s decision becomes final in 30 days, unless the residents submit an application asking for it to be reviewed.

Miriam Eckenfels, director of CHD’s EMR & Wireless Program, said that the FCC’s decision shows yet again that communities dealing with unwanted cell towers cannot rely on the FCC to help them.

“The FCC is the poster child of a captured government agency. It serves industry alone, and people are left to fend for themselves,” Eckenfels said. “This decision also highlights the importance of CHD’s 704NoMore initiative and its goal to change the federal framework towards consideration of health effects of RF radiation.”

The 704NoMore campaign is raising money to legally challenge Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which prohibits local and state governments from considering possible health impacts from RF radiation when making cell tower decisions.

Keep reading

When The Rule Of Law Fails

The Fracturing: When Marble Crumbles Beneath Velvet

Observe the edifice. Not the facade of columned grandeur that photographs well for tourist brochures, but the load-bearing structures that sustain civic order. The mortar between stones has been leaching for decades, replaced with expedient compounds that harden briefly then powder under pressure. What appears solid to casual inspection reveals, upon closer examination, the honeycombed fragility of termite-gnawed timber.

The rule of law – that abstraction upon which millions have wagered their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor – has not been abolished. Far more insidiously, it has been instrumentalized. Transformed from constraint upon power into weapon wielded by power. The distinction matters. Abolition would provoke resistance. Instrumentalization induces learned helplessness, the conditioned response of laboratory animals who no longer attempt escape because previous attempts have been punished.

Consider the mechanism. Statutes remain on codified pages. Precedents still fill bound volumes. Theatrical performances of judicial process continue in robed solemnity. But the outcomes – the actual distribution of force, property, liberty – now proceed according to criteria that cannot be publicly acknowledged without unraveling the legitimacy upon which enforcement depends. The law has become Schrodinger’s cat: simultaneously alive and dead, its state determined only upon observation, and then retroactively justified through reasoning so tortured it would extract confessions from stone.

Heavy stillness pervades courthouse corridors where verdicts arrive prepackaged. Muffled air absorbs the footsteps of attorneys who have learned that vigorous advocacy risks bar sanctions, that certain defendants cannot be acquitted regardless of evidence, that particular prosecutions must proceed regardless of merit. Where once adversarial collision generated truth through friction, now choreographed collusion produces predetermined outcomes with the mechanical inevitability of assembly-line fabrication.

The Inversion: How Protection Became Predation

Examine the metamorphosis of institutions whose founding purpose was circumscription of state violence. Police forces established to apprehend actual predators now function as extraction mechanisms, their revenue-generation priorities transforming citizens into quarry. Courts erected to adjudicate disputes now operate as processing facilities, their dockets clogged with statutory violations that lack injured parties, their calendars dominated by plea arrangements that obviate evidentiary examination. Legislatures convened to express popular will now manufacture complexity so impenetrable that compliance becomes impossible, thereby manufacturing the criminality that justifies expansion.

The inversion is nearly complete. The FBI – originally chartered to investigate interstate criminality – now devotes substantial resources to manufacturing terrorism through entrapment of vulnerable individuals, then publicizing these manufactured plots as justification for expanded surveillance. The IRS – created to fund legitimate governance – now functions as political enforcement arm, its audit selections targeting ideological opponents with statistical improbability that defies random explanation. The regulatory apparatus – ostensibly protecting consumers – now serves as barrier to entry for competitors of established conglomerates, its compliance costs crushing small enterprise while manageable for entities that can afford dedicated compliance departments.

Each institution, examined individually, displays symptoms of capture. Examined collectively, they reveal systemic transformation. The heavy stillness of bureaucratic inertia now serves not popular interest but consolidated power. The muffled air of administrative process now muffles dissent rather than amplifying resolution. Where footsteps once dissolved into the marble floors of public buildings as citizens approached for redress, now those same footsteps echo ominously as warnings to others who might seek similar remedy.

The Dissolution: Precedents of Collapse

Historical memory – when not actively suppressed – offers instruction. Rome’s transition from republic to imperium did not occur through single coup but through incremental usurpations, each justified by emergency, each ratified by senatorial acquiescence, each establishing precedent for subsequent expansion. The Weimar Republic’s dissolution proceeded through “legal” mechanisms: emergency decrees, enabling acts, judicial appointments that transformed interpretation rather than overturning text. The Soviet Union’s constitutional guarantees – extensive on paper – provided no protection against party-state fusion that rendered law irrelevant to power.

American exceptionalism – the comforting delusion that geography or founding documents confer immunity to these patterns – has prevented recognition of their local manifestation. But the patterns are unmistakable to unprejudiced observation. Executive orders that bypass legislative process. Judicial opinions that discover meanings in constitutional text invisible to centuries of prior readers. Administrative regulations that carry criminal penalties despite absent legislative authorization. Each instance, defended as isolated necessity, contributes to cumulative precedent that transforms limited government into unlimited discretion.

The weathered limestone arches of Monticello and Independence Hall – physical remnants of founding generation aspirations – now frame populations whose understanding of those aspirations has been systematically eroded through educational institutions that treat constitutional limitations as obstacles to be overcome rather than protections to be preserved. The brutalist concrete contours of contemporary government buildings – deliberately imposing, alienating, inhuman – materialize the relationship between state and citizen that has replaced the founding vision: not service but domination, not representation but management, not consent but submission.

Keep reading

4 Former Savannah Police Employees Arrested for Misusing Flock Cameras

Four Savannah department employees, including three former officers, were arrested after an internal audit discovered they had been using Savannah’s Flock powered license plate reader system for reasons outside of normal department law enforcement investigations. Dillard, Phillips, Rich, and Thomas, a civilian department employee, were arrested after investigators discovered their misuse of the system.

Dillard, Phillips and Rich each are charged with two counts of misuse of a license plate reader system, and one count of violation of their oath of office, while Thomas is charged with two counts of misuse of a license plate reader system, reported Fox5 Atlanta.

As the case is currently under investigation by the GBI, it will be completed by them and then sent to the Eastern Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office to be handled by the proper prosecutors. Savannah Police Chief Lenny Gunther states that his department will not tolerate such misconduct.

The real question is why Flock cameras exist at all; they are surveillance without informed consent.

Keep reading

IT’S OFFICIAL: California Governor Gavin Newsom Signs “Stop Nick Shirley Act” into Law – Journalists Can Now Be FINED and JAILED for Uncovering Democrat Fraud

The formerly great state of California took a giant step toward becoming a complete leftist dictatorship with a new law that completely destroys the 1st Amendment.

As The New York Post reported, Governor Gavin Newsom officially signed the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” into law on Saturday. This comes just days after a leftist operative interrupted an interview the independent journalist was conducting at the State Capitol and launched a disgusting and bizarre personal attack against him.

The legislation, which officially takes effect on October 1, 2027, passed the Senate on Tuesday and cleared the state Assembly on Wednesday.

The “Stop Nick Shirley Act” was introduced by Assemblywoman Mia Bonta, who is married to California’s far-left Attorney General, Rob Bonta. AB 2624 claims to expand California’s “Safe at Home” confidentiality program to safeguard “immigration support service providers” from harassment.

But in reality, this is a disgusting Democrat power grab designed to silence brave conservative citizen journalists like Shirley who expose the rampant fraud bleeding American taxpayers dry in government-funded immigrant service centers.

For example, Shirley has exposed over $110 million in alleged Somali-run daycare fraud in Minnesota — empty “learning centers” billing taxpayers while no children were present.

He then followed up with a shocking exposé on California daycare and hospice fraud schemes. This included ghost operations in Los Angeles tied to massive looting of Medi-Cal and Medicare.

Keep reading

Guess Who’s Getting Purged? How Chinese Citizens Turn Fear Into a Black Market

If you’ve ever wanted to know what Chinese political paranoia looks like in action, congratulations! The CCP just handed us the perfect specimen.

Turns out, Xi Jinping’s ongoing purge of senior officials has gotten so intense, so incomprehensible, and so secretive, that an actual underground market has emerged.

Chinese citizens are now literally paying money to access what appear to be leaked details about which officials are under investigation. Shadowy online groups claim to have insider information on the next wave of purges.

According to Bloomberg, authorities are playing whack-a-mole trying to shut these leaky groups down. But they can’t because the demand is too high. This is the price of the CCP making itself a total black box.

The purge market is just the symptom. The disease is that the CCP created a system with no stability, no clear rules, and no way to know if tomorrow you’ll be promoted or investigated. So citizens and lower-ranking officials are doing the rational thing: trying to buy information to stay ahead of the knife. Or maybe they’re just betting for money, like Polymarket for General Hostility.

This also reveals something much darker about CCP governance. It’s not like these are leaks from innocent whistleblowers. These are just corrupt people trying to navigate a corrupt system. Can they be trusted to predict what’s coming next? Buyers hope so.

Keep reading