Ronnie – Page 150 – Canuck Law

March 10, 2019January 1, 2026

Stop Replacement Migration, Have Bigger Families

(UN Promotes replacement migration)

(Hungary proposes making it more affordable for Hungarian women to have children)

1. Previous Solutions Offered

A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.

2. Population Replacement Agenda

CLICK HERE, for the topic of “REPLACEMENT MIGRATION”.
CLICK HERE, for March 2000 Report.

NEW REPORT ON REPLACEMENT MIGRATION ISSUED BY UN POPULATION DIVISION
20000317

NEW YORK, 17 March (DESA) — The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.

United Nations projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of Japan and virtually all countries of Europe will most likely decline. In a number of cases, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Italy, countries would lose between one quarter and one third of their population. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of population to historically unprecedented high levels. For instance, in Italy, the median age will rise from 41 years in 2000 to 53 years in 2050. The potential support ratio — i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person — will often be halved, from 4 or 5 to 2.
Focusing on these two striking and critical trends, the report examines in detail the case of eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). In each case, alternative scenarios for the period 1995-2050 are considered, highlighting the impact that various levels of immigration would have on population size and population ageing.

Major findings of this report include:
— In the next 50 years, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of low fertility and increased longevity. In contrast, the population of the United States is projected to increase by almost a quarter. Among the countries studied in the report, Italy is projected to register the largest population decline in relative terms, losing 28 per cent of its population between 1995 and 2050, according to the United Nations medium variant projections. The population of the European Union, which in 1995 was larger than that of the United States by 105 million, in 2050, will become smaller by 18 million.

— Population decline is inevitable in the absence of replacement migration. Fertility may rebound in the coming decades, but few believe that it will recover sufficiently in most countries to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future.

– 2 – Press Release DEV/2234 POP/735 17 March 2000

— Some immigration is needed to prevent population decline in all countries and regions examined in the report. However, the level of immigration in relation to past experience varies greatly. For the European Union, a continuation of the immigration levels observed in the 1990s would roughly suffice to prevent total population from declining, while for Europe as a whole, immigration would need to double. The Republic of Korea would need a relatively modest net inflow of migrants — a major change, however, for a country which has been a net sender until now. Italy and Japan would need to register notable increases in net immigration. In contrast, France, the United Kingdom and the United States would be able to maintain their total population with fewer immigrants than observed in recent years.

— The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent the decline of the total population are considerably larger than those envisioned by the United Nations projections. The only exception is the United States.

— The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent declines in the working- age population are larger than those needed to prevent declines in total population. In some cases, such as the Republic of Korea, France, the United Kingdom or the United States, they are several times larger. If such flows were to occur, post-1995 immigrants and their descendants would represent a strikingly large share of the total population in 2050 — between 30 and 39 per cent in the case of Japan, Germany and Italy.

— Relative to their population size, Italy and Germany would need the largest number of migrants to maintain the size of their working-age populations. Italy would require 6,500 migrants per million inhabitants annually and Germany, 6,000. The United States would require the smallest number — 1,300 migrants per million inhabitants per year.

— The levels of migration needed to prevent population ageing are many times larger than the migration streams needed to prevent population decline. Maintaining potential support ratios would in all cases entail volumes of immigration entirely out of line with both past experience and reasonable expectations.

— In the absence of immigration, the potential support ratios could be maintained at current levels by increasing the upper limit of the working-age population to roughly 75 years of age.

— The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require a comprehensive reassessment of many established policies and programmes, with a long-term perspective. Critical issues that need to be addressed include: (a) the appropriate ages for retirement; (b) the levels, types and nature of retirement and health care benefits for the elderly; (c) labour force participation; (d) the assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers to support retirement and health care benefits for the elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration,

– 3 – Press Release DEV/2234 POP/735 17 March 2000

in particular, replacement migration and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.
The report may be accessed on the internet site of the Population Division (http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm). Further information may be obtained from the office of Joseph Chamie, Director, Population Division, United Nations, New York, NY, 10017, USA; tel. 1-212-963-3179; fax 1-212-963-2147.

3. The Hungarian Alternative

Far better than “importing” replacement populations, Hungary has decided to make it more affordable to have their own children. Recently, Prime Minister Victor Orban announced a policy that women who have 4 children or more will no longer pay income tax. The goal is to encourage women to have more children, and reverse falling birth rates.

By growing your own population, you don’t have to worry about “multiculturalism”. You don’t have to hope that a group assimilates and adopts your values. There isn’t language and culture clash, like their is with mass migration.

Mostly importantly, you don’t have to worry about cultures (like Islam) INTENTIONALLY REFUSING to assimilate and replace your way of life with their way of life.

Note: in small amounts, immigration “can” benefit a nation. But mass migration to “replace” the dwindling old-stock simply leads to the disappearance of the host culture and people.

4. Conservatism & Libertarianism Fail

In order to preserve a nation, unity and common bonds are far more important than merely “keeping the numbers up”. There is more to a nation than number of people, GDP, and economic growth. Nationalists understand this. Conservatives and Libertarians do not.

Canada — and all nations — wanting to grow, should follow the Hungarian lead of boosting its own population. Forget about using replacement migration as a solution.

March 1, 2019December 15, 2024

The UN’s Hypocritical Stance On Sexual Abuse

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

CLICK HERE, for TSCE #1: series intro and other listings.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #2: suing for right to illegally enter U.S.

2. Important Links

3. UN Policy, Sexual Exploitation

Section 3 Prohibition of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse
3.1 Sexual exploitation and sexual abuse violate universally recognized international legal norms and standards and have always been unacceptable behaviour and prohibited conduct for United Nations staff. Such conduct is prohibited by the United Nations Staff Regulations and Rules.

3.2 In order to further protect the most vulnerable populations, especially women and children, the following specific standards which reiterate existing general obligations under the United Nations Staff Regulations and Rules, are promulgated:
(a) Sexual exploitation and sexual abuse constitute acts of serious misconduct and are therefore grounds for disciplinary measures, including summary dismissal;
(b) Sexual activity with children (persons under the age of 18) is prohibited regardless of the age of majority or age of consent locally. Mistaken belief in the age of a child is not a defence;
(c) Exchange of money, employment, goods or services for sex, including sexual favours or other forms of humiliating, degrading or exploitative behaviour, is prohibited. This includes any exchange of assistance that is due to beneficiaries of assistance;
(d) Sexual relationships between United Nations staff and beneficiaries of assistance, since they are based on inherently unequal power dynamics, undermine the credibility and integrity of the work of the United Nations and are strongly discouraged;
(e) Where a United Nations staff member develops concerns or suspicions regarding sexual exploitation or sexual abuse by a fellow worker, whether in the same agency or not and whether or not within the United Nations system, he or she must report such concerns via established reporting mechanisms;
(f) United Nations staff are obliged to create and maintain an environment that prevents sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. Managers at all levels have a particular responsibility to support and develop systems that maintain this environment.

3.3 The standards set out above are not intended to be an exhaustive list. Other types of sexually exploitive or sexually abusive behaviour may be grounds for administrative action or disciplinary measures, including summary dismissal, pursuant to the United Nations Staff Regulations and Rules.

Seems well intentioned.
The rules seem pretty specific, and written in such a way as to avoid any misunderstandings or loophole. Credit where credit is due.

But there is this:

4. Daily Wire Article

In a shocking report out this week, a former U.N. official accuses the agency of harboring hundreds, if not thousands, of criminals in its foreign service, and claims that U.N. aid workers have committed more than 60,000 rapes and sexual assaults over the course of the last decade.

The Times of London reports that Andrew MacLeod, the former “chief of operations at the U.N.’s Emergency Co-ordination Centre” told U.N. officials last month that “he estimated that 60,000 rapes had been carried out by UN staff in the past decade, with 3,300 paedophiles working in the organisation and its agencies.”

MacLeod also told officials that he believed sexual predators specifically applied for foreign aid jobs so that they could get closer to vulnerable populations, including helpless women and children living in abject poverty.

“There are tens of thousands of aid workers around the world with paedophile tendencies, but if you wear a Unicef T-shirt nobody will ask what you’re up to,” MacLeod told the Sun newspaper. “You have the impunity to do whatever you want. It is endemic across the aid industry across the world. The system is at fault, and should have stopped this years ago.”

MacLeod’s report does come with caveats: his number is estimated based on extrapolating information contained in a U.N. Secretary General’s report issued last year, which said there had been 103 allegations of sexual abuse made against members of the U.N.’s peacekeeping and foreign aid teams in one segment of Africa in 2016, and half of those allegations had multiple victims.
Assuming only one in 10 cases gets reported, and that the teams in Africa are generally representative of U.N. foreign aid teams overall, MacLeod suggested that tens of thousands of cases could occur every year.

Regardless of whether the 60,000 number is correct, the allegations that the U.N. could be harboring sexual predators in its midst is shocking, and echoes allegations made against other massive foreign aid agencies, like Oxfam. That group, which also has aid workers all over the world, is now accused of covering up hundreds of reports of abuse.

Why are we a part of this organization? If even a small percentage of the accusations are true, then there is rampant sexual abuse that goes on in the UN.

But this hypocrisy is to be expected.

5. UN “Human Rights” Council

The UN Human Rights Council contains Afghanistan, Angola, Australia, Brazil, Chile, China, Croatia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Japan, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Tunisia, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Recently Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Czechia, Denmark, Eritrea, Fiji, India, Italy, Philippines, Somalia, Togo and Uruguay were added.

There doesn’t seem to be a requirement that Human Rights Council members actually believe in human rights.

The UN has many documents and “commitments” to ending sexual abuse and exploitation. Yet, stories about it being rampant within the organization lead to obvious suggestions of hypocrisy.

February 25, 2019January 5, 2026

Mastercard Is The Final Boss (Review)

[/video]

Video by ShortFatOtaku. This is based on the research from Nick Monroe, about payment processors refusing to do business with people based on their political ideologies.

Matt Christiansen meets with Jacqueline Hart of Patreon. From this conversation, it becomes clear that a commitment to free speech isn’t on the agenda here.

MasterCard partners with Mercy Corps
MasterCard and George Soros
MasterCard with Crossroads Foundation & World Economic Forum
MasterCard with UNHCR for “digital aid”
Digital Humanitarian Cash. (Long Video)

(1) https://www.mastercard.us/en-us/about-mastercard/corp-responsibility/social-sustainability/the-mastercard-labs-for-financial-inclusion.html
(2) https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/visa-mastercard-cut-off-all-credit-card-donations-to-us-says-us-conservativ
(3) https://www.dailywire.com/news/34955/visa-mastercard-block-donations-david-horowitz-paul-bois
(4) https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/mastercard_forces_funding_platform_to_drop_antijihad_activist_robert_spencer.html
(5) https://www.mastercard.us/en-us/about-mastercard/what-we-do/privacy.html#usePersonalInfo
(6) https://twitter.com/Mastercard
(7) https://www.mastercard.us/content/dam/mccom/en-us/documents/mastercard-bcrs-february-2017.pdf
(8) https://www.unfcu.org/mastercard-debit-card/
(9) https://www.wfp.org/news/news-release/mastercard-and-theunited-nations-world-food-programme-partnership-deliver-digital-
(10) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2018-005945_EN.html
(11) https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/partners/?id=8095
(12) https://www.unsgsa.org/resources/news/ceos-and-un-special-advocate-launch-private-sector-partnersh/
(13) https://www.patreon.com/guidelines#bullying

First Video is a stunningly thorough video from ShortFatOtaku, who does a piece concluding that Mastercard (and other credit card companies possibly) are behind the deplatforming of various online content creators. Yes, the research and leg work had been done by Nick Munroe, but it’s still quite the compilation.

Second Video is a response from YouTuber Matt Christiansen and a call he got from a Patreon representative, regarding Patreon cancelling certain accounts

Other Videos shows a partnership between Mastercard and various organizations which are promoting mass migration to the Western World.

ShortFatOtaku (SFO) argues that MasterCard is behind the censorship of certain voices who are considered “unfriendly” to their agenda, which is “financial inclusion”. MasterCard wants to grow its business, and sees mass migration as a way to achieve that aim. Voices hostile to that goal are to be silenced.

SFO is definitely correct that Mastercard is pushing for expansion (a lot into Africa), trying to get more people “financially included”. And the reasons are hardly altruistic.

Let’s take a look at the MasterCard FAQ:

Frequently Asked Questions
Why is the Mastercard Lab for Financial Inclusion important?
With two billion adults living without access to mainstream financial tools and services, there is an urgent need to speed up the creation of commercially viable products and services on a global scale.

Why is Mastercard Lab for Financial Inclusion located in Africa?
We believe that this region represents some of the most successful countries in terms of implementation and reach of digital financial services. While the lab is based in Kenya, it does have both regional and global reach.

What is the Lab’s proven innovation methodology?
We have implemented a focused, practiced and proven process that includes broad ideation as well as technical and business evaluation leading to prototyping and pilot execution and finally execution. At every step, we combine Mastercard best practices gained from operating in the payments arena for more than 50 years with leading-edge technologies.

What does it mean to be financially excluded?
When you are excluded, you don’t have access to the basic financial tools we take for granted like saving or borrowing money or getting insurance. It means being stuck in a cash-based economy that makes you vulnerable to increased crime, inconvenience and higher costs.

What’s Mastercard’s strategy for meeting the challenge of financial inclusion?
Our approach to financial inclusion is not through corporate social responsibility or philanthropy. We address it by leveraging our existing digital payments technology and applying that through public and private partnerships.

What does a future where more people are financially included look like?
The future is a global economy that is closer to being truly global because we’re more connected digitally and less dependent on cash. Increasing financial inclusion:
-expands the middle class
-generates equal opportunities
-increases social engagement and economic mobility
-narrows income inequality
-empowers people

When MasterCard talks of “financial inclusion”, they mean getting more people into banking, and into the credit system. Why do they want this? Because it grows their customer base.

Center for financial inclusion is located in Africa? Presumably this is because Mastercard sees the most potential for growth there.

Being “financially excluded” is touted as a danger and gross inconvenience, such as being more susceptible to being robbed, or having to pay higher fees. But there is one obvious omission: using cash means transactions are virtually impossible to trace

Regarding the list at the end: 1/ Expand the middle class, 2/ equal opportunities, 3/ economic mobility, etc… Mastercard sets it up such that “their” services are necessary to achieve this livelihood.

What About Payment Processors Like Patreon?

People Who Can’t Use Patreon
.
Because Patreon empowers people financially, we impose restrictions not only on the types of content and projects that can be funded through Patreon, but also on which people can and cannot receive funds through Patreon.
People Who Can’t Use Patreon
.
After creating a Patreon page, any creator caught in the act or convicted of making credible violent threats, committing violent crimes, child abuse, malicious doxing, coordinating nonviolent harm (such as fraud, money laundering and gambling), or encouraging others to do any of these activities, may be banned from using Patreon.
Dangerous Organizations
.
People with a dangerous criminal history or a known affiliation with violent or dangerous groups (including terrorist or cyber terrorist organizations, organized criminal groups, and violent hate groups), cannot receive funds through Patreon, no matter the purpose or apparent intention of their Patreon page.
.
You can discuss these groups on Patreon but any creator praising or actively supporting these groups or their leaders won’t be allowed on Patreon.

This sounds okay, but keep in mind, that these are the days when fairly innocuous comments are viewed as hate speech. Also, if people have vocal opinions on issues which are “counter” to what MasterCard, Visa, Patreon, PayPal, or some other financial processor, would they be shut down?

More and more, the answer seems to be yes.

Further, in the phone call between Matt Christiansen and Jacqueline Hart of Patreon, Hart states that Patreon cannot do anything they want. “We are not Visa or MasterCard.” This raises an interesting question: If Visa or MasterCard didn’t want someone spreading their views online, could they pressure Patreon to ban them?

Who Sponsors “Financial Inclusion” at the UN?
Again, see here.

31 January 2018
Last week in Davos, an influential group of CEOs from a diverse set of leading multinational companies formed a partnership to accelerate financial inclusion around the world. They were convened by the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Advocate for Inclusive Finance for Development, Queen Máxima of the Netherlands.

Members of the CEO Partnership for Financial Inclusion represent a wide range of businesses, including banks (Rabobank, Santander), fintechs (Ant Financial, PayPal), payments technology (Mastercard), insurance (AXA), mobile network operators (Bharti Airtel, Telenor), and consumer goods companies (PepsiCo, Unilever).

Gathering for the first time during the World Economic Forum, the CEOs agreed to use their complementary assets, expertise, and collective commitment to meaningfully expand financial services for the 2 billion people who currently have no access to basic tools such as savings, insurance, payments, or credit.

“Advancing financial inclusion can lead to good business opportunities, and private sector-driven solutions could really accelerate our progress,” said the Special Advocate. “Expanding partnerships among this varied group of private actors will be key to increasing access and usage of financial services for underserved people.”

Let’s see, who is on that list

Members of the CEO Partnership for Financial Inclusion
Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, UN Secretary-General’s Special Advocate for Inclusive Finance for Development
Mastercard
Santander
Telenor
AXA
Rabobank
Eric Jing, Ant Financial
Sunil Mittal, Bharti Airtel
PepsiCo
Unilever
PayPal

ShortFatOtaku correctly points out that Jacqueline Hart had legitimate concerns about having the phone call with Matt Christiansen recorded. She wants to keep Patreon successful, while still being able to ban people at will.

Christiansen repeatedly calls Hart out for her nonsense. He notes 3 critical points
1/ Patreon is not a free speech platform.
2/ Patreon is not a free market platform.
3/ Patreon enforces its rules subjectively.

In the card Hart lets it slip that Patreon has rules to follow. The implication is obvious “we are not Visa or Mastercard”. Patreon is forced to tow the line of “actual” payment processors. SFO concludes that the credit card companies, specifically Mastercard, is behind the selective deplatforming.

SFO goes to very extensive detail pointing out the connections between Mastercard and other processors. He also details the staffing and relational overlap between the companies. Mass migration is not used as a humanitarian effort, but as a business venture. Obviously, people can’t be publicly criticizing and exposing it.

It is a first class expose.

Is Mastercard the final boss?

In all fairness to SFO, he is partially right here. Mastercard is very much involved. Mastercard definitely is pushing for the “financial inclusion” agenda, and they are certainly pushing for the mass migration to the Western World.

However, Mastercard is but one “boss” here. There are a great many “level bosses” to deal with here.

Sort of like Link opening the Temple of Time Door, only to realise there were several more dunegons.

February 23, 2019November 17, 2022

UN Taking Over Democracy Abroad

(1) http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/democracy/index.html
(2) https://www.un.org/democracyfund/
(3) https://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/index.html
(4) https://dppa.un.org/en/elections
(5) https://dppa.un.org/en/dppa-around-world
(6) http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—dgreports/—integration/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_079439.pdf
(7) https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/Home.aspx
(8) http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/HRC/RES/19/36

The United Nations interferes in national governance all over the world. Here are just a few exerps.

2005 World Summit Outcome
I. Values and principles
1. We, Heads of State and Government, have gathered at United Nations Headquarters in New York from 14 to 16 September 2005.
2. We reaffirm our faith in the United Nations and our commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter and international law, which are indispensable foundations of a more peaceful, prosperous and just world, and reiterate our determination to foster strict respect for them.
3. We reaffirm the United Nations Millennium Declaration, which we adopted at the dawn of the twenty-first century. We recognize the valuable role of the major United Nations conferences and summits in the economic, social and related fields, including the Millennium Summit, in mobilizing the international community at the local, national, regional and global levels and in guiding the work of the United Nations.

Quite the loyalty oath here….

6. We reaffirm the vital importance of an effective multilateral system, in accordance with international law, in order to better address the multifaceted and interconnected challenges and threats confronting our world and to achieve progress in the areas of peace and security, development and human rights, underlining the central role of the United Nations, and commit ourselves to promoting and strengthening the effectiveness of the Organization through the implementation of its decisions and resolutions.
7. We believe that today, more than ever before, we live in a global and interdependent world. No State can stand wholly alone. We acknowledge that collective security depends on effective cooperation, in accordance with international law, against transnational threats.
8. We recognize that current developments and circumstances require that we urgently build consensus on major threats and challenges. We commit ourselves to translating that consensus into concrete action, including addressing the root causes of those threats and challenges with resolve and determination.
9. We acknowledge that peace and security, development and human rights are the pillars of the United Nations system and the foundations for collective security and well-being. We recognize that development, peace and security and human rights are interlinked and mutually reinforcing. 10. We reaffirm that development is a central goal by itself and that sustainable development in its economic, social and environmental aspects constitutes a key element of the overarching framework of United Nations activities.

This all sounds lovely and flowery, but are nations actually swearing off independence and autonomy? It goes on and on, with “independent” nations swearing and affirming their commitment to being collectively governed.

“The UN General Assembly and democracy
Since 1988, the General Assembly has adopted at least one resolution annually dealing with some aspect of democracy. Democracy has emerged as a cross-cutting issue in the outcomes of the major United Nations conferences and summits since the 1990s and in the internationally agreed development goals they produced. Member States at the World Summit in September 2005 reaffirmed that “democracy is a universal value based on the freely expressed will of people to determine their political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives

The Summit Outcome Document also stressed that “democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing,” and pointed out that “while democracies share common features, there is no single model of democracy.” Member States resolved to promote increased representation of women in Government decision-making bodies, including to ensure their equal opportunity to participate fully in the political process.

The World leaders pledged in the Millennium Declaration to spare no effort to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law, as well as respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They resolved to strive for the full protection and promotion in all countries of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights for all and to strengthen the capacity of all countries to implement the principles and practices of democracy and respect for human rights.”

This all sounds good, but why does the UN see the need to meddle in everyone’s elections? Is there anything the UN “won’t involve itself in?

Of course, it wouldn’t be complete without pandering to gender quotas

Here are some of the goals:

In 2000, the Commission recommended a series of important legislative, institutional and practical measures to consolidate democracy (resolution 2000/47); and in 2002, the Commission declared the following as essential elements of democracy:
-Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms
-Freedom of association
-Freedom of expression and opinion
-Access to power and its exercise in accordance with the rule of law
-The holding of periodic free and fair elections by universal suffrage and by secret ballot as the expression of the will of the people
-A pluralistic system of political parties and organizations
-The separation of powers
-The independence of the judiciary
-Transparency and accountability in public administration
-Free, independent and pluralistic media

Since its establishment in 2006, the Human Rights Council (successor to the Commission) has adopted a number of resolutions highlighting the interdependent and mutually reinforcing relationship between democracy and human rights. Recent examples include resolutions 19/36 and 28/14 on “Human rights, democracy and the rule of law”.

Keep in mind, that the Human Rights Council is made up of memberstates which don’t believe in human rights. Also, the Council for the Status of Women contains memberstates which don’t believe women are equal, or should have rights.

Promoting the idea of democracy sounds great, but also keep in mind some of the other ideas this globalist organization is behind:

1/ UN proposes a world government (UNPA)
2/ UN proposes internet regulation (digital cooperation)
3/ UN wants to ban criticism of Islam globally
4/ UN want global migration compact
5/ UN pushed Agenda 21
6/ UN pushed Agenda 2021
7/ UN pushed Agenda 2030
8/ UN promotes gender/language agenda
9/ UN promotes forestry control
10/ UN wants urban development control
11/ UN pushed Paris Accord
12/ UN pushed climate change scam
13/ UN promotes abortion as human right

The idea of building up democratic systems across the globe sounds very appealing. But considering how much the UN controls, it is difficult to not view any such government as a UN puppet.

The UN wants governments “democratically” elected, as long as those governments support UN agendas.

February 22, 2019June 18, 2022

UN Endorses Abortion As “Human Right”, Even For Kids

1. Other Articles on Abortion/Infanticide

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-universities-fighting-against-free-speech-and-free-association-in-court/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/the-new-lindsay-shepherd-statistics-are-now-violence-infanticide-2/
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-part-3-ny-virginia-to-legalise-up-to-birth-abortion/
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-part-4-leave-no-survivors/

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/ccpr/pages/gc36-article6righttolife.aspx
(2) https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/GCArticle6/GCArticle6_EN.pdf
(3) International Convenant On Civil And Political Rights On Right To Life

3. General Comments

“2. Article 6 recognizes and protects the right to life of all human beings. It is the supreme right from which no derogation is permitted1 even in situations of armed conflict and other public emergencies. The right to life has crucial importance both for individuals and for society as a whole. It is most precious for its own sake as a right that inheres in every human being, but it also constitutes a fundamental right, 2 whose effective protection is the prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights and whose content can be informed and infused by other human rights.

3. The right to life is a right which should not be interpreted narrowly. It concerns the entitlement of individuals to be free from acts and omissions intended or expected to cause their unnatural or premature death, as well as to enjoy a life with dignity. Article 6 guarantees this right for all human beings, without distinction of any kind, including for persons suspected or convicted of even the most serious crimes.

4. Paragraph 1 of article 6 of the Covenant provides that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life and that the right shall be protected by law. It lays the foundation for the obligation of States parties to respect and to ensure the right to life, to give effect to it through legislative and other measures, and to provide effective remedies and reparation to all victims of violations of the right to life.”

So far, this looks pretty good. The UN states very bluntly that it values life.

Individuals should not be subjected to acts or omissions which cause their premature death (a.k.a. murder), and that they should have dignity in their lives.

States of the UN are obligated to respect life. This applies even to people suspected or convicted of committing the most serious crimes. It seems we are going down the line of “serial killers are human too”.

“6. Deprivation of life involves a deliberate3 or otherwise foreseeable and preventable life-terminating harm or injury, caused by an act or omission. It goes beyond injury to bodily or mental integrity or threat thereto, which are prohibited by article 9, paragraph 1.4 “

Nothing in this statement I can disagree with.

“8. Enforced disappearance constitutes a unique and integrated series of acts and omissions representing a grave threat to life and may thus result in a violation of the right to life.7 It also violates other rights recognized in the Covenant, in particular, article 9 (liberty and security of persons), article 7 (prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) and article 16 (right to recognition of a person before the law). “

Nothing in this passage that is offensive either. Forced disappearances “do” cause an obvious threat to life and violate all sorts of regulations.

We will skip over 9, and come back to it.

“10. [While acknowledging the central importance to human dignity of personal autonomy, the Committee considers that States parties should recognize that individuals planning or attempting to commit suicide may be doing so because they are undergoing a momentary crisis which may affect their ability to make irreversible decisions, such as to terminate their life. Therefore,] States should take adequate measures, without violating their other Covenant obligations, to prevent suicides, especially among individuals in particularly vulnerable situations.”

I would agree with this. Taking the effort to engage in intervention to protect potentially suicidal people is definitely worthwhile.

“12. States parties engaged in the use of existing weapons and in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of new weapons, and means or methods of warfare must always consider their impact on the right to life. “

Agree fully.

“14. States parties should monitor the impact on the right to life of less-lethal weapons which are designed for use by law-enforcement agents and soldiers charged with lawenforcement missions, including electro-muscular disruption devices (Tasers),29 rubbercoated metal bullets, and attenuating energy projectiles. The use of such weapons must be restricted only to law-enforcement agents who have undergone appropriate training, and must be strictly regulated in accordance with international protocols for their use.”

Try not to kill suspects? Sure, good idea.

“20. The Covenant does not provide an enumeration of permissible grounds for deprivation of life. Still, article 6, paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 implicitly recognize that countries which have not abolished the death penalty and that have not ratified the Second Optional Protocol may continue to apply the death penalty with regard to the most serious crimes subject to a number of strict conditions. Other procedures regulating activity that may result in deprivation of life, such as conditions for use of lethal weapons by the police or protocols for new drug treatment, must be established by law, accompanied by effective institutional safeguards designed to prevent arbitrary deprivations of life, and be compatible with other provisions of the Covenant.”

Limit the death penalty to the most serious crimes? Sure.

“28. Persons with disabilities, including psychosocial and intellectual disabilities, are entitled to special measures of protection so as to ensure their effective enjoyment of the right to life on equal basis with others. Such measures of protection shall include reasonable accommodation of public policies which are necessary to ensure the right to life, such as ensuring access of persons with disabilities to essential goods and services, and special measures designed to prevent excessive use of force by law enforcement agents against persons with disabilities.”

People with physical and intellectual disabilities are also entitled to life and dignity. Agreed.

“42. Under no circumstances can the death penalty be imposed as part of a policy of genocide against members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Article 6, paragraph 3 reminds all States parties who are also parties to the Genocide Convention of their obligations to prevent and punish the crime of genocide, which include the obligation to prevent and punish all deprivations of life, which constitute part of a crime of genocide.”

So, where does the problem exist?
See paragraph #9.

“9. Although States parties may adopt measures designed to regulate terminations of pregnancy, (1) such measures must not result in violation of the right to life of a pregnant woman or her other rights under the Covenant, including the prohibition against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. Thus, (2) any legal restrictions on the ability of women to seek abortion must not, inter alia, jeopardize their lives or subject them to physical or mental pain or suffering which violates article 7. States (3) parties must provide safe access to abortion to protect the life and health of pregnant women, and in situations in which carrying a pregnancy to term would cause the woman (4) substantial pain or suffering, most notably where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or when the foetus suffers from fatal impairment. States parties may not regulate pregnancy or abortion in a manner that runs contrary to (5) their duty to ensure that women do not have to undertake unsafe abortions. [For example, they should not take measures such as (6) criminalizing pregnancies by unmarried women or applying criminal sanctions against women undergoing abortion or against physicians assisting them in doing so, when taking such measures is expected to significantly increase resort to unsafe abortions]. Nor should States parties (7) introduce humiliating or unreasonably burdensome requirements on women seeking to undergo abortion. The (8) duty to protect the lives of women against the health risks associated with unsafe abortions requires States parties to ensure access for women and men, and, in (9) particular, adolescents, to information and education about reproductive options, and to a wide range of contraceptive methods. States parties must also (10) ensure the availability of adequate prenatal and post-abortion health care for pregnant women.”

Now we get to the real problem,
UNBORN CHILDREN DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE

4. About The Bolded Comments

1/ States can “regulate” abortion, but not if it means violating her rights, or anything she may find cruel, inhumane or degrading. Screw the child.
2/ No legal restrictions if it jeopardises the “mental” health of the mother. Not the physical health or life, but the mental health, which can mean anything.
3/ States must provide access to abortion if it endangers health, and yes, that means mental health. I guess as long as the child in an inconvenience.
4/ Again, they consider “suffering” to be mental as well.
5/ States have to provide abortion to ensure that women won’t “unsafely” kill their children
6/ Remove any penalties for abortion, if it would lead to “unsafe” abortions.
7/ Unreasonably burdensome? Would a therapist or medical exam be considered burdensome? Would telling the mother to think it over be too much?
8/ Again, since women may engage in “unsafe” abortions, states are obligated to provide it.
9/ Why the hell are we giving children advice on reproductive options?
10/ Kill the child or birth it, we still have to give the same care to the mother?!?!

UN doesn’t seem to see how inconsistent this attitude is with other provisions of the same document.

22. The second sentence of paragraph 1 provides that the right to life “shall be protected by law”. This implies that States parties must establish a legal framework to ensure the full enjoyment of the right to life by all individuals. The duty to protect the right to life by law also includes an obligation for States parties to take appropriate legal measures in order to protect life from all foreseeable threats, including from threats emanating from private persons and entities.

24. States parties must enact a protective legal framework which includes effective criminal prohibitions on all forms of arbitrary deprivations of life by individuals, including intentional and negligent homicide, disproportionate use of firearms, infanticide, “honour” killings, lynching, violent hate crimes, blood feuds, death threats, terrorist attacks and other manifestations of violence or incitement to violence that are likely to result in a deprivation of life. The criminal sanctions attached to these crimes must be commensurate with their gravity, while remaining compatible with all provisions of the Covenant.

UN prohibits infanticide, unless it is being done by the mother.
Abortions for everyone.
Abortions for children.

February 18, 2019November 17, 2022

UN Declaration On Rights Of Indigenous Peoples (BC and Feds)

(BC Premier John Horgan)

1. Important Links

(1) https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf
(2) http://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=8160636
(3) http://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=8936657
(4) http://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=9630600
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/canadas-bill-c-69-impact-energy-navigation-acts/
(6) https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/b-c-commits-to-being-1st-province-in-canada-to-put-undrip-into-legislation-1.5018447

The Government of British Columbia has announced that it will enact legislation to enforce UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Currently, there is a Federal version (Bill C-262) working its way through the Canadian Senate.

For reference, links to both C-48 (oil transportation), and C-69 (amend environmental acts) are both included. Canada is a nation that relies on resource development. Both of these bills will make these industries harder to function.

The UNDRIP, however, although “non-binding” may now be implemented at the Federal level and/or in British Columbia. This will give veto power to any development that may occur across of near “traditional lands”.

2. From The CBC Article

“”We need to address reconciliation in British Columbia, not just for social justice… but for economic equality for all citizens, Indigenous and non-Indigenous.”

Horgan’s NDP campaigned on a promise to implement UNDRIP, which includes 46 articles meant to recognize the basic human rights of Indigenous Peoples’ along with their rights to self-determination.

Article 32 is among those in the declaration often cited by Indigenous leadership. It directs states to obtain free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous groups before approving projects that would affect their lands or territories.

“For too long uncertainty on the land base has led to investment decisions being foregone, and I believe that that hurts Indigenous people and it hurts other British Columbians,” Horgan said on Tuesday.”

Okay, so what is this Article 32? It is right here:

Article 32
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.
2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.
3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.

A/ Take steps to mitigate social, cultural or spiritual impact? Industry now has be developed “around” religion or spirituality?
B/ Is this a right to veto any such projects? Or is this a right to demand “tolls” or “commissions”?
C? Is this an acknowledgement that Canada doesn’t have control over its own lands?

3. What Else Is In UNDRIP

Article 4 Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

Interesting. Not necessary to actually be part of a nation when it is inconvenient.

Article 5 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.

So it is not necessary to choose. A person “can” be part of both the state, and a separate collective, depending on what is convenient at that time.

Article 8
1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.
2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;
(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;
(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.

The UN believes that Indigenous People’s should never be forced to assimilate. UN “also” views assimilation of migrants to not be important. This will lead to fracturing and balkanizing nations.

The next several articles go on about the host country not being forced to assimilate of change. Perhaps we can use it against future waves of migration.

Article 27 States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process, giving due recognition to indigenous peoples’ laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems, to recognize and adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their lands, territories and resources, including those which were traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. Indigenous peoples shall have the right to participate in this process.

If this wording is to be taken literally, it looks like parallel legal systems can be used. This makes any uniformity or justice unlikely.

Article 31
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.
2. In conjunction with indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights.

Would be nice if the rest of Canada was entitled to keep our identity, rather than this multicultural, post-nation state that is forced upon us.

Article 45 Nothing in this Declaration may be construed as diminishing or extinguishing the rights indigenous peoples have now or may acquire in the future.

Okay, this list is not exhaustive, and new “rights” may be added later, or other previous rights will also be enacted.

Admittedly, there are some good things in this declaration. However, getting any major projects going will be difficult if several groups are able to veto at any time for any reason.

There is evident a double standard when it comes to protecting identity.

So, what does Bill C-262 say?

In short, it has a short introduction to adopt UNDRIP, then quotes it all

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
.
3 The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations as General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on September 13, 2007, and that is set out in the schedule, is hereby affirmed as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law.
.
Consistency
.
4 The Government of Canada, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples in Canada, must take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
.
National Action Plan
.
5 The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples, develop and implement a national action plan to achieve the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Like many United Nations initiatives, this looks fairly innocuous and harmless. However, once it is implemented, the actual consequences are far from clear.

It could be a sign of goodwill, and a way to ensure autonomy.

Or it could help destroy the Canadian economy. Time will tell.

Author: Ronnie

Stop Replacement Migration, Have Bigger Families

1. Previous Solutions Offered

2. Population Replacement Agenda

3. The Hungarian Alternative

4. Conservatism & Libertarianism Fail

Like this:

The UN’s Hypocritical Stance On Sexual Abuse

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Important Links

3. UN Policy, Sexual Exploitation

4. Daily Wire Article

5. UN “Human Rights” Council

Like this:

UN Taking Over Democracy Abroad

Like this:

UN Endorses Abortion As “Human Right”, Even For Kids

1. Other Articles on Abortion/Infanticide

2. Important Links

3. General Comments

4. About The Bolded Comments

Like this:

UN Declaration On Rights Of Indigenous Peoples (BC and Feds)

1. Important Links

2. From The CBC Article

3. What Else Is In UNDRIP

Like this:

1. Previous Solutions Offered

2. Population Replacement Agenda

3. The Hungarian Alternative

4. Conservatism & Libertarianism Fail

Share this:

Like this:

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Important Links

3. UN Policy, Sexual Exploitation

4. Daily Wire Article

5. UN “Human Rights” Council

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

1. Other Articles on Abortion/Infanticide

2. Important Links

3. General Comments

4. About The Bolded Comments

Share this:

Like this:

1. Important Links

2. From The CBC Article

3. What Else Is In UNDRIP

Share this:

Like this: