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.
“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.
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.
Check out Australian YouTuber Daisy Cousens, for an interesting review on the Green New Deal. Thorough, and on point in her critique.
1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam
CLICK HERE, for #1: major lies that the climate frauds tell. CLICK HERE, for #2: review of the Paris Accord. CLICK HERE, for #3: Bill C-97, the GHG Pollution Pricing Act. CLICK HERE, for #4: in 3-2 decision, Sask. COA allows carbon tax. CLICK HERE, for #5: controlled opposition to carbon tax. CLICK HERE, for #6: controlled opposition Cons ==> Supreme Court. CLICK HERE, for #7: climate bonds pitched as $100T industry. CLICK HERE, for #8: Joel Wood pitching various pricing options. CLICK HERE, for #9: Mark Carney and UN climate finance. CLICK HERE, for #10: Goldman Sachs, Obama, Clinton, Chicago CX. CLICK HERE, for #11: Coronavirus, Pirbright Inst, Gates, Depopulation.
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for the Green New Deal FAQ. CLICK HERE, for House Resolution 109, Green New Deal. CLICK HERE, for the Forbes article referenced in the FAQ. CLICK HERE, for the Huffington Post article referenced in the FAQ.
3. Context For This Review
Newly elected US Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has announced an extremely ambitious “Green New Deal”. It will not only save the world, help eco-systems, dramatically boost the US economy, phase out carbon industries, but it will provide economic security for everyone — even those not willing to work.
Of course, don’t bother asking how much this will cost. The only question that matters (apparently) is the cost if nothing is done. That will be the end of the world as we know it.
Many still question this economics graduate, just because she doesn’t know how economics work. But that is just being divisive.
Additionally, it will pander to every imaginable group who is oppressed. The world may be ending, but it doesn’t mean we have to put aside such issues as gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc….
Please don’t be selfish here. Wondering about (a) your job security; (b) your lifestyle; (c) your private property; (d) your civil rights, etc are inconsequential. All that matters is saving the world.
Some may wonder what will happen if they “refuse” to go along with this massive, sweeping, government program. Afterall, many are resistant to change. But we will have to see what the penalties will be later. Perhaps some amendments will be added. Daisy Cousens (in the above video), makes the valid point that in order to see this deal go through, government force will be required.
4. The FAQ Section
“What is the Green New Deal?
.
The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan to create a greenhouse gas neutral society that creates unprecedented levels of prosperity and wealth for all while ensuring economic and environmental justice and security.
The Green New Deal achieves this through a World War 2 scale mobilization that focuses the robust and creative economic engine of the United States on reversing climate change by fully rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, restoring our natural ecosystems, dramatically expanding renewable power generation, overhauling our entire transportation system, upgrading all our buildings, jumpstarting US clean manufacturing, transforming US agriculture, and putting our nation’s people to work doing what they do best: making the impossible possible.”
1/ The first part says that it is to create a greenhouse gas neutral society, yet also promises unprecedented levels of wealth and prosperity.
2/ Logistical question: how do you ensure economic justice when implementing such a drastic plan? It sounds expensive.
3/ So fighting climate change is like fighting Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? Okay.
4/ To dramatically expand renewable power, wouldn’t that involve developing on those lands you want to restore?
5/ Upgrade all buildings? Does that include all homes? How is such a thing possible, and will people be put up in hotels while their homes are being upgraded?
6/ Jumpstarting US clean manufacturing? Will private or public funds be poured into that? Also, won’t you also be putting a lot of other people out of work? Look at Ontario or BC to see how those “clean initiatives” have played out.
7/ If this enviro shift will lead to unprecedented levels of prosperity, why is it no private companies have attempted anything like this (even on a small scale)? Aren’t they all greedy capitalists?
8/ About this crumbling infrastructure, will it all be demolished and new ones built, or is it geared towards massive renovations?
9/ What will happen to people who refuse to go along with it?
Any large-scale transformation of society can create the risk of some people slipping through the cracks. That’s why the Green New Deal also calls for an upgrade to the basic economic securities enjoyed by all people in the US to ensure everybody benefits from the newly created wealth. It guarantees to everyone:
-A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
-High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
-High-quality health care
-Clean air and water
-Healthy food
-Safe, affordable, adequate housing
-An economic environment free of monopolies
-Economic security to all who are unable or UNWILLING TO WORK
(my emphasis above). That’s right. It guarantees everyone “unwilling” to work economic security. Not those unable to work, but anyone “unwilling”. This is doomed to fail, since there will be absolutely no incentive to work.
People will figure out very quickly it makes no sense to work and pay taxes for non-workers, when they can just be one of those non-workers, and get money for free. It will kill any incentive to be productive.
“Why is such a large-scale mobilization necessary right now?
A recent IPCC report declared that global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate. This calls for global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions of 40 to 60 percent by 2030. The U.S. contributes 20% of global emissions. To hit these global targets, the US must not only get to a greenhouse gas emissions neutral society by 2030, but it must also lead this change abroad to avert climate catastrophe.”
1/ So it’s not that the world will end in 12 years, but that there “may” be a rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, (which was 1700s)
2/ IPCC has a very lengthy history of making wrong predictions. Does that matter to you?
3/ Also, if greenhouse emissions were such a critical factor, wouldn’t all this industrialization you’re calling for make the problem worse?
4/ Wouldn’t planting a lot more trees take a lot of this impact away? Just hire poor highly-indebted college students.
“How will you pay for the Green New Deal?
The Green New Deal is a massive investment program, not an expenditure. The question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what is the cost of inaction, and what will we do with our new shared prosperity created by the investments in the Green New Deal.
We will finance the investments for the Green New Deal the same way we paid for the original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the rich, and decades of war – with public money appropriated by Congress. Further, government can take an equity stake in Green New Deal projects so the public gets a return on its investment. We already know that investments in infrastructure create huge returns on investment. The interstate highway system returned more than $6 in economic productivity for every $1 it cost. Similarly, investments in upgrading and transforming industry are a chance to grow the wealth of our nation dramatically.”
This completely dodges the question. Leftists tend to refer to all spending as “investments” in order to deflect attention. No responsible government would simply commit to open-ended spending of this sort. The US is already $22 trillion (yes, trillion) in debt. Where would this money come from? And will people be “forced” to pay for and go along with this scheme?
The Huffington Post article echoes that mentality.
“We must give up our obsession with trying to ‘pay for’ everything with new revenue or spending cuts.”
“Will this hurt communities that rely on fossil fuels jobs?
The Green New Deal will prioritize creating high-quality, family wage-supporting union jobs in communities that rely on fossil fuel industries. It will ensure that all communities have a better alternative for high-wage work before they transition away from fossil fuel industry based work.”
This is wishful thinking. Pumping almost endless amounts of money into an open-ended, and largely unquantifiable “World War II” agenda “may” lead to a job boom. But once the borrowed money runs out (hint: it will), it would lead to a regional collapse as those new jobs disappear.
“Is this an environmental plan? Why do you have things like universal health care and other social safety net measures in here?
The Green New Deal is a plan to make a full-scale transition of our economy that puts jobs and justice first. This plan will require a strong social safety net so that every U.S. person can make this transition comfortably and nobody falls through the cracks in the process. If we want to be able to mobilize our economy fully, we can’t afford to have employees stuck in their current jobs because they are afraid to lose health care or workers unable to participate because they can’t afford the education and training programs. We also need to be sure that workers currently employed in fossil fuel industries have higher-wage and better jobs available to them to be able to make this transition, and a federal jobs guarantee ensures that no worker is left behind. We believe that the economic securities and programs for justice and equity laid out in this Green New Deal resolution are a bare minimum of what we need to do to successfully execute the Green New Deal.”
1/ So, this is to dismantle the US economy altogether and replace it with a new one?
2/ We can’t afford to have people stuck in those low paying jobs, yet you are going to shut down entire industries.
3/ Your plan for a new infrastructure involves pumping money in indefinitely. Until these systems are operational, they won’t be running, or able to produce anything else.
4/ This will involve creating a whole separate economy to build up all these new energy efficient systems, and overhauling existing buildings.
5/ Where will all this money come from? Wait, not supposed to ask.
6/ What will happen to transportation when all air travel is phased out?
7/ How does any of this “reduce” carbon emissions?
8/ Can we assume that “going along” with this plan will be voluntary? Or will it be forced?
Okay, now we get to the House Resolution itself, and the introduction of incessant identity politics.
First, here comes the fear mongering, and the costs of doing nothing. Take everything will a grain of salt.
“(3) global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause—
(A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change;
(B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100;
(C) wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019;
(D) a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth;
(E) more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050; and
(F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States; and
(4) global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require—
(A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030; and
(B) net-zero global emissions by 2050;”
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez supports open borders and mass migration. She openly calls to abolish immigration control entirely in the US. So how will mass migration to a high-consumption society “reduce” carbon emissions?
B/ $500B in lost economic output, yet we are not supposed to ask about money when funding this new deal?
C/ A source would be nice.
D/ These are the same scientists who say the north pole would disappear.
E/ 350M more people exposed to heat stress? I thought temperatures were only going to raise 1.5 degrees Celcius?!
F/ A risk to $1 trillion worth of public infrastructure by a temperature raise of 1.5 degrees Celcius? And I thought money was no issue.
4/ “Pre-industrialised periods” means before 1800s.
A/ 40-60% cut? Yet you want to phase out carbon entirely.
B/ Plant more trees. Problem solved.
“Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as “systemic injustices”) by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);”
The references to identity politics are rampant throughout the bill.
“(2) a 4-decade trend of wage stagnation, deindustrialization, and antilabor policies that has led to—
(A) hourly wages overall stagnating since the 1970s despite increased worker productivity;
(B) the third-worst level of socioeconomic mobility in the developed world before the Great Recession;
(C) the erosion of the earning and bargaining power of workers in the United States; and
(D) inadequate resources for public sector workers to confront the challenges of climate change at local, State, and Federal levels; and”
It’s an interesting double standard here. Ocasio-Cortez keeps bringing up wages, finances and economic situations when it comes to getting support for the bill. Yet she continuously avoids financial discussion when it comes for paying for this green new deal. Can’t have it both ways.
“(3) the greatest income inequality since the 1920s, with—
(A) the top 1 percent of earners accruing 91 percent of gains in the first few years of economic recovery after the Great Recession;
(B) a large racial wealth divide amounting to a difference of 20 times more wealth between the average white family and the average black family; and
(C) a gender earnings gap that results in women earning approximately 80 percent as much as men, at the median;”
A/ Having an economic disparity by itself is not evidence of injustice. People who are highly driven tend to far out earn their unproductive counterparts. But remember, you wanted to create a system which paid people a living wage for refusing to work.
B/ Is this an apples-to-oranges comparison? Would Ocasio-Cortez be comparing European living standards to African living standards? Or is she suggesting this gap is all within America?
Remember, the 1% is very small.
So, if an average black family earned $30,000/year, does it mean the average white family earned $600,00/year? That doesn’t add up
C/ The gender pay gap is simply the earnings difference between men and women overall. Women tend to earn less since they take more time off to raise children, and often choose lower paying jobs.
If you could get the same work from a woman as a man, and just pay her less, then wouldn’t there be an incentive to fire all the men and only hire women?
“(3) a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses; and”
Sorry to rain on the parade, but what happens if large segments of these groups DON’T want the deal, and the burdens it imposes on them? Will their will be ignored?
Now, let’s talk about how this will be implemented. Again, the Resolution doesn’t take into account what will happen if people say no.
“(4) to achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects—
(A) providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization;
(B) ensuring that the Federal Government takes into account the complete environmental and social costs and impacts of emissions through—
(i) existing laws;
(ii) new policies and programs; and
(iii) ensuring that frontline and vulnerable communities shall not be adversely affected;
(C) providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization;
(D) making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries;
(E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;
(F) ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level;
(G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;
(H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States;
(I) strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;
(J) strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors;
(K) enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections—
(i) to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and
(ii) to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States;
(L) ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused;
(M) obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples;
(N) ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies; and
(O) providing all people of the United States with—
(i) high-quality health care;
(ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;
(iii) economic security; and
(iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.”
While this may be well intentioned, it is clearly not realistic
A/ Financing is important, but you need to provide “way” more detail on this.
B/ Take the societal impacts into account? Okay. What happens if your own studies say that your program is impractical?
C/ High education to everyone? Government controlled, or free market?
D/ Making investment in research? Okay, but how long will the research take to complete? Remember, this is only a 10 year plan
E/ Directing investments? Great, though again, we need more detail.
F/ Ensuring the democratic process? That “sounds” great, but this can only be achieved by “taking away” people’s rights.
G/ Guaranteed jobs and training?
H/ More guaranteed jobs.
I/ Strengthening their rights, yet this deal can only be achieved by “removing” rights and imposing it.
J/ Strengthening H&S laws? Normally I would be totally on board with this, but it context of everything else, it is chilling what the details will look like.
K/ This may be poor wording, but how does one “transfer pollution”? Also, why would you worry about borders? Don’t you want to abolish ICE?
L/ Protecting public lands? Actually a good one.
M/ Consent from Indigenous Peoples? Okay, will you still go ahead if they say no?
N/ Prevent unfair competition? But don’t you “ensure” it, with this government monopoly?
O/ Guaranteed health care, housing, jobs, necessities
5. Final Thoughts
While this all sounds great, the details (and lack of) are scary. Not only that, the authors seem totally unaware of how self-contradictory the GND is.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly RELIES ON financial incentives to sell the program, yet AVOIDS any talk of how this will be paid for.
Further she talks about GIVING rights and discretions to groups and how they run their lives, yet implementing this will require TAKING rights away.
The deal mentions EQUALITY many times, but entire sections are devoted to divisive IDENTITY POLITICS and to pandering to specific groups.
The Green New Deal is to PROVIDE new opportunities and entitlements for everyone in America, yet involves SHUTTING DOWN entire sectors of the economy.
All of these promises are made that the social service needs of AMERICANS will be met. However, Ocasio-Cortez promotes OPEN BORDERS IMMIGRATION, which would see those services overrun.
For this deal to be implemented in any real form, any and all rights of citizens (to oppose) it would need to be taken away, and the deal imposed by force. Even then, it would bankrupt the USA long before it ever became reality.
Global citizenship education
While the world may be increasingly interconnected, human rights violations, inequality and poverty still threaten peace and sustainability.
Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is UNESCO’s response to these challenges. It works by empowering learners of all ages to understand that these are global, not local issues and to become active promoters of more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, secure and sustainable societies.
GCED is a strategic area of UNESCO’s Education Sector programme and builds on the work of Peace and Human Rights Education. It aims to instil in learners the values, attitudes and behaviours that support responsible global citizenship: creativity, innovation, and commitment to peace, human rights and sustainable development.
UNESCO’s work in this area is grounded in its own Constitution which aims to ‘build peace in the minds of men and women,’ the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Education 2030 Agenda and Framework for Action, notably Target 4.7 of the Sustainable Development Agenda, the Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1974), and the World Programme for Human Rights Education
(link is external)
(2005-ongoing).
Under the GCED umbrella, UNESCO has several special themes: Preventing violent extremism through education, Education about the Holocaust and genocide, Languages in education and the promotion of the rule of law through global citizenship education
UNESCO collaborates with an extensive global network to disseminate GCED including its own Category 1 institutes, other UN agencies and inter-governmental organizations, including regional organizations, most notably: the UNESCO Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable Development (MGIEP), the International Institute for Capacity Building in Africa (IICBA), the UNESCO Institute for Statistic (UIS), the Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding (APCIEU), the UNESCO Associated Schools Project Network (ASPNet) and UNITWIN/UNESCO Chairs.
3. UNESCO Tramples on Provincial/State Jurisdiction For Education
Sections 91/92/93 of Canadian Constitution lay out areas of jurisdiction
Education
Marginal note:
Legislation respecting Education
93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:
.
(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union;
.
(2) All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen’s Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen’s Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec;
.
(3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen’s Subjects in relation to Education;
.
(4) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far only as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section.
10th Amendment stresses the States’ rights
>Amendment 10
– Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
UNESCO’s “Human Rights” Push Violates Prov/State Rules Section 91(13) Property and Civil Rights in the Province — clearly Provincial matter
Likewise in the US, human rights/civil rights are decided at the “State” level.
UN Obsession With Immigration Intrudes Prov/State Rights
(Note: This is somewhat off topic, but worth mentioning)
Section 95 of Canadian Constitution
Concurrent Powers of Legislation respecting Agriculture, etc.
95. In each Province the Legislature may make Laws in relation to Agriculture in the Province, and to Immigration into the Province; and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of Canada may from Time to Time make Laws in relation to Agriculture in all or any of the Provinces, and to Immigration into all or any of the Provinces; and any Law of the Legislature of a Province relative to Agriculture or to Immigration shall have effect in and for the Province as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada<.p>
CLICK HERE, for an immigration article State v Federal rights:
Jurisdiction and the Supremacy Clause
The federal government’s jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.
However, many states have passed legislation that limits undocumented immigrants’ access to public benefits, directs state and local police to check the legal residence status of arrestees and other directives that affect immigrants. Lawmakers pressing for immigration-related state laws typically cite a lack of federal enforcement and the need to conserve limited state resources, while some cite security concerns.
But are such state laws constitutional? While state lawmakers have articulated a genuine interest in limiting illegal immigration, there is no clear line in the sand. See State Immigration Laws for a regularly updated, state-by-state directory.
Immigration Laws at the State Level
Perhaps the most notorious state attempt at regulating immigration is Arizona’s S.B. 1070, signed into law in 2010. The U.S. Dept. of Justice (DOJ) stated in a brief that Arizona lawmakers “crossed a constitutional line” with the new law. A federal judge blocked four of the most controversial elements, including the requirement that police check the immigration status of anyone they stop or suspect is in the state illegally.
Other states have passed laws with similar police directives, including Oklahoma and Utah. In addition to enforcement measures, many of the state laws addressing immigration mandate the use of E-Verify to check the employment eligibility of job applicants; require identification for voting purposes and impose restrictions on public benefits, such as food stamps and non-emergency medical care at state clinics.
Lawmakers in Arizona and Indiana directly challenged the 14th Amendment’s provision granting automatic citizenship to those born on U.S. soil, proposing legislation that would do just that. Proponents of such laws argue that the amendment’s interpretation should be narrowed to exclude children who are born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants, positioning their controversial bills for eventual review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Note: Both in Canada and the US, immigration is generally seen as a Federal matter, though Provinces/States do have some wiggle room.
Since the UN views itself as a “global citizen education” provider, it should come as no surprise that it is creeping towards having a common education curriculum.
Local and regional control is incrementally being phased out.
National pride is being replaced by global acceptance.
UN Leading To Death Of Nations Put all this in a bigger context:
Global citizens, with global values, a global education, and global “rights”;
Cultures, customs, traditions replaced by “tolerance”
Borders replaced by “integrated mechanisms”
Facilitated by global agreement for free migration;
A global ban on criticizing “religions” like Islam;
Global access to internet, but governed by the UN;
Endless EDA initiatives like Agenda 21, 2030, Paris Accord;
Governed by a world parliament
Please read this policy idea, first posted on Canucklaw over 3 months ago. You will very likely agree with the conclusion.
CLICK HERE, for a March 2008 meeting. CLICK HERE, for an April 2009 press briefing. CLICK HERE, for a 2009 statement, States obliged to promote religious tolerance. CLICK HERE, for World Interfaith Harmony Week, February 2010. CLICK HERE, for a 2010 call for “minority rights”. CLICK HERE for UN Assistance in Afghanistan meeting in 2012. CLICK HERE, for a 2012 address from the Turkish Foreign Minister CLICK HERE, for a 2014 Iranian statement to the UN. CLICK HERE, for a whitewashing of Islam, October 2014. CLICK HERE, for a gripe-fest about Islamophobia, August 2017. CLICK HERE, for Iqra Khalid, Pakistani Muslim, and Liberal MP.
2. Iqra Khalid’s Blasphemy Motion
Text of the Motion
.
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should:
(a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear;
(b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and
(c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could
(i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Now, this seems harmless enough. After all, it is “non-binding”.
However, efforts are being made regularly, particularly in the United Nations to ban criticism of Islam globally.
Don’t believe me? Check out the links above, and read the quotes below.
“…Noting the Declaration adopted by the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers at its thirty-fourth session in Islamabad, in May 2007, which condemned the growing trend of Islamophobia and systematic discrimination against the adherents of Islam and emphasized the need to take effective measures to combat defamation of religions,
Noting also the final communiqué adopted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference at its eleventh summit, in Dakar, in March 2008, in which the Organization expressed concern at the systematically negative stereotyping of Muslims and Islam and other divine religions, and denounced the overall rise in intolerance and discrimination against Muslim minorities, which constitute an affront to human dignity and run counter to the international human rights instruments,
2. Also expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations and emphasizes that equating any religion with terrorism should be rejected and combated by all at all levels;
3. Further expresses deep concern at the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;
6. Expresses concern at laws or administrative measures that have been specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination that they experience;
9. Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;
10. Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt is an essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
15. Invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to continue to report on all manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights to the Council at its ninth session;”
Note: Although “non-binding”, this vote succeeded, 21-10.
This is filled with references to Islam being victimised. Again, and again, systematic oppression and discrimination is blamed.
However, there is mention of the intolerance and violence “caused” by Islam and muslims against “Kafirs”. Indeed, there seems to be endless mistreatment, but it is only aimed in one direction.
Although there have been many votes and motions over the years to ban criticism of Islam in the West, they have (for now) failed to pass a binding resolution due to free speech concerns.
4. What Does Turkey Think?
“…He underlined that the recent attacks against the Prophet Muhammad and against Islam were outright provocations that aimed to pit nations and peoples against each other. Turkey condemned all sorts of incitement to hatred and religious discrimination against Muslims and peoples of other faiths. Unfortunately, Islamophobia had become a new form of racism, like anti-Semitism, and it could no longer be tolerated “under the guise of freedom of expression”. Freedom did not mean anarchy, he stressed in that respect; instead, it meant responsibility. At the same time, he condemned the provocation and violence that followed, saying it “cannot be justified under any pretext”. Because of the alarming increase in the number of acts that defame religions, he believed the time had come to establish the denigration of all religions and their followers as a hate crime. He called for a universal policy and legal instrument that, while protecting free expression, should also ensure respect for religion and prevent intentional insults against faiths. “The solution should not be arbitrary,” he added, calling on the United Nations, in particular, to lead that effort and provide the international legal framework.”
1/ Islamophobia is apparently racism. Islam is a race?
2/ Freedom means responsibility (aka censorship)
3/ People wanting free speech are responsible for the violence that ensues?
4/ Calls to prevent insults (aka hurt feelings)
5/ UN should set the legal framework?!?!
Going through the UN archives, there are almost endless reports and meetings of Muslims claiming to be victims and demanding that their ways be respected. Noticeably absent, is anything that says Muslims must respect “other people’s” ways.
A global ban on blasphemy (criticizing Islam) is coming. It is just a matter of time.
