Colette Bonneau Hales (@CocoBono)

Jane Scharf: 🔍 Controlled Opposition Analysis Article: “Irreparable Harm” and the Ostrich Farm on Trial: Why This Case Should Alarm Every Canadian Author: Connie Shields Published on: Connie’s Substack, July 12, 2025 YOU WOULD NEVER BELIEVE IN A MILLION YEARS THAT THEY ARE ALL CONTROLLED OPS... ONE SPEAKING OUT AGAISNT THE OTHER... IF THEY STILL HAVE THEIR GOVERNMENT POSITIONS... THEY TOO ARE VERY DEEPLY INVOLVED IN THE #SatanicCult... THEY HAVE ALL SOLD THEIR SOULS... YOU KEEP DENYING THAT FACT... I NO LONGER WILL! PUPPETS TO SATAN... THEY TOO ARE DEEPLY INVOVOLVED IN THE DRUGS AND THE TRAFFINKING OF OUR CHILDREN! ⚠️ Summary Judgment: While Connie Shields' article appears to defend Universal Ostrich Farms and speak boldly against the CFIA, it contains key omissions, diversions, and misdirections consistent with controlled opposition tactics. The article rallies emotion, but offers no lawful path to remedy—and subtly redirects readers away from the Canadian Bill of Rights, common law enforcement, and the criminal accountability of government agents. 🚩 Major Red Flags 1. Symbolic Use of the Canadian Bill of Rights—No Enforceable Action What it says: “The Canadian Bill of Rights guarantees every individual the right to the enjoyment of property and the protection of that right under due process of law.” What it avoids: No mention of section 2(e) (right to a fair hearing), no assertion that the Bill is binding law, and no demand that the court enforce it as federal statute. Controlled opposition tactic: Reference the Bill of Rights just enough to sound credible, but avoid showing how it can stop the abuse. 2. Absence of Criminal Law and Jurisdictional Challenge No mention that CFIA officers may have committed criminal offences under the Criminal Code. No challenge to the court’s jurisdiction under section 96 of the Constitution. Controlled opposition tactic: Keep readers within the false administrative process instead of pushing for criminal investigation or lawful remedy. 3. No Mention of Grand Jury or Trial by Jury Not a single reference to the people’s lawful authority under common law grand jury or section 2(e) of the Bill of Rights. No mention of a jury as the rightful check on executive overreach. Controlled opposition tactic: Avoid teaching the people their true role as final arbiters of justice. 4. Rhetorical Performance—No Substance “If I were the Devil…”, “the soul of the nation,” “will you defend your own authority?” These dramatic flourishes stir emotion but leave people disempowered. Controlled opposition tactic: Distract from lawful action by channeling anger into passive commentary or courtroom spectator mode. 5. False Hope in the Courts “We ask this Court to rule with courage and conscience…” This assumes the court has independent power, but ignores: Most courts are now administrative, not judicial. The judiciary has been complicit in upholding illegitimate regulations under global policy pressure. Controlled opposition tactic: Make people believe their rights might be respected if they just appeal harder to a corrupt system. 6. Diversionary Call to Action “Email the clerk. Watch the livestream. Leave a comment.” What’s missing: No call for a legal intervention. No instructions for filing an affidavit, challenging jurisdiction, seeking private prosecution, or demanding a grand jury. Controlled opposition tactic: Give people something to do that wastes energy while letting the abuse proceed. 7. No Mention of Critical Precedent Connie ignores foundational case law, including: Roncarelli v. Duplessis – personal liability of officials Singh v. Canada – due process includes fair hearing Attorney General v. Power (2024 SCC) – reaffirms common law and parliamentary supremacy Mackin v. New Brunswick, Côté v. Canada, Power – all support the binding status of the Bill of Rights Controlled opposition tactic: Suppress useful precedent that would empower the people. 🧠 Final Analysis: Connie Shields’ article is expertly crafted to sound righteous and rebellious, but ultimately: Protects the system by keeping outrage within its boundaries Discourages legal enforcement of the Bill of Rights Prevents organized citizen action like grand jury revival Elevates court drama over real remedy Avoids naming the abuse as criminal This fits the mold of controlled opposition—emotionally appealing but tactically impotent.