New W.H.O. Proposed COVID-19 Mitigation: Euthanize Every Non-Essential Person Over The Age Of 65 and/or Anyone Who Tests Positive For COVID19

Mark Meincke

Published

6 years ago

7 minute read

“Desperate times call for desperate measures, and now is the time to consider all options, no matter how Machiavellian.” says Dr. Killemall, said the head Epidemiologist for the W.H.O.

In response to this eyebrow-raising official statement, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau assured all Canadians that the W.H.O. is both infallible, and omniscient, therefore whatever they say, we will obey without question. To further bring home the point, PM Trudeau said yesterday,

“Our Government is now bringing forth new emergency legislation to immediately imprison anyone who makes any statements, either online, or otherwise which contradict, criticize, or question the recommendations of the W.H.O.

This is the type of serious response to the Pandemic that Canadians want, and it’s the response they deserve. We’re listening, and what’s more, we are taking the appropriate actions necessary for the betterment of all Canadians. We have heard the concerns of many Canadians who are facing financial hardship due to the economic impact of the Covid19 pandemic, and we are required to find a solution so we can get people back to work. Also, we must consider the mental health of Canadians. Many Canadians have already watched everything worth watching on Netflix, and now are cruelly forced to interact with family members through conversation, board games, and other interactive activities. No Canadian should have to suffer such hardships, so as a response, we have decided to follow the W.H.O. recommendations, and starting next week, we will be Euthanizing all Canadians over the age of 55, who are non-essential. Further, to save on medical costs, and eliminate the further spread of COVID19 we will also Euthanize everyone who tests positive for the virus, and is also deemed to be non-essential. Difficult times call for difficult choices, and I’m confident that Canadians will understand and support their Government. As fair warning, any protests, complaints, or obstruction of any kind will result in a minimum five-year prison sentence.”

If the parody above doesn’t make you at least a little bit uncomfortable…it should. Actions far worse than the unthinkable measures in this piece have been done before, with far less provocation. Six months ago, if someone told you that all Canadians would be confined to their homes for up to eighteen months, would you have believed it? Or, would you have responded by scoffing, “That’s ridiculous, it could never happen here! Where’s your tinfoil hat?” This is an important question to ask yourself right now. How far will the Government go? You’ve already been surprised by the current state of affairs, so be prepared for the Government to continue to expand its power by taking away your rights, with or without reasonable cause.

It starts with a well-meaning Police officer issuing an improper ticket to a family for rollerblading together. The family will likely win in court, but that’s not the point. The point is, a family who is simply spending health time together received an $800.00 fine for an action that did not actually contravene the currently imposed rules of social isolation. If you don’t respond with outrage at this, because it’s not happening to you, then let me remind you of a famous, and sadly relevant quote by the German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller.

First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Many people will be unable to accept that the above sentiment is either appropriate, or relevant to our current situation, and that would be an understandable response. It’s a bit much for most people to consider that we are now in a perilous position. Nearly every single time for all of recorded human history, when National Governments expand their power, they keep at least some of their new power. Often, the expansion of power continues until the only solution is a violent revolution to topple the tyrannical Government. You may not be interested in History, but I can assure you, history is directly relevant to your life right now.

Be vigilant, and be brave enough to speak out when the Government goes too far. If you don’t speak out early, you won’t have the ability to speak out at all when it’s too late. Remember, the Government is here to serve you, not subjugate you.

Yes, we all need to do our part during the Pandemic, and yes we need to be socially responsible for the good of all. We must be equally committed to fully regaining our freedoms once this is over, or we will face the very real possibility of living under a dictatorship.

for more stories, visit Todayville Calgary

Mark Meincke

Father, Professional Development Trainer, Author

Follow Author

Why We Remember

Alberta / 5 years ago

Being a Cop has Always Been a Thankless Job

Calgary / 6 years ago

Why The News Is Fake, And Liberals Rely On Racism

Alberta

Calgary’s new city council votes to ban foreign flags at government buildings

Published on December 23, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

It is not yet clear if the flag motion applies to other flags, such as LGBT ones.

Western Canada’s largest city has put in place what amounts to a ban on politically charged flags from flying at city-owned buildings.

“Calgary’s Flag Policy means any country recognized by Canada may have their flag flown at City Hall on their national day,” said Calgary’s new mayor Jeromy Farkas on X last month.

“But national flag-raisings are now creating division. Next week, we’ll move to end national flag-raisings at City Hall to keep this a safe, welcoming space for all.”

The motion to ban foreign flags from flying at government buildings was introduced on December 15 by Calgary councilor Dan McLean and passed by a vote of 8 to 7. He had said the previous policy to allow non-Canadian flags to fly, under former woke mayor Jyoti Gondek, was “source of division within our community.”

“In recent months, this practice has been in use in ways that I’ve seen have inflamed tensions, including instances where flag raisings have been associated with anti-Semitic behavior and messaging,” McLean said during a recent council meeting.

The ban on flag raising came after the Palestinian flag was allowed to be raised at City Hall for the first time.

Farkas, shortly after being elected mayor in the fall of 2025, had promised that he wanted a new flag policy introduced in the city.

It is not yet clear if the flag motion applies to other flags, such as LGBT ones.

Despite Farkas putting forth the motion, as reported by LifeSiteNews he is very much in the pro-LGBT camp. However, he has promised to focus only on non-ideological issues during his term.

“When City Hall becomes a venue for geopolitical expressions, it places the city in the middle of conflicts that are well beyond our municipal mandates,” he said.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, other jurisdictions in Canada are considering banning non-Canadian flags from flying over public buildings.

Recently a political party in British Columbia, OneBC, introduced legislation to ban non-domestic government flags at public buildings in British Columbia.

Across Canada there has also been an ongoing issue with so-called “Pride” flags being raised at schools and city buildings.

Alberta

Calgary mayor should retain ‘blanket rezoning’ for sake of Calgarian families

Published on November 17, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Austin Thompson

Calgary’s new mayor, Jeromy Farkas, has promised to scrap “blanket rezoning”—a policy enacted by the city in 2024 that allows homebuilders to construct duplexes, townhomes and fourplexes in most neighbourhoods without first seeking the blessing of city hall. In other words, amid an affordability crunch, Mayor Farkas plans to eliminate a policy that made homebuilding easier and cheaper—which risks reducing housing choices and increasing housing costs for Calgarian families.

Blanket rezoning was always contentious. Debate over the policy back in spring 2024 sparked the longest public hearing in Calgary’s history, with many Calgarians airing concerns about potential impacts on local infrastructure, parking availability and park space—all important issues.

Farkas argues that blanket rezoning amounts to “ignoring the community” and that Calgarians should not be forced to choose between a “City Hall that either stops building, or stops listening.” But in reality, it’s virtually impossible to promise more community input on housing decisions and build more homes faster.

If Farkas is serious about giving residents a “real say” in shaping their neighbourhood’s future, that means empowering them to alter—or even block—housing proposals that would otherwise be allowed under blanket rezoning. Greater public consultation tends to give an outsized voice to development opponents including individuals and groups that oppose higher density and social housing projects.

Alternatively, if the mayor and council reform the process to invite more public feedback, but still ultimately approve most higher-density projects (as was the case before blanket rezoning), the consultation process would be largely symbolic.

Either way, homebuilders would face longer costlier approval processes—and pass those costs on to Calgarian renters and homebuyers.

It’s not only the number of homes that matters, but also where they’re allowed to be built. Under blanket rezoning, builders can respond directly to the preferences of Calgarians. When buyers want duplexes in established neighbourhoods or renters want townhomes closer to work, homebuilders can respond without having to ask city hall for permission.

According to Mayor Farkas, higher-density housing should instead be concentrated near transit, schools and job centres, with the aim of “reducing pressure on established neighbourhoods.” At first glance, that may sound like a sensible compromise. But it rests on the flawed assumption that politicians and planners should decide where Calgarians are allowed to live, rather than letting Calgarians make those choices for themselves. With blanket rezoning, new homes are being built in areas in response to buyer and renter demand, rather than the dictates of city hall. The mayor also seems to suggest that city hall should thwart some redevelopment in established neighbourhoods, limiting housing options in places many Calgarians want to live.

The stakes are high. Calgary is not immune to Canada’s housing crisis, though it has so far weathered it better than most other major cities. That success partly reflects municipal policies—including blanket rezoning—that make homebuilding relatively quick and inexpensive.

A motion to repeal blanket rezoning is expected to be presented to Calgary’s municipal executive committee on Nov. 17. If it passes, which is likely, the policy will be put to a vote during a council meeting on Dec. 15. As the new mayor and council weigh changes to zoning rules, they should recognize the trade-offs. Empowering “the community” may sound appealing, but it may limit the housing choices available to families in those communities. Any reforms should preserve the best elements of blanket rezoning—its consistency, predictability and responsiveness to the housing preferences of Calgarians—and avoid erecting zoning barriers that have exacerbated the housing crisis in other cities.