Author: Ronnie

Posted on

Kevin O’Leary Sues Elections Canada Over Fundraising Limits

(Kevin O’Leary, former candidate for CPC, to replace Stephen Harper)

***********************************************************************
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
***********************************************************************

CBC published an article announcing that former Conservative Party leadership candidate, Kevin O’Leary, is suing Elections Canada over ruling relating to how he can pay back campaign debt. During the election campaign, O’Leary accumulated about $2,000,000 in debt. Approximately $400,000 is still outstanding.

Kevin-O-Leary

A quote from the article states that:

In his claim, O’Leary said that it is proving too difficult to raise the necessary funds in the three-year timeframe set by Elections Canada laws because people are understandably “uninterested” in contributing to a failed campaign that is long over.

He has a good point. No one would be interested in contributing to a political campaign that has long since ended. So it does posse serious challenges for him to do so.

Further, the article raises an interesting question:

“If you’re out of the race, and you’re not a politician any more and you owe money to a fellow citizen, where is it right that the law protects you from ever paying it back? That’s un-Canadian. That’s unconstitutional. That’s simply wrong,”

Again, this is valid. O’Leary’s brief political career is finished. He claims to never wish to run for office again, so what is the issue with him simply paying the debts and moving on with his life? O’Leary states that he has the funds available to do so, but is prohibited from doing so under the Canada Elections Act.

The claim filed is available here, and let’s go through some of the better arguments.

Regarding the applicable laws, the claim states:

1. A declaration that subsections 367(1)(d), (6) and (7), 478.756), and 500(1) of the Canada Elections Act, SC. 2000, c. 9 (the ?Act?) (collectively referred to herein as the impugned provisions) infringe on and deny the rights and freedoms guaranteed by sections 3 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter)

and are not saved by section 1 thereof;

2. A declaration that, insofar as the impugned provisions infringe on and deny the rights and freedoms guaranteed by sections 3 and/or 7 of the Charter and cannot be justified under section 1 of the Charter, those provisions are invalid and of no force and effect, to

the extent of the inconsistency;
3. In addition, or in the alternative:

a. A declaration that the impugned provisions violate the constitutional principle of the rule of law, which requires that laws be written and interpreted according to an intelligible legal standard that gives individuals fair notice of the conduct that will

attract imprisonment by the state;

b. A declaration that, insofar as the impugned provisions fail to meet the constitutional standard of legislative precision required by the rule of law, these provisions are invalid and of no force and effect or, in the alternative, must be read down so as to

satisfy this standard;

Okay, let’s dissect this word salad. O’Leary claims that portions of the Canada Elections Act, violate several provisions of the Canadian Charter. The “reasonable limitation is the Charter (section 1) would not apply and justify the C.E.A. Further, he implies that the C.E.A. is written in a too confusing standard to be followed.

Here is the Canada Elections Act.

Contribution limits
367 (1) Subject to subsection 373(4), no individual shall make contributions that exceed

(a) $1,500 in total in any calendar year to a particular registered party;
(b) $1,500 in total in any calendar year to the registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates of a particular registered party;
(c) $1,500 in total to a candidate for a particular election who is not the candidate of a registered party; and
(d) $1,500 in total in any calendar year to the leadership contestants in a particular leadership contest.

Contributions — candidates and leadership contestants
(6) Subject to subsection (7), no candidate in a particular election and no leadership contestant in a particular leadership contest shall make a contribution out of their own funds to their own campaign.
Marginal note:

Exception — certain contributions to own campaign
(7) The following contributions are permitted:
(a) contributions that do not exceed $5,000 in total by a candidate for a particular election out of their own funds to their own campaign; and
(b) contributions that do not exceed $25,000 in total by a leadership contestant in a particular leadership contest out of their own funds to their own campaign.

Okay, 367(1)(d) has to do with individuals making contributions being limited to $1,500 per year to any leadership contestant. Sections (6) and (7) have to do with overall individual limits. It is definitely reasonable that there should be contribution limits, in order to avoid having candidates “BOUGHT AND PAID FOR”. However, should that apply to former candidates who have since moved on.

3 potential counter arguments against O’Leary though:
(a) What if a person “hasn’t” moved on, and intends to use this relief for future campaigns?
(b) Would removing this cap be an end-run around spending limits?
(c) Would this restriction be necessary to ensure “smaller candidates” get a fair shot?

There is no 478.756 in the Canada Elections Act. It appears to be a type in the claim. However, this is the provision that I believe O’Leary was referring to. That is 478.75.

Payment within three years
478.75 (1) If a claim for a leadership campaign expense is evidenced by an invoice or other document that has been sent under section 478.74, or if a claim for repayment of a loan is made to the leadership contestant under section 373, the claim shall be paid within three years after the day on which the leadership contest ends.

Once more this seems to make a good point. The C.E.A requires repayment within 3 years. However, if former candidates must: (I) pay in 3 years or less; (II) are not actually able to raise more donations because they are not running; and (III) have strict limits as to how much of their personal wealth they can use, then there seem to be few, if any options.

Now, for section 500 of the C.E.A.:

Marginal note:
Punishment — strict liability offences
500 (1) Every person who is guilty of an offence under any of subsections 484(1), 486(1), 489(1), 491(1), 492(1), 495(1), 495.1(1), 495.2(1), 496(1), 497(1), 497.1(1), 497.2(1), 497.3(1), 497.4(1), 497.5(1) and 499(1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three months, or to both.

I’m not going to quote the entirety of Section 500. The point is that O’Leary is correct, the C.E.A. does in fact threaten jail time as a punishment for failing to comply.

One the surface, Kevin O’Leary’s claim seems to be valid, given the strict rules the C.E.A. sets out. But let’s now check out the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which the lawsuit references as relief.

Democratic rights of citizens
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

O’Leary makes the argument that fairly large campaigns are necessary to be elected as part of a legislative assembly. Without debating the merits of “big money”, it is a fact. Campaigns and elections are expensive to run.

Section 7 has to do with punishments, which Section 500 of the C.E.A. establishes can be up to 90 days in prison for violating provisions of the act.

Section 1 is often invoked as a “reasonable justification” for restricting Charter rights. Obviously, in order to restrict, there must be some societal overall good. While Elections Canada will obviously argue differently, O’Leary is attempting to preempt the defence by stating there is none.

Thoughts And Conclusions
Obviously, this is only beginning. The claim has been filed, but no response or defence has yet been made.

On the surface, the claim makes valid points. O’Leary, like all Canadian citizens, is allowed to run for any legislative assembly or body he wishes to. Today’s reality is that campaigns are long, expensive, and a financial drain to run. However, candidates may find themselves hamstrung by campaign finance rules, which seem overly complex and tedious.

As stated earlier, I see a few possible defences for Elections Canada
(a) What if a person “hasn’t” moved on, and intends to use this relief for future campaigns?
(b) Would removing this cap be an end-run around spending limits?
(c) Would this restriction be necessary to ensure “smaller candidates” get a fair shot?

Politicians (and aspiring politicians) across the country will likely be tracking this case, as it will have real impact on future elections and party leadership races.

As a side note: CBC published the article a month after the case was filed. Not that it is relevant to the case, but did they not know about it until then?

Posted on

Supreme Court Will Hear Woman Arrested for Not Holding Handrail

(Bela Kosoian, taking legal action to S.C.C.)

***********************************************************************
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
***********************************************************************

The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear Bela Kosoian, a woman detained in Laval, Quebec, for refusing to hold a hand rail.

(1) Backstory of the Case
This is a a bizarre story, starting in 2009, of a woman in a Laval, QC, subway station, refused instructions from transit officers to hold a handrail while on an escalator.

When transit officers attempted to write her a ticket for the refusal to obey, she refused to identify herself. Identity is rather important in enforcing tickets. This led to her being detained for about a half hour, after which point she did reveal her name.

Kosoian was issued 2 tickets from that incident, one for $100, and one for $320. She contested both, and they were eventually thrown out.

Since then, she has taken legal action against the city, the STM, and a staff member. After a series of legal twists, it will now be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.

(2) Quebec Court of Justice — Trial Court
Kosoian took legal action against: (a) the City of Laval; (b) Fabio Camacho — one of the officers; and (c) the Transportation Company of Montreal — aka the STM. She sought $24,000 for moral damages, pain, suffering, inconvenience and exemplary damages, and another $45,000 for moral and punitive damages for the fault committed by its agent.

Kosoian submitted a VERY LENGTHY list and description of physical and psychological trauma suffered as a resukt of being detained for about half an hour. On the surface, it seems like malingering.

Section 49 of the Canadian Charter was invoked, which states:

CHAPTER V
SPECIAL AND INTERPRETATIVE PROVISIONS

49. Any unlawful interference with any right or freedom recognized by this Charter entitles the victim to obtain the cessation of such interference and compensation for the moral or material prejudice resulting therefrom.
In case of unlawful and intentional interference, the tribunal may, in addition, condemn the person guilty of it to punitive damages.

For it’s part, the STM Referenced By-Law R-036

” BY-LAW R-036

“REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE SAFETY AND BEHAVIOR STANDARDS OF PERSONS IN ROAD EQUIPMENT AND BUILDINGS OPERATED BY OR FOR THE MONTREAL TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION”

[…]

SECTION III – GENERAL PROVISIONS

3. Subject to the law and regulations, any person has the right to use the public transportation system of the Company in comfort and safety.

Subsection I – Citizenship

4. In or on a building or rolling stock, no person shall

(a) impede or hinder the free movement of persons, including standing still, lurking, strolling, laying down or carrying a bag, container or other object;

(b) endanger the safety of persons or rolling stock, in particular by depositing or carrying a bag, container or other object;

[…]

e) to disobey a directive or pictogram posted by the Society;

[…]

h) to delay or interfere with the work of a servant of the Corporation; “

But according to the STM staff, it is not the potential safety infraction that led to Bela Kosoian being arrested. Rather, it was her refusal to identity herself when being written a ticket.

In August 2015, a Quebec Court rejected the claim. It stated that the officers acted reasonably, and that the situation was largely self-inflicted

(3) Motion for Leave, Quebec Court of Appeal
Kosoian sought leave to go to the Quebec Court of Appeal.

On December 2015, in an extremely brief ruling, the Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to proceed, dismissing a motion from the Respondents.

(4) Appeal, Quebec Court of Appeal
In a 2-1 split decision, Kosoian lost her appeal at the Quebec Court of Appeals. 2 Justices ruled that the STM and its staff had acted reasonably. In dissent, the other Justice says he would have set aside the Trial ruling, and ordered $15,000 in damages.

[ 1 ] The appellant appeals against a judgment rendered on August 11, 2015, by the Court of Quebec, District of Laval (the Honorable Denis Le Reste), dismissing the appellant’s motion to institute damages for damages .
[ 2 ] For the reasons of Dutil and Vauclair JJ., THE COURT :
[ 3 ] REJECTS the appeal with court costs.
[ 4 ] For other reasons, Schrager JA would have allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment at trial, granted the motion to institute proceedings, ordered the respondents, jointly and severally, to pay the appellant the sum of 15,000 $ with interest and the additional indemnity since the summons at first instance, as well as legal costs at first instance and on appeal, and stated that between the respondents, the Montreal Transit Corporation will have to assume the entire conviction.

(5) Supreme Court of Canada
This leads things to where they are today. Once again, the Supreme Court granting leave to appeal just now.

The motion for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal to the judgment of theCourt of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500-09-025644-154, 2017 QCCA 1919 (CanLII) , date December 5, 2017, is awarded with costs in the case. The schedule for serving and filing materials will be set by the Registrar .

An interesting split so far in the courts. In Kosoian’s favour:
-Supreme Court of Canada, leave to appeal
-Quebec Court of appeal, dissenting opinion
-Quebec Court of Appeal, motion for leave

And against Kosoian:
-Quebec Court of Appeal, majority opinion
-Quebec Trial Court
-Laval ruling which dismissed the original tickets.

Personally, I see blame on both sides here. While ticketing her for refusing to hold a handrail does seem excessive, the escalation of the problems resulted from Kosoian herself. She did refuse to identify herself when being ticketed, which for the STM was a legitimate demand. Also, her claims of emotional and psychological damages seem grossly exaggerated, and manipulated to seek a huge damages amount.

The Supreme Court Appeal Panel will now decide the case.

Posted on

CPC Endorses Globalism: Canzuk; Birth Tourism; Citizenship for “Refugees”; Islam, UN Migration

(CPC party convention in Halifax, to partially erase Canadian borders)

(Canzuk video on its website)

Yes, this is rather late to the punch, but here are some highlights of the CPC, as of August 2018, when the Halifax Policy Convention was held. Quotes are from CPC website.

1. Conservatives Endorse CANZUK

(At party convention in Halifax, in August 2018, CPC endorsed Canzuk)

This organization, seen here, is pushing for open borders between Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. Under the pretext of: “free trade, and free movement of people”, it is pushing for the elimination of barriers.

Unfortunately, there is scant information available on this organization, but here from the FAQ:

Is CANZUK International a charity? Is my donation tax-deductible?
CANZUK International is a nonprofit advocacy organization headquartered in Vancouver, Canada. Under Canadian law, charities are restricted to spending 10% or less of their budget on political advocacy. CANZUK International’s campaign is highly effective because so much of our work involves advocating for policy change. We just couldn’t do the work we do as a charity under the current rules. Your donation is a very powerful contribution to helping achieve free movement, trade and foreign policy cooperation between the CANZUK countries, but unfortunately, it’s not tax-deductible at this time.

Are you affiliated with any political parties?
We are strictly a non-partisan organization, but we support individuals who align with our campaign, no matter who they may be affiliated with themselves. We frequently speak with political leaders and their staff to raise awareness of our campaign and seek their support for our proposals. This, in turn, helps develop change in each of the four respective parliaments.

How does CANZUK International spend public donations?
100% of CANZUK International’s contributions come from individual donors like you. Our monthly donors, giving an average of $10 a month, form the backbone of our support and help us campaign for freer movement, trade and foreign policy between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
In 2017, 80% of our donations went to campaigning — this means the resources we need to run highly effective campaigns, publications, meetings, advertisements and action tools for our supporters. The other 20% went to operation and administrative costs, such as website maintenance and domain renewal.

On the surface, it seems harmless enough, but there are many questions that should be asked, including where specifically their funding comes from.

Recently, CanuckLaw covered this propaganda piece. The CBC released a piece advocating Canada increase its population to 100 million by the year 2100. It came from a globalist “non-profit” called Century Initiative.

Interesting, all of these non-profits working to boost immigration and eliminate borders. Almost would think this was a conspiracy.

2. Conservatives Support Birth Tourism

The August 2018 Halifax Convention was reported to have passed a resolution to ban “birth tourism”. This is a the practice woman having a child in a foreign country for the sole purpose of it granted automatic citizenship. The child, now a legal citizen, can then sponsor its parents for citizenship. Indeed, that is what was reported by the media.

But the fact is the CPC didn’t do any such thing. Rather, they passed a non-binding resolution aimed at “ending abuse”, which is something entirely different.

“Our Shadow Minister for Immigration Michelle Rempel will soon begin her Pathways to Canada tour, during which she and other Conservative MPs will meet with stakeholders and policymakers to provide input on new Conservative immigration policy.

While the policy passed did not clearly focus on ending the practice of birth tourism, ending birth tourism will be among the objectives of our policy.

Conservatives recognize there are many Canadians who have been born in Canada by parents who have come here to stay and have contributed greatly to our country. I will not end the core policy that facilitates this. Unlike Justin Trudeau, I will safeguard it against abuse.”

To make this very clear, the CPC has not actually rejected, or promised to reject or repeal the practice. Rather they will “safeguard it from abuse”. What is abuse? No one is saying, and the http://conservative.ca website does not list policy on it.

3. Conservatives Support Citizenship For Fake Refugees

From this link, there is information on refugees.

“Specifically, we are looking for the best ways to integrate newcomers into Canada’s economic and social fabric, address labor needs, and ensure provincial support is adequately budgeted for.

We are committed to doing whatever we can to restore Canadians’ confidence in their immigration and refugee system.”

At no point does the CPC say they will “deport” those jumping the border and flaunting the immigration rules. Rather, they will “integrate” people better, and come come up with a “better plan” than the Liberals would. Of course, no actual details or plan are listed.

4. Conservatives Embrace Islam

Nothing says “I am Canadian”, quite like the pandering seen here.

“Tonight, Muslims in Canada and across the world will celebrate Eid al-Adha, also known as the ‘Festival of Sacrifice’ that commemorates the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son.

“Eid al-Adha marks the end of the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca that is one of the five pillars of Islam. Undertaken by Muslims at least once in their lifetime, it is estimated that over two million Muslim pilgrims travel to Mecca for the Hajj each year.

“In addition to the religious importance of this holiday, Eid al-Adha is a time for many Muslims to give back to their respective communities and to help the less fortunate. It is also a period where families and friends come together and exchange gifts, share meals, donate to charities, and join one another in prayer.

Never mind how completely incompatible Islam is with Western society. Never mind the barbaric culture: (a) FGM; (b) Honour killings; (c) Skinning animals alive; (d) Death to infidels/kafirs; (e) Burka/Niqab; (f) Inequality for women; (g) Killing gays; (h) Killing Jews; etc….

Diversity is our strength! Right …. ?

5. Conservatives and UN Global Migration Compact

That was covered in this previous article. While they claim to be “studying” the issue, fact is the CPC is not putting up any public resistance to it. Nor do they intend to.

So called “Shadow Minister” Michelle Rempel talks in circles on the issue (starting at about 4:50 in the video), but never gives a clear answer on it.

Note: this article was published on November 16, 2018. 4 days later, the CPC flipflopped and now claimed to opposed the UN Global Migration Compact. Might have something to do with THIS BOMBSHELL being spread around.

6. Other Globalist Agreements

  1. Agenda 21, signed by Brian Mulroney in June 1992
  2. Agenda 2030, signed by Stephen Harper in September 2015
  3. Paris Accord, supported by Andrew Scheer, despite mandated Carbon tax, June 2017
  4. United Nations selecting refugees for Canada

These Are “Conservatives”?

To recap, this party supports:
(a) Canzuk — free movement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK
(b) Birth Tourism
(c) Citizenship for border jumping illegal immigrants
(d) Pandering to Islam
(e) UN Global Migration Compact
(f) Agenda 21, signed June 1992
(g) Agenda 2030, signed September 2015
(h) Paris Accord, voted in June 2017
(i) UN making decisions on refugee choices

This will seem rather cynical, but how exactly are these people “Conservative”? What does this party actually conserve? This is not conserving a society. This is open borders globalism.

Posted on

CNN Sues White House Over Banned ”Journalist” Jim Acosta

(CNN announces legal action, after correspondent Jim Acosta banned)

CNN’s White House Correspondent, Jim Acosta had his press access to the White House revoked on November 8th. Now his network, CNN, is suing President Donald Trump and several aides.

However, Acosta is arguably not a journalist, but an activist. People are supposed to be there to cover the news and the White House, not to be antagonistic and grandstand. Here are some examples:

(Jim Acosta compilation)

(Acosta, on August 2, 2017)

(Acosta, July 1, 2018)

(Acosta, on October 29, 2018)

(November 6, 2018, which was Acosta’s last day)

The lawsuit claims that by revoking Acosta’s media access, his 1st and 5th Amendments (freedom of the press, and due process), were violated.

Here is the 1st Amendment:

Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Here is the 5th Amendment:

Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

CNN released the full text of the lawsuit, shown here. But let’s go through some of the more interesting sections. (Quotes in bold, comments in italics)

2. But on November 7, 2018, Defendants revoked Acosta’s White House credentials because, in the President’s own words, Acosta failed to “treat the White House with respect” at a White House press briefing.

Except if you watch that November 6 video, he wasn’t being respectful. He was being antagonistic.

4. And the revocation of Acosta’s credentials is only the beginning; as the President explained, there “could be others also” who get their credentials revoked.

The slippery-slope argument except it is unwarranted here. There aren’t other journalists in the press core who act the way Acosta does. Blatant fearmongering.

5. The Framers of our Constitution embraced a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” N.Y. Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). The President lacks the authority to quash “[t]he sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment”— debate that is “bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office.” Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 51 (1988). That is why the D.C. Circuit has been clear that “the protection afforded newsgathering under the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the press requires that . . . access [to White House press facilities] not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.” Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124, 129 (D.C. Cir. 1977). And “notice . . . of the factual bases for denial [of access to White House press facilities] with an opportunity to rebut is a minimum prerequisite for ensuring that the denial is . . . [not] based onarbitrary or less than compelling reasons.” Id. at 131.

This conflates a number of things: First, the press is there to cover the White House, not to DEBATE. Second, the 1st Amendment is to enshrine public talks and even unpleasant sharp attacks, but it doesn’t say that public figures MUST engage with you. Third, given Acosta’s frequent behaviour, it would be easy to rebut ”arbitrary or less than compelling reasons quite easily. Fourth, the 1st Amendment doesn’t guarantee access to the White House.

Jim Acosta seems to want a blank cheque to confront and badger White House staff at will.

27. The President dislikes CNN’s and Acosta’s coverage of him and his administration, and has made that clear since before he took office. At a news conference on January 11, 2017, for example, then-President-elect Trump told Acosta, “your organization is terrible.” Acosta responded: “You’re attacking us. Can you give us a question?” The President replied: “Don’t be rude. No, I’m not going to give you a question . . . . You are fake news.”

While these claims are true, Acosta’s frequent behaviour does make it clear he is there to agitate, rather than report on the news. But since CNN raised the issue of the 1st Amendment, would this not be going against TRUMP’S right to free speech?

33. Speaking through a hand-held microphone, as did all the White House journalists who asked questions, Acosta asked a question about one of President Trump’s statements during the midterm campaign—namely, whether a caravan making its way to the United States from Central America constitutes “an invasion” of the country, a significant feature of the President’s messaging during the just-ended campaign. The President declined to respond, instead remarking: “You know what? I think you should . . . I think you should let me run the country. You run CNN. And if you did it well, your ratings would be much better.”

  1. When Acosta attempted to ask a follow-up question, President Trump refused to take it. A White House staffer then approached Acosta and attempted to grab the microphone. The staffer reached all the way across Acosta’s body, successfully latched onto the microphone, and physically attempted to remove it from Acosta’s right hand. Acosta held onto the microphone, stated “Pardon me, ma’am,” and continued to ask his question.

This is a distortion of the truth. Acosta attempted to ask several questions, and was argumentative the entire time. Footage available refutes these assertions.

39. Hours after the press conference concluded, Press Secretary Sanders issued an official statement announcing that “the White House is suspending the hard pass of [Acosta] until further notice.” The Press Secretary accused Acosta of “placing his hands” on the White House staffer who attempted to take the microphone from Acosta during the press conference. The Press Secretary added that the alleged conduct “is absolutely unacceptable” and stated “[w]e will not tolerate this inappropriate behavior.” The White House’s statement indicated that this alleged “incident” was the basis of its decision to revoke Acosta’s credentials.

Whether this was deliberate or not is up for debate in the video. However, it was clear that Acosta was making a nuisance of himself.

FIRST AMENDMENT ARGUMENT

57. Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs of their right to access the White House grounds by revoking Acosta’s White House credentials. Without those credentials, Acosta cannot access the White House and cannot effectively serve as a White House correspondent, thus depriving Plaintiff CNN of its chief White House correspondent.

CNN is not prohibited from covering White House press briefings, only Acosta is. Do they not have anyone else on staff who could do it?

59. Defendants’ justifications for impeding Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights are hollow and hardly sufficiently compelling to justify the indefinite revocation of Acosta’s White House credentials. Consequently, the only reasonable inference from Defendants’ conduct is that they have revoked Acosta’s credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for Plaintiffs’ exercise of protected First Amendment activity.

Except Acosta wasn’t banned for his views. He was banned for regularly disturbing press conferences.

FIFTH AMENDMENT ARGUMENT

65. Acosta received no direct notice from the White House that his credentials had been revoked, let alone any notice prior to the revocation. Instead, the White House announced the revocation itself via Twitter after Defendants already decided to effectively ban Acosta from the White House grounds.

  1. Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs a written explanation, nor any explanation at all, before revoking Acosta’s press credentials. The only written explanation was a short statement posted on Twitter that Acosta was suspended because he “plac[ed] his hands” on a White House staffer. Even if this tweet were accurate—and it is not, as the reportedly doctored video Defendant Sanders posted would later show—it would not suffice to demonstrate prior notice of the revocation.

Okay, giving him notice would have been courteous, but is not grounds for suing. Nor is oral notification over written notification

Some Thoughts
While many media heads are supporting Acosta’s reinstatement, I believe this claim to be completely bogus.

(1) Acosta has been repeatedly rude and antagonistic to the White House staff. He is clearly being an activist, not a journalist. This is seen again and again on tape. No one else behaves this way, and it is surprising that his behaviour has been tolerated for so long.

(2) Acosta is not banned or restricted from exercising free speech at home or in public. He is just not allowed into White House briefings

(3) CNN is not banned from covering the White House. They just need a new correspondent.

(4) Not being given notice is rude, but not a constitutional violation.

The judgement is expected any day, and a followup will be provided.

Update to the Story
On Friday, November 16, a DC Judge ordered the press credentials to be temporarily returned to Jim Acosta while the matter is formally resolved. Personally, this was a surprise.

From CNN’s reporting on the story:

Trump said the same thing during a Q&A with reporters in the Oval Office.

“People have to behave,” he said, when asked about the administration’s defeat in court.
“If they,” meaning reporters like Acosta, “don’t listen to the rules and regulations, we’ll end up back in court and we’ll win. But more importantly, we’ll just leave,” meaning, stop taking questions from the press. “And then you won’t be very happy. Because we do get good ratings.”

While Acosta seems to be allowed back in, there is nothing to stop the White House from: (a) simply refusing to call on Acosta; (b) cancelling press conferences; or (c) throwing Acosta out for the day.

Posted on

Poly #1: CPC Supports UN Global Migration Compact (& More)

(Rempel, starting 4:48, dodging the issue)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uR95tIgyb8

(A fine review of Rempel by CanandaPoli. Watch his channel.)

Who says democracy doesn’t always work? (Rhetorical question). After repeated attempts to contact Conservative MPs, and getting not a single response, it seemed better to try at home. To be fair, the MP didn’t know I had any party loyalty.

I sat down with my Member of Parliament, Cathy McLeod, on Tuesday, November 13. While mainly wanting information on the U.N. Global Migration Compact, I actually got a lot of information on other topics. In 45 minutes we covered a lot. And to be frank, her honesty was quite refreshing. That will be listed below.

Cathy McLeod, CPC MP

Futile Attempt To Get CPC MPs to Email on UN Compact

(Sent in several emails): all CPC MPs were contacted to get information on the global migration compact. When this failed, I went to my local MP in Kamloops-Thompson.

From: editor@canucklaw.ca
To: Ziad.Aboultaif@parl.gc.ca, Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca, harold.albrecht@parl.gc.ca, Leona.Alleslev@parl.gc.ca, dean.allison@parl.gc.ca, david.anderson@parl.gc.ca, Mel.Arnold@parl.gc.ca
Cc: John.Barlow@parl.gc.ca, blaine.calkins@parl.gc.ca
Bcc: John.Brassard@parl.gc.ca, Sylvie.Boucher@parl.gc.ca

From: editor@canucklaw.ca
To: colin.carrie@parl.gc.ca, michael.chong@parl.gc.ca, Alupa.Clarke@parl.gc.ca, Michael.Cooper@parl.gc.ca, Gerard.Deltell@parl.gc.ca, Kerry.Diotte@parl.gc.ca, Todd.Doherty@parl.gc.ca, earl.dreeshen@parl.gc.ca
Cc: Jim.Eglinski@parl.gc.ca, Rosemarie.Falk@parl.gc.ca, Ted.Falk@parl.gc.ca, diane.finley@parl.gc.ca
Bcc: Rheal.Fortin@parl.gc.ca, cheryl.gallant@parl.gc.ca, Bernard.Genereux@parl.gc.ca

From: editor@canucklaw.ca
To: Garnett.Genuis@parl.gc.ca, Marilyn.Gladu@parl.gc.ca, Joel.Godin@parl.gc.ca, jacques.gourde@parl.gc.ca, Rachael.Harder@parl.gc.ca, randy.hoback@parl.gc.ca, Matt.Jeneroux@parl.gc.ca, Pat.Kelly@parl.gc.ca
Cc: peter.kent@parl.gc.ca, Dane.Lloyd@parl.gc.ca, ben.lobb@parl.gc.ca, tom.lukiwski@parl.gc.ca
Bcc: dave.mackenzie@parl.gc.ca, Larry.Maguire@parl.gc.ca, Richard.Martel@parl.gc.ca

From: editor@canucklaw.ca
To: Kelly.McCauley@parl.gc.ca, phil.mccoleman@parl.gc.ca, Glen.Motz@parl.gc.ca, John.Nater@parl.gc.ca, rob.nicholson@parl.gc.ca
Cc: Alex.Nuttall@parl.gc.ca, deepak.obhrai@parl.gc.ca, Erin.OToole@parl.gc.ca
Bcc: Pierre.Paul-Hus@parl.gc.ca, lisa.raitt@parl.gc.ca, Alain.Rayes@parl.gc.ca, scott.reid@parl.gc.ca

From: editor@canucklaw.ca
To: Michelle.Rempel@parl.gc.ca, blake.richards@parl.gc.ca, Bob.Saroya@parl.gc.ca, andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca, Jamie.Schmale@parl.gc.ca, Martin.Shields@parl.gc.ca, bev.shipley@parl.gc.ca
Cc: robert.sopuck@parl.gc.ca, kevin.sorenson@parl.gc.ca, bruce.stanton@parl.gc.ca, Mark.Strahl@parl.gc.ca
Bcc: Shannon.Stubbs@parl.gc.ca, david.sweet@parl.gc.ca, david.tilson@parl.gc.ca, brad.trost@parl.gc.ca

Media Inquiry on UN Global Migration Compact (to all CPC members)
Sat 10/11/2018 01:55
From: editor@canucklaw.ca
To: dave.vankesteren@parl.gc.ca, Arnold.Viersen@parl.gc.ca, Cathay.Wagantall@parl.gc.ca, mark.warawa@parl.gc.ca, chris.warkentin@parl.gc.ca, Kevin.Waugh@parl.gc.ca
Cc: Len.Webber@parl.gc.ca, alice.wong@parl.gc.ca, David.Yurdiga@parl.gc.ca, Bob.Zimmer@parl.gc.ca

Hello,

I work for a small independent website out of BC, covering law and legal topics.

This inquiry has to do with the UN Global Migration Compact, which Trudeau is expected to sign in December.

Most Canadians would be shocked at the proposal of giving the UN control over our immigration laws. However, I have not been able to find any definitive information from your party. Moreover, I don’t see any indication that the CPC is even concerned about this.

This shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Canadians need to know who sides with Canadians, and who sides with globalists.

And your immigration ”Shadow Minister”, Michelle Rempel seems determined to avoid the topic altogether. I have attempted several times unsuccessfully to get an answer.

2 Questions:

(1) Do you support or oppose the UN global migration compact?

(2) Do you support or oppose Petition E-1906 (from Max Bernier) to reject the compact?

Thanks,

Alex
Editor/Founder
http://canucklaw.ca

Please sign this petition
PETITION E-1906 (IMMIGRATION), to reject the ”Global Migration Compact”
Keep Canada’s borders intact
CLICK HERE

To date, no one has answered the email.

When emailing didn’t work, I took a visit to the local MP. Here is a summary:

(1) U.N. Global Migration Compact
This was the topic that was hardest to get any information out of Ms. McLeod. After asking several times about the Migration Compact, she did eventually admit that the CPC does not oppose it. Rather they will ”study” the issue, and likely get experts to appear.

Regarding Petition E-1906 (yes, this petition sponsored by Maxime Bernier), she dismissed it as a populous move, and trying to attract attention.

Ms. McLeod said that since it was non-binding, there was little to worry about. There was no risk of people flooding in, that this was nothing like the situation in Central America. She also seemed uninterested when it was pointed out that the UN doesn’t respect nations’ borders.

The United Nations Migration Agency, IOM, is providing support and assistance to migrants crossing Central America in several self-styled caravans, while expressing concern over “the stress and demands” they are placing on host countries.

All migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status – IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico

All things said, it was strange how indifferent Ms. McLeod seemed about the entire Compact. She claimed that there would be no giving up on Canada’s sovereignty and borders. There was no reason to be alarmed and that other scandals going on merited far more outrage.

Personally, I think the CPC fully supports this UN deal, but doesn’t want to talk about it since it would be political suicide. Better to stay quiet.

(2) Disdain for Maxime Bernier
Ms. McLeod didn’t hide her disdain for Maxime Bernier. It was really the same old talking points about how he is selfish, and is more concerned with his ego. Interestingly, she never said ”how” his policies were bad, or how CPC policies were better. And that leads to the next topic….

(3) No Platform on Website
Those looking to run for office often put their platform online so anyone can take a look. However, the CPC has decided not to. Ms. McLeod explained that posting a platform was unnecessary, since an election would not be for a year. It would be rolled out bit by bit.

When I explained that other ”right leaning” parties, such as People’s Party (Bernier); the Libertarian Party (Moen); and the Nationalist Party (Patron), all did. The response was that (to paraphrase), unless there is actually an election, there is no need to post what you stand for.

Bernier claims that the CPC governs by polls, and their beliefs change along with the polls. It seems he has a point. People’s Party has a detailed agenda up, while Conservatives just post stories bashing Trudeau.

(4) Fake Refugees Coming Into Canada
The Conservative Party is willing to declare the entire US/Canada border a ”POINT OF ENTRY”, at which a potential refugee would have to cross and apply for asylum.

However, there is no real will for removing some 30,000-40,000 people who have illegally crossed from the United States. Declaring the whole border a ”POINT OF ENTRY” does nothing to the people already here. Further, Ms. McLeod gave the impression that the CPC wasn’t willing to take harsh measures to prevent what were obviously fraudulent claims. New York is not a war zone.

And while not willing to immediately deport people sneaking across the border, CPC would shorten the refugee hearings. A start, I suppose.

(5) Corporate Welfare
From the talk today, I have to wonder if the CPC even supports free trade at all. On the topics of ”bailouts” and of ”subsidies”, I was told that yes, this is how things are done in the real world. Apparently (my paraphrasing) major businesses can only succeed if they get large amounts of taxpayer money.

Note: One could argue that nationalising might be a better option. Although taxpayers are still on the hook, at least they would be part owners.

(6) Supply Management
Yes, the Conservative Party supports farmers, and Bernier keeps bringing it up for political points. That was pretty much the response.

(7) Equalization Payments
As far as attracting votes, I got the impression it would be political suicide to attempt any real reform.

(8) Terri McClintic and Gladue/Ipeelee
To the Conservative’s credit, they were quite thorough in bringing this up, and in seeing a child killer put back in prison.

However, there seems to be no will to address the underlying issue: the racist laws in Canada, which permitted this abomination to happen. Different sentencing guidelines base on race or ethnicity have no place in an equal society.

While living conditions and history were cited by the MP as justifications, it was refuted easily. Even if harsh 3rd world conditions result in higher crime, then lessening the punishments won’t erase the 3rd world conditions. Removing the effect won’t stop the cause.

(9) Statistics Canada
Originally, I thought this was a hoax story. It was actually quite nice to see the CPC fighting against this Orwellian scheme to raid the banking information of 500,000 Canadians (per year). See here, and see here.

Global News first exposed this story, and it became a national outrage. It was stunning to see this attempt at prying such personal data for ”research purposes”. Due to public backlash, formal complaints and legal challenges, the program is on hold indefinitely.

(10) Back Door Gun Registry
This was mainly in reference to bill C-71, and Ms. McLeod admitted that it was a ”backdoor gun registry”, and that CPC will oppose it. That was nice to hear.

(11) Carbon Tax, Paris Accord
The CPC opposes the carbon tax, which does nothing to reduce pollution. But to be fair, why vote for the Paris Accord at all, which specifically “endorses” a carbon tax? It does so in several passages.

However, the CPC still supports the Paris Accord, and in our talk, Ms. McLeod conflated carbon dioxide (which is plant food used in photosynthesis), with actual carbon products to be eliminated. They oppose the tax, but still support the Accord, as they don’t want to be seen as anti-environmental.

(12) Civility in the House of Commons
This touched a nerve, mentioning the childish behaviour, grandstanding, and being evasive that goes on in the house. It didn’t matter who sat in power, the antics were an embarrassment to watch. Here is one of a great many examples.

The response to my comments were that things still get done at times.

(13) M-103 — anti blasphemy motion
Ms. McLeod said that it was non-binding, but shurgged off my comments that it would (if it became law), prohibit truthful speech, and that it gives preferential treatment.

Are Conservatives an Alternative to the Liberals?
Not really. With all of the hype notwithstanding, there appear to be few differences:

(1) Conservatives oppose the carbon tax, while supporting Paris Accord
(2) Conservatives actually support legal gun owners

That is about it. Even the identity politics and pandering they are starting to embrace even more. Legitimate questions about multiculturalism and Canadian values is off limits. CPC does go out its way to avoid saying anything meaningful on the subject, or its challenges. Bernier found that out the hard way. Liberal issues like corporate welfare; trade barriers; and equalization are embraced.

Someone like Michelle Rempel is actually quite dangerous. Rather than opposing the disaster of a government, she creates the illusion of opposing. The so-called ”opposition MPs” focus on the small details, it makes one wonder how sincere they are.

To be fair, the CPC does play the outrage card quite well when scandals break: (a) Ethics breaches; (b) Terri McClintic; (c) StatsCan; (d) Illegal immigration in Canada. However, ”any” party could do this, and it serves as a distraction for the lack of real differention between LPC and CPC. One can legitimately ask: what is conservative about this party, other than the name?

Regarding the UN Global Migration Compact: the CPC is not opposing it, but will go through the motions of ”studying” it. See Point #1.

It seems that walking away from traditional parties was the right one. If all the CPC has to say is ”we’re not Trudeau”, while acting Liberal-lite, then I want nothing to do with them. While getting some honest information from my MP was nice, it actually did confirm everything Max Bernier said when he left the party.

It could be very messy for ”Conservatives” in October 2019.

Update to the Posting
There have been a few questions as to the authenticity of the article.

After pondering it, I’ve decided to post it. The voices are a bit wonky, haven’t been able to fix it yet,

Again, CPC doesn’t actually “oppose” UN global migration compact.

Further Update to the Posting
The CPC has now said that they oppose the UN Compact. More on that in another video

Posted on

Antifa Mob Stalks Tucker Carlson’s Family

(Antifa outside the Carlson residence)

(Follow-up telephone interview with Tucker Carlson)

Tucker Carlson hosts a talk show on FOX, and is willing to give crazies like Mike Isaacson, and Yvette Felarca a fair hearing.

However, Antifa (short for “Anti-Fascist”, or “Anti-First-Amendment” as detractors claim), have decided that stalking his family is way to get him to shut up. See the video at the top.

Antifa is a left leaning quasi-Communist group that claims to “oppose Fascism”. They claim that “limited violence” is necessary to prevent the rise of right wing extremism, and to prevent the eradication of certain marginalized groups.

But in practice, they commit acts of violence against people they disagree with: (1) white nationalists, even non-violent ones; (2) right wing public figures; and (3) moderates whom they disagree with. It also doesn’t stop them from assaulting innocent bystanders and at times journalists. A quick YouTube search will find countless examples of Antifa violence.

However, there are idiots, even in the media, such as CNN’s Chris Cuomo, who defend Antifa as “fighting hate”, and not the same “morally” as right wing bigots.

This is appalling, and cowardly. Threatening and harassing a person to silence their views, in particular a journalist is chilling. Worse still, is using their family as collateral damage. Here are a few items worth mentioning:

1st Amendment of U.S. Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How the F.B.I. Defines Domestic Terrorism.
Domestic terrorism: Perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with primarily U.S.-based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.
–for example, the June 8, 2014 Las Vegas shooting, during which two police officers inside a restaurant were killed in an ambush-style attack, which was committed by a married couple who held anti-government views and who intended to use the shooting to start a revolution.

Efforts have been made to formally classify Antifa as a terrorist organization. While there are ongoing challenges, Antifa currently is designated as one.

But these fundamental rights are also enshrined elsewhere:

Section 2 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

How the Canadian Criminal Code Defines Terrorism
In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed “in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause” with the intention of intimidating the public “…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act.” Activities recognized as criminal within this context include death and bodily harm with the use of violence; endangering a person’s life; risks posed to the health and safety of the public; significant property damage;

There are similar guarantees and rules in nations throughout the Western world.

Although with the expansion of “hate speech” regulations, free speech rights are being curtailed. But that is an article for another day.

As for the Tucker Carlson story, it sends chills at least in part because he is a fairly moderate voice in American television. While right leaning, he openly rejects racism, and arguments twisted as racism. He calls out guests for strawman arguments, and guests who do espouse openly racist views.

Tucker is both loved on the right, and despised on the left. This is for the same reason: he calls out divisive identity politics, and hypocrisy which comes from the SJW/NPC crowd.

Sadly, this obnoxious ”journalist” got far more attention than Tucker Carlson. Domestic terrorism is a much more serious matter.

Hopefully the masked cowards who stalked Carlson’s family are identified and arrested. Silencing media opinions they don’t agree with is ”fascism”, but the irony seems lost on Antifa.