Category: Canadian Bills

Posted on

Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund (LEAF), Fighting For The Extermination Of Women

LEAF comes across as such a well intentioned and benevolent group. However, dig a little deeper, and the problems start to show through.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

While abortion is trumpeted as a “human right” in Western societies, the obvious questions have to be asked: Why is it a human right? Who are these groups benefiting financially, and why are so they so fiercely against free speech? Will the organs be trafficked afterwards?

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpSrch.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/status-women/news/2019/07/government-of-canada-invests-in-projects-to-improve-gender-equality-in-the-justice-system.html
(3) https://www.leaf.ca/legal/reproductive-justice/
(4) https://www.leaf.ca/leaf-calls-on-government-of-canada-to-fund-abortion-services-abroad/
(5) https://www.parl.ca/Content/Bills/421/Private/C-225/C-225_1/C-225_1.PDF
(6) https://www.leaf.ca/leaf-urges-toronto-public-library-to-reconsider-event-featuring-meghan-murphy/
(6) https://www.leaf.ca/leaf-and-the-asper-centre-welcome-the-ontario-court-of-appeals-decision-in-r-v-sharma/
(7) https://ca.news.yahoo.com/ontario-sex-ed-curriculum-consent-003452043.html
(8) https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/gazette/illegal-organ-trade
(9) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-1/bill/S-204/first-reading

unodc.organ.and.human.trafficking
Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review

3. Two Federal Non-Profit Corporations

[1] WOMEN’S LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FUND FOUNDATION
Corporation Number: 255753-3
Business Number (BN): 880802897RC0001

[2] WOMEN’S LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FUND INC.
Corporation Number: 189741-1
Business Number (BN): 108219916RC0001

A point of clarification: there are actually 2 separate Federal corporations registered with the Government. They have different (though similar) names, and different corporate and business numbers. They also have different addresses in Toronto.

It’s worth pointing out that LEAF has branches across Canada and the United States. They operate with the same basic philosophy.

4. Mental Gymnastics In LEAF Agenda

The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) works to advance the substantive equality rights of women and girls through litigation, law reform, and public education. Since 1985, we have intervened in landmark cases that have advanced equality in Canada—helping to prevent violence, eliminate discrimination in the workplace, provide better maternity benefits, ensure a right to pay equity, and allow access to reproductive freedoms. For more information, please visit www.leaf.ca.

LEAF claims to be committed to a variety of good causes. However, their logic seems messed up. While they want better childcare benefits, it’s okay to kill the child up to the point of birth. And even when the mother DOES kill the child after birth, the penalties should be reduced.

And by what stretch of logic is murdering children compatible with preventing violence?

5. Canadian Taxpayers Are Financing This

Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) is receiving $880,000 to develop a modern, intersectional, and feminist strategic litigation plan that will enable feminists and gender equality advocates to address systemic barriers to gender equality and eliminate gender discrimination.

Canadian taxpayers will be footing the bill for some $880,000, for this 2019 grant. This is to develop a litigation plan to for what they refer to as fighting for gender equality. It’s unclear from the announcement how much (if any) will end up being diverted into actual court challenges.

6. LEAF’s Take On “Reproductive Justice”

1987 Baby R.
LEAF argued that children not yet born shouldn’t be allowed to be taken by government officials. Custody should be for people already alive.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1988-baby-r

1989 Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General)
LEAF argued that the right to life should apply to the mother (and not to the child). The criminal code and charter shouldn’t apply to the unborn baby.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1989-borowski

1989 Daigle v. Tremblay
LEAF argued that biological fathers should have no say over whether the child lives or dies, and that otherwise, it is an attempt to control the mother using the child as a proxy.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1989-daigle

1991 R. v. Sullivan
LEAF argued that 2 midwives convicted of criminal negligence causing death (for the death of the baby) should have that charge thrown out, since the baby isn’t actually a person.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1991-sullivan

1996 R v. Lewis
LEAF argued in favour maintaining “bubble zones”. These effectively were areas where abortion protesting would be banned. Free speech is fine, just not in certain areas.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1996-lewis

1997 Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.)
LEAF argued against the the state’s ability to detain a pregnant women, who was harming her own child. In this case, the mother was sniffing glue.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1997-winnipeg-child-family

2003 R. v. Demers
LEAF argued again against the rights of people who were protesting abortion, although the arguments differed somewhat.
leaf.intervenor.factum.2003-demers

2006 Watson v. R; Spratt v. R
LEAF once again arguing that “bubble zones” need to be maintained, and that freedom of speech needs to be curtailed in order to ensure smooth access to abortion.
leaf.intervenor.factum.2008-R-V-WATSON-SPRATT-Factum

2016 R v. MB
LEAF argued that a woman who killed her newborn child should not face the wrath of the criminal justice system, and should be cut a break
leaf.intervenor.factum.2016.r.v.mb.infanticide

LEAF is Pro-Life?
Yeah, not really seeing that here.

LEAF is Anti-Life

  • 1987 Baby R
  • 1989 Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General)
  • 1989 Daigle v. Tremblay
  • 1991 R. v. Sullivan
  • 1996 R v. Lewis
  • 1997 Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.)
  • 2003 R. v. Demers
  • 2006 Watson v. R; Spratt v. R
  • 2016 R v. MB

Keep in mind, these are not cases that impact LEAF directly. Instead, they go searching for cases to act as an intervenor (or interested party). In short, they insert themselves into OTHER cases in order to get the outcomes they want.

An astute person will realize that LEAF is fundamentally anti-free speech. Among the challenges they brag about is getting free speech restricted in order to facilitate abortion access.

This list is hardly exhaustive, but should give a pretty good idea of the things they stand against: rights for unborn children.

7. LEAF Wants Foreign Abortions Funded Too

As organizations who are deeply committed to the rights of women and girls, we are very concerned by recent statements regarding the Government of Canada’s refusal to fund safe abortion services abroad, including in cases of rape and for young women and girls in forced marriages. This approach represents a serious setback on women’s human rights and the health and wellbeing of survivors of sexual violence and girls in early and forced marriages.

We call on the Canadian government to:
1. Include access to safe abortion services as part of the package of sexual and reproductive health services funded by Canadian international cooperation initiatives;
2. Support effective strategies to ensure that survivors of sexual violence and young women and girls in early and forced marriage have access to a comprehensive package of sexual and reproductive health services, including safe abortion; and
3. Produce clear policy for Canada’s international initiatives that adopts a human rights-based approach to sexual and reproductive health.

What about the babies being killed? Don’t their human rights matter? Oh, that’s right, these groups don’t consider babies to be people.

Sincerely,
The undersigned organizations:
.
-Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) / Coalition pour le droit à l’avortement au Canada (CDAC)
-Action Canada for Population and Development / Action Canada pour la population et le développement
-Amnesty International Canada (English)
-Amnistie International Canada (Francophone)
-Canadian Council of Muslim Women
-Canadian Federation for Sexual Health
-Canadian Federation of University Women
-Canadian Women’s Foundation
-Choice in Health Clinic
-Clinique des femmes de l’Outaouais
-Fédération du Québec pour le planning des naissances (FQPN)
-Kensington Clinic
-Institute for International Women’s Rights – Manitoba
-Inter Pares
-MATCH International Women’s Fund
-Oxfam Canada
-Oxfam Quebec
–Planned Parenthood Ottawa
-West Coast LEAF
-Women’s Health Clinic, Winnipeg
-Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund / Fonds d’action et d’education juridiques pour les femmes
-YWCA Canada

(also addressed to)

-CC The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C.
Prime Minister of Canada
.
-CC Hélène Laverdière, NPD, MP
NDP International Development Critic
.
-CC Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, MP
Liberal International Development and Status of Women Critic
.
-CC Paul Dewar, NDP, MP
NDP Foreign Affairs Critic
.
-CC Marc Garneau, Liberal, MP
Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic
.
-CC Niki Ashton, NDP, MP
NDP Status of Women Critic

Not content with killing Canadian children, this coalition demands that the Canadian Government finance foreign abortions as well. That is correct. Use taxpayer money to pay to kill children in other countries.

It’s not at all a surprise to see a Planned Parenthood Ottawa has joined this group in making the call. After all, Planned Parenthood is involved in trafficking organs.

It never seems to dawn on these people that in many parts of the world, girls and women are viewed as far less than boys and men. This leads often to SEX SELECTIVE abortions. Is it really a feminist idea to deliberately target female babies?

8. No protection For Unborn Victims Of Crime

Considering the 1989 Boroski intervention (see list of cases above), it’s no surprise that LEAF, and other feminist groups oppose Bill C-225. This would have made it an additional crime to injury or kill a fetus while in the commission of another offense.

9. LEAF Forcing Abortion/Euth On Doctors

There was a 2019 decision from the Ontario Court of Appeals. It mandated that doctors either had to perform abortions and/or euthanasia, or provide a referral to someone who would. LEAF was one of the groups pushing it. They had no standing, other than to push their own pro-death views on others.

10. LEAF Wants Gender Ideology Critic Banned

The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) is troubled by the decision of the Toronto Public Library (the “TPL”) to rent one of its branch spaces to a group hosting an event with Meghan Murphy, who has a track record for denying the existence and rights of trans women. We are particularly concerned with Murphy’s history of publicly opposing efforts to codify the rights of trans people, specifically trans women, including her vocal opposition to federal human rights legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression.

LEAF was founded in 1985 with a mandate to advance substantive equality for women and girls in Canada. LEAF has long been committed to a vision of feminism that is inclusive of all, regardless of sex, gender identity or gender expression. LEAF’s advocacy is and remains focused on challenging sex and gender discrimination that results in inequality for self-identified women and girls. The long-term success of this mission demands that LEAF work towards challenging and dismantling patriarchy, in all its forms.

LEAF believes freedom of speech plays an important role in strengthening and upholding substantive equality. Holding space for respectful dialogue among diverse viewpoints is essential to this work. However, LEAF has long maintained that freedom of speech is not absolute. Like all rights enjoyed by Canadians, freedom of speech must be balanced with other fundamental rights and freedoms, especially equality. Speech that perpetuates harmful stereotypes only serves to further marginalize and exclude an already vulnerable population and does not merit protection.

In a case of “eating your own“, LEAF tried to get Meghan Murphy dis-invited from a Toronto talk on trans-activism. And Murphy is about as hardcore feminist as they come. According to her biography:

  • Bachelor’s degree in women’s studies
  • Master’s degree in women’s studies
  • Wrote for feminist publications
  • Believes in the wage-gap nonsense
  • Believes women are oppressed
  • Pro-abortion
  • Pro-gay agenda

Still, that wasn’t enough to prevent feminist and “women’s rights” groups life LEAF from turning against her.

For a group that “claims” to support women, one has to ask why LEAF is trying to take away the rights of a woman (Murphy), specifically her free speech.

Murphy does address legitimate issues that trans-activists are involved with, (such as sports, pronounc, etc…), and how they are conflicting head on with the rights of women. It seems that the committment to women’s rights can be tossed aside in favour of this extremely small group.

11. LEAF: Reduce Sentence For Drug Mule

Somehow, LEAF believes that arguing against a mandatory minimum sentence for a person convicted of smuggling 2kg of cocaine (worth some $200,000), is a woman’s rights issue. What about the women who are harmed as a result of the drug trade? Don’t they matter?

While not directly related to the abortion/organs issue, it’s still bizarre to see how this group feels entitled to meddle in other people’s cases.

12. LEAF Supports ON Sex-Ed Agenda

This week’s move is getting a thumbs-up from a national women’s legal organization that teaches older students about consent.

“It’s extremely important for everyone to understand what their rights and responsibilities are under the law,” said Kim Stanton, legal director of the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, which runs workshops for high school and university students. “Students need to know what’s OK and what’s not.

LEAF supports Ontario’s largely inappropriate sex-ed ciricculum.

13. Honourable Mention: Tanya Granic Allen

Candid honesty is extremely rare in political circles. However, this critique of LEAF and Leslyn Lewis, is a true gem. Also see the video. Well worth the 10 minutes or so.

Now, what is the result of anti-life laws becoming normal?

14. RCMP & Illegal Organ Trade

There are far more people in the world in need of a new organ than there are organs available. Like in any market where a dollar can be made because demand far outweighs supply, people can turn to the black market to find what they need. When a person’s life is on the line, the will to survive may override morals. The following facts depict the seedy underbelly of organ trafficking.

  • The United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking (UN GIFT) says the organ trade occurs in three broad categories: traffickers who force or deceive victims to give up an organ, those who sell their organs out of financial desperation, often only receiving a fraction of the profit or are cheated out of the money altogether and victims who are duped into believing they need an operation and the organ is removed without the victim’s knowledge.
  • Organ trafficking is considered an organized crime with a host of offenders, including the recruiters who identify the vulnerable person, the transporter, the staff of the hospital or clinic and other medical centres, the medical professionals themselves who perform the surgery, the middleman and contractors, the buyers and the banks that store the organs.
  • And according to the UN GIFT, it’s a fact that the entire ring is rarely exposed.
  • A World Health Assembly resolution adopted in 2004 urges Member States to “take measures to protect the poorest and vulnerable groups from ‘transplant tourism’ and the sale of tissues’ and organs.
  • “Transplant tourism” is the most common way to trade organs across national borders. These recipients travel abroad to undergo organ transplants (WHO Bulletin). There are websites that offer all-inclusive transplant packages, like a kidney transplant that ranges from US$70,000 to US$160,000.
  • There’s no law in Canada banning Canadians from taking part in transplant tourism — travelling abroad and purchasing organs for transplantation and returning home to Canada.
  • According to the World Health Organization (WHO), one out of 10 organ transplants involves a trafficked human organ, which amounts to about 10,000 a year.
  • While kidneys are the most commonly traded organ, hearts, livers, lungs, pancreases, corneas and human tissue are also illegally traded.
  • In a recent report, Global Financial Integrity says that illegal organ trade is on the rise, and it estimates that it generates profits between $600 million and $1.2 billion per year with a span over many countries.
  • In Iran, the only country where organ trade is legal, organ sales are closely monitored and the practice has eliminated the wait list for kidney transplants and has provided an increase in post-mortem organ donations, which aren’t remunerated in Iran.
  • A Harvard College study says donors come from impoverished nations, like countries in South America, Asia and Africa, while recipients are from countries like Canada, the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Israel and Japan.
  • According to research out of Michigan State University that looked at the black market for human organs in Bangladesh, the average quoted rate for a kidney was US$1,400 but has dropped because of the abundant supply.
  • In Bangladesh, the trade is propelled by poverty, where 78 per cent of residents live on less than $2 a day. They give their organs to pay off loans and take care of their families. If they received the money at all, it disappears quickly and they are often left sick and unable to work after the operations.
  • The Voluntary Health Association of India estimates about 2,000 Indians sell a kidney every year.
  • Given that the organ trade is often a transnational crime, international law enforcers must co-operate across borders to address the crimes.

This comes from a 2014 post on the RCMP’s website. Despite being several years old, it has a lot of useful information.

Now, it’s true that there are only so many people dying with usable organs. It’s also true that abducting and/or murdering people for their organs is risky, and can only be done so often. However, that isn’t really the case with aborted babies, as they typically have healthy organs. Sure, they are smaller, but still usable at some point.

Ever wonder why the recent push to have later and later abortions? It’s because the organs of a 35 week fetus are much more developed than those of a 20 week fetus.

15. UNODC On Organ, Human Trafficking

III. Guidance for response
.
A. Definitions
6. Article 3 (a) defines trafficking in persons:
“Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.”

unodc.organ.and.human.trafficking

It’s illegal to kidnap, force, or otherwise coerce people into giving up organs. However, aborted babies (even very late term) are just considered property with no legal rights of their own. At least, this is the case in Canada.

This UNODC paper is from 2011. However, its information is still very relevant today.

Whether this is intentional or not, it is one of the consequences of the actions of groups like LEAF. Removing any sort of legal protection from the unborn creates legal carte blanche to harvest and sell their organs at will.

16. UNODC: Illegal Entry Facilitates T&S

Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review

This was addressed in Part 9, the connection between illegal immigration, and the trafficking and smuggling of migrants. However, in the context of organ harvesting, it does put the issue in a whole new light.

17. Bill S-204, Criminal Code Change

Senate Bill S-204 would make it criminal offence to go abroad for the purposes of obtaining organs where consent was not given. While promising, however, it hasn’t gone anywhere since being introduced. Now, would these penalties apply to the trafficked organs of aborted fetuses, or only to trafficked organs of people living for some period of time?

18. Abortion Fuels Organ Trafficking

Now, to tie all of this together: the abortion industry helps fuel the organ trafficking industry.

It’s a straightforward idea: in order to traffic organs in a large scale, there has to be a large, constant supply available.

The abortion industry (and their advocates) ensure this by waging lawfare. They fight in court to keep stripping away any protections unborn children may have. They also change the law to allow for later and later abortions, and thus, more developed organs. Advocates will gaslight others who make attempts to limit this, or enshrine rights for the children. Child rights must be removed in favour of women’s rights.

Is LEAF involved with trafficking organs? They don’t appear to be, but their frequent court efforts ensure that this will continue. Whether intentional of not, groups like LEAF are part of the problem.

And to be clear, LEAF openly supports restricting free speech, under the guise of protecting abortion and gender rights. Of course, open discourse on these subjects would immediately weaken their arguments.

19. Defending Non-Disclosure Of HIV

Note: this was added after the article was originally published. LEAF argued in a Parliamentary hearing that failure to disclose HIV status should be removed from sexual assault laws, and in some cases, decriminalized altogether. Way to protect women.

Hear the audio clip starting at 8:59:30.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/WitnessMeetings?witnessId=248439

20. LEAF Is Anti-Free Speech

Free Speech Submission womens LEAF

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10543157

In 2019, LEAF actually made submissions in the “online hate” study, and took the position AGAINST free speech. Again, this was added after the original article was released.

Posted on

Child Exploitation, And Other Private Members’ Bills

Private Member’s Bill C-219, introduced by John Nater, would have raised the criminal penalties for child sexual exploitation, and sexual exploitation of a child with a disability. This is one of several interesting bills pending before Parliament.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Mandatory Minimums For Child Exploitation

Criminal Code
1 Paragraph 153(1.‍1)‍(b) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.
.
2 Paragraphs 153.‍1(1)‍(a) and (b) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.
.
3 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 286.‍1:
Aggravating circumstance — person with a disability
286.‍11 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence referred to in subsection 286.‍1(1) or (2), it shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the victim of the offence is a person with a mental or physical disability.

This bill, if passed, would have amended the criminal code, and made sexual exploitation an offence with a mandatory 1 year minimum jail sentence, even if it was tried summarily. Furthermore, it would have added a 1 year minimum to exploitation (summarily or by indictment), if the victim had a disability.

While 1 year is still very lenient, it would at least be a step in the right direction. Bills from Private Members often go nowhere, but this should be an issue everyone can agree on.

Interestingly, this bill was brought up in the last Parliament — Bill C-424 — but never got past first reading. Again, it should be something that everyone can agree is beneficial to society.

3. Property Rights From Expropriation

Expropriation Act
1 Section 10 of the Expropriation Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (11):
Exception
(11.‍1) Subsection (11) does not apply if the interest or right to which the notice of intention relates is intended to be expropriated by the Crown for the purpose of restoring historical natural habitats or addressing, directly or indirectly, climate variability, regardless of whether or not that purpose is referred to in the notice or described in the notice as the primary purpose of the intended expropriation.
.
2 Section 19 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
Exception
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the interest or right to which the notice of confirmation relates is intended to be expropriated by the Crown for the purpose of restoring historical natural habitats or addressing, directly or indirectly, climate variability, regardless of whether or not that purpose is referred to in the notice of intention or described in the notice of intention as the primary purpose of the intended expropriation.

Bill C-222 was introduced by Cheryl Gallant, and would prevent the Canadian Government from forcibly taking your land in order to turn it into a heritage site, or in some convoluted effort to fight climate change. It would amend the Expropriation Act to prevent exactly that.

Gallant was also the only MP to vote against the Liberal Motion to formally adopt the Paris Accord. She voted no, while “conservative” either voted for it, or abstained.

4. Quebec Multiculturalism Exemption

Bloc Quebecois MP Luc Theriault introduced Bill C-226, to exempt Quebec from the Multiculturalism Act. Now there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect your own heritage and culture. However, Quebec is rather hypocritical in simultaneously pushing theirs on other people.

5. Addressing Environmental Racism

Bill C-230 is to address environmental racism.
I have no words for this Bill by Lenore Zann.

6. Social Justice In Pension Plan

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act
1 Section 35 of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act is renumbered as subsection 35(1) and is amended by adding the following:
Considerations
(2) The investment policies, standards and procedures, taking into account environmental, social and governance factors, shall provide that no investment may be made or held in an entity if there are reasons to believe that the entity has performed acts or carried out work contrary to ethical business practices, including
(a) the commission of human, labour or environmental rights violations;
(b) the production of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war prohibited under international law; and
(c) the ordering, controlling or otherwise directing of acts of corruption under any of sections 119 to 121 of the Criminal Code or sections 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

Bill C-231, from Alistair MacGregor, would have cut off CPPIB (the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board), from investing in areas where any of the above are breached. This is a good idea in principle, even if the details are sparse.

7. Ban On Sex-Selective Abortion

cpc.policy.declaration

Bill C-233, from Cathay Wagantall, would make it illegal to abort children because of sex. In short, this means targeting female babies. However, it isn’t clear how this would work. Article 70 in the policy declaration says there will be no attempt to pass any abortion legislation, and Article 73 says that foreign aid shouldn’t be given to provide for abortion.

So killing children is okay, as long as it’s done in Canada, and the gender of the baby is not a factor. Makes sense to me.

8. Lowered Voting Age, Conversion Therapy

There are currently two bills: C-240, and S-219, which would lower the voting age to 16. Aside from being a bad idea, this seems a little redundant. There is also S-202, to ban conversion therapy. So, we want 16 year olds to be able to vote, and decide what gender they want to be.

9. National School Food Program

If you want the school to become more of a parent, there is Bill C-201 by Don Davies to do exactly that. It was previously Bill C-446. Now, let’s look at some non-Canadian content.

10. California Lowering Penalties For Anal

https://twitter.com/Scott_Wiener/status/1291406895878553600

San Francisco – Today, Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced Senate Bill 145 to end blatant discrimination against LGBT young people regarding California’s sex offender registry. Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age, “sexual intercourse” (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not require the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge decides based on the facts of the case whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.

This distinction in the law — which is irrational, at best — disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration, since LGBT people usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse. For example, if an 18 year old straight man has vaginal intercourse with his 17 year old girlfriend, he is guilty of a crime, but he is not automatically required to register as a sex offender; instead, the judge will decide based on the facts of the case whether registration is warranted. By contrast, if an 18 year old gay man has sex with his 17 year old boyfriend, the judge *must* place him on the sex offender registry, no matter what the circumstances.

Until recently, that sex offender registration was for life, even though the sex was consensual. Under 2017 legislation authored by Senator Wiener, registration. Is for a minimum of 10 years, still a harsh repercussion for consensual sex.

SB 145 does not change whether or not particular behavior is a crime and does not change the potential sentence for having sex with an underage person. Rather, the bill simply gives judges the ability to evaluate whether or not to require registration as a sex offender. To be clear, this judicial discretion for sex offender registration is *already* the law for vaginal intercourse between a 15-17 year old and someone up to 10 years older. SB 145 simply extends that discretion to other forms of intercourse. A judge will still be able to place someone on the registry if the behavior at issue was predatory or otherwise egregious. This change will treat straight and LGBT young people equally, end the discrimination against LGBT people, and ensure that California stops stigmatizing LGBT sexual relationships.

California State Senator Scott Wiener, in 2019 introduced Senate Bill SB 145, to stop men who have sex with 15, 16, and 17 year old boys from automatically becoming registered sex offenders. Here is the text of the bill.

The Bill has predictably received plenty of backlash. Criticism of it, however, has been dismissed as homophobia and anti-Semitism. Of course, a better alternative might be to RAISE the age of consent to 18 all around. That would do more to protect children.

If this seems familiar, it should. In 2016, Trudeau introduced Bill C-32, to lower the age of consent for anal sex. Eventually, it was slipped into Bill C-75, which not only reduced the penalties for many child sex crimes, but for terrorism offences as well.

11. New Zealand Loosens Abortion Laws

While New Zealand claimed to be in the middle of a pandemic, Parliament figured now is a good time to have easier access to abortion, even up to the moment of birth. Some really conflicting views on life. See Bill 310-1. Also, their “internet harm” bill seems like a threat to free speech.

Of course, that is not all that New Zealand has been up to lately. There is also taking people to quarantine camps, and denying them leave if they don’t consent to being tested. Yet, the PM thinks that critics are “conspiracy theorists”.

12. Know What Is Really Going On

Yes, this article was a bit scattered, but meant to bring awareness to some of the issues going on behind the scenes. The mainstream media (in most countries) will not cover important issues in any meaningful way. As such, people need to spend the time researching for themselves.

Bill introduced privately can actually be more interesting than what Governments typically put forward. Though they often don’t pass, they are still worth looking at.

Posted on

Bill C-32/C-75; Lowered Age Of Consent; Reduced Penalties For Crimes Against Children

In 2016, Justin Trudeau announced that it was a priority to lower the age of consent for anal sex from 18 to 16. This was done under the guise of equality, and not treating people differently due to sexual orientation.

A mea culpa to begin with: although Bill C-75 was covered in the fall of 2018 (see previous review), it seems that I missed the more subtle aspect of the bill. Watering down penalties for terrorism offences was only part of it. C-75 was also a smokescreen for bringing more degeneracy to Canada, but under the radar. Yes, most terrorism committed in the West is done by Muslims, and that was how to accomplish this.

The agenda can be summarized as such:

  • Focus on ideology, reduced terrorism penalties
  • Let other perversions slip through

Most commentators (yes, guilty here too), focused on the terrorism and let far too much of the other content go pretty much unnoticed. It’s time to fix that.

One particular example, was the Prime Minister using the opportunity to slip in a clause to lower the age of consent (for anal) from 18 years old to 16, by repealing Section 159 of the Criminal Code. It was previously introduced in Bill C-32, but because of a public backlash, it never got past first reading. By embedding it in Bill C-75 instead, it passed almost unnoticed.

After some serious thought, this article will be made part of the TSCE series (trafficking, smuggling, & child exploitation). The reason being, that Bill C-75 makes it easier to harm children by reducing the penalties for child predators and child sex predators.

1. Bill C-32 Introduced In November 2016

Criminal Code
Amendment to the Act
R.‍S.‍, c. 9 (3rd Supp.‍), s. 3
1 Section 159 of the Criminal Code is repealed.

Clause 1: Existing text of section 159:
.
159 (1) Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act engaged in, in private, between
(a) husband and wife, or
(b) any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more,
both of whom consent to the act.
.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2),
(a) an act shall be deemed not to have been engaged in in private if it is engaged in in a public place or if more than two persons take part or are present; and
(b) a person shall be deemed not to consent to an act
(i) if the consent is extorted by force, threats or fear of bodily harm or is obtained by false and fraudulent misrepresentations respecting the nature and quality of the act, or
(ii) if the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the person could not have consented to the act by reason of mental disability.

Yes, lowering the age of consent for anal sex was apparently a priority of the Trudeau Government from early on. One has to wonder why there is this level of pandering. A cynic may suspect there could be a personal stake in getting the age lowered.

However, the public was very unhappy and suspicious about this bill, and why this was a priority for the government. What is interesting is that although Bill C-32 never got past first reading, the idea of lowering the age of consent still went ahead. Instead, it would be slipped into Bill C-75.

A serious alternative: if Trudeau wants all sexual acts to be treated the same, what would be wrong with RAISING the age of consent for all acts to 18? This is normal in many countries.

2. Bill C-75 Brought In March 2018

Yes, just a single line in Bill C-75 mentions the repeal of Section 159 of the Canadian Criminal Code. Of course, if you didn’t know what to look for, or didn’t have a copy handy. you wouldn’t know what it meant.

Think this over: Bill C-32 was met with public hostility over the proposal to lower the age of consent for anal sex. So that Bill is allowed to die, while the provision is slipped into Bill C-75.

  • Keep talking about (Islamic) terrorism, penalties
  • Let other degeneracy, perversions go ahead

The sleight-of-hand worked out as planned. While Canadians were rightly shocked at the prospect of having terrorism offences hybridized (available for either summary or indictable method for trial), instead of only the more serious indictable, this was allowed to pass. That way, the other items would get little to no scrutiny. And yes, this site is also guilty of the oversight.

3. Bill C-75 Used Partly To Divert Attention

These are the areas of Bill C-75 which the media focused on. Certainly, they are very serious, and need to be addressed. These are the offences which are now “hybridized”, meaning they are eligible to be tried summarily.

  • Section 52: Sabotage
  • Section 65: Rioting
  • Section 69: Neglect by peace officer
  • Section 82: Possession of explosives
  • Section 83.02: Providing property for certain purposes
  • Section 83.03: Making services/property available for terrorism
  • Section 83.04: Using property for terrorism purposes
  • Section 83.18(1): Participation in terrorist activity
  • Section 83.181: Leaving Canada to participate in terrorism
  • Section 83.23(1): Concealing who carried out terrorism
  • Section 280(1): Abduction of child under age 16
  • Section 281: Abduction of child under age 14

Now let’s briefly address some of the more disturbing aspects of Bill C-75 that weren’t covered by the mainstream or alternative media.

  • Section 58: Fraudulent use of citizenship
  • Section 159: Age of consent for anal sex
  • Section 172(1): Corrupting children
  • Section 173(1): Indecent acts
  • Section 180(1): Common nuisance
  • Section 182: Indecent interference or indignity to body
  • Section 210: Keeping common bawdy house
  • Section 211: Transporting to bawdy house
  • Section 242: Not getting help for childbirth
  • Section 243: Concealing the death of a child
  • Section 279.02(1): Material benefit – trafficking
  • Section 279.03(1): Withholding/destroying docs — trafficking
  • Section 279(2): Forcible confinement
  • Section 291(1): Bigamy
  • Section 293: Polygamy
  • Section 293.1: Forced marriage
  • Section 293.2: Child marriage
  • Section 295: Solemnizing marriage contrary to law
  • Section 435: Arson, for fraudulent purposes
  • Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime

See what’s going on here? The focus is on some of the more blatant and obvious crimes, and how they have become “hybridized” offences. Yet some extremely serious ones are mostly ignored, despite the same thing happening to them.

In later sections of the bill, it discusses access to justice, and reducing the standards for accused people to be released until trial.

4. Hybridization Of Offences Continues

Corrupting children
172 (1) Every one who, in the home of a child, participates in adultery or sexual immorality or indulges in habitual drunkenness or any other form of vice, and thereby endangers the morals of the child or renders the home an unfit place for the child to be in, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

172 (1) Every person who, in the home of a child, participates in adultery or sexual immorality or indulges in habitual drunkenness or any other form of vice, and by doing so endangers the morals of the child or renders the home an unfit place for the child to be in, is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) [Repealed, R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 6]

Indecent acts
173 (1) Everyone who wilfully does an indecent act in a public place in the presence of one or more persons, or in any place with intent to insult or offend any person,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months.

Indecent acts
173 (1) Everyone who wilfully does an indecent act in a public place in the presence of one or more persons, or in any place with intent to insult or offend any person,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Yes, corrupting children, and committing indecent acts against children now, thanks to the Trudeau Government, are eligible to be tried summarily. How exactly does this help protect children? The punishments for doing these crimes are reduced.

Common nuisance
180 (1) Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby
(a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
(b) causes physical injury to any person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Common nuisance
180 (1) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who commits a common nuisance and by doing so
(a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
(b) causes physical injury to any person.

Also worth noting is that Section 181 (spreading fake news to create mischief) has been repealed as a criminal offence.

Marginal note:
Dead body
182 Every one who
(a) neglects, without lawful excuse, to perform any duty that is imposed on him by law or that he undertakes with reference to the burial of a dead human body or human remains, or
(b) improperly or indecently interferes with or offers any indignity to a dead human body or human remains, whether buried or not,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 178

note:
Dead body
182 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who
(a) neglects, without lawful excuse, to perform any duty that is imposed on him by law or that he undertakes with reference to the burial of a dead human body or human remains, or
(b) improperly or indecently interferes with or offers any indignity to a dead human body or human remains, whether buried or not.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 1822019, c. 25, s. 63

Interfering with a dead body, even indecent interference, or indignity to a corpse can now be tried summarily.

Neglect to obtain assistance in child-birth
242 A female person who, being pregnant and about to be delivered, with intent that the child shall not live or with intent to conceal the birth of the child, fails to make provision for reasonable assistance in respect of her delivery is, if the child is permanently injured as a result thereof or dies immediately before, during or in a short time after birth, as a result thereof, guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 226

Neglect to obtain assistance in childbirth
242 A female person who, being pregnant and about to be delivered, with intent that the child shall not live or with intent to conceal the birth of the child, fails to make provision for reasonable assistance in respect of her delivery is, if the child is permanently injured as a result of the failure or dies immediately before, during or in a short time after birth, as a result of the failure, guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 242 2019, c. 25, s. 82

Yes, it’s no big deal if you don’t bother to call for help when about to give birth. If the child dies, covering it up doesn’t seem very important either. What a twisted direction to be going.

Concealing body of child
243 Every one who in any manner disposes of the dead body of a child, with intent to conceal the fact that its mother has been delivered of it, whether the child died before, during or after birth, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 227

Concealing body of child
243 Every person who in any manner disposes of the dead body of a child, with intent to conceal the fact that its mother has been delivered of it, whether the child died before, during or after birth, is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 243 2019, c. 25, s. 82

As for those people wanting to participate in multiple marriages, forced marriages, child marriages, or other such abominations, guess what? Lesser penalties are heading your way.

Polygamy
293 (1) Every one who
(a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into
(i) any form of polygamy, or
(ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time,
whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or
(b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii),
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Polygamy
293 (1) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who
(a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into any form of polygamy or any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage; or
(b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in paragraph (a).

Polygamy typically involves one man having several wives. It opens the door to abuse and exploitation, since the “wives” generally don’t have the same rights as the man. Of course, there is nothing to say that these are child marriages and/or forced marriages.

Forced marriage
293.1 Everyone who celebrates, aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is marrying against their will is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
2015, c. 29, s. 9.

Forced marriage
293.1 Every person who celebrates, aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is marrying against their will is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction
2015, c. 29, s. 92019, c. 25, s. 115.

Forced marriage amounts to sex slavery. Typically, it is a very young girl forced to “marry” a much, MUCH older man. What sane person would make this eligible to be tried as a summary offence? This crosses the line for any so-called cultural accommodations and crosses into (child) exploitation.

Marriage under age of 16 years
293.2 Everyone who celebrates, aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is under the age of 16 years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
2015, c. 29, s. 9

Marriage under age of 16 years
293.2 Every person who celebrates, aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is under the age of 16 years is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
2015, c. 29, s. 92019, c. 25, s. 115

Given that very young children are not able to give informed consent, would this not be the same exploitation and child sex slavery as addressed above?



Marginal note:
Pretending to solemnize marriage
294 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years who
(a) solemnizes or pretends to solemnize a marriage without lawful authority; or
(b) procures a person to solemnize a marriage knowing that he is not lawfully authorized to solemnize the marriage.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 2942018, c. 29, s. 29

Pretending to solemnize marriage
294 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who
(a) solemnizes or pretends to solemnize a marriage without lawful authority; or
(b) procures a person to solemnize a marriage knowing that he is not lawfully authorized to solemnize the marriage.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 2942018, c. 29, s. 292019, c. 25, s. 116.

Why would someone pretend to solemnize a marriage? It could be because the terms of the marriage would not be accepted in everyday society, such as child marriages, or forced marriages.

Arson for fraudulent purpose
435 (1) Every person who, with intent to defraud any other person, causes damage by fire or explosion to property, whether or not that person owns, in whole or in part, the property, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Arson for fraudulent purpose
435 (1) Every person who, with intent to defraud any other person, causes damage by fire or explosion to property, whether or not that person owns, in whole or in part, the property, is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

So burning down your place of business or home (and endangering the public) could possibly be tried summarily. Just make sure that you set the fire for the insurance money.

Participation in activities of criminal organization
467.11 (1) Every person who, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament, knowingly, by act or omission, participates in or contributes to any activity of the criminal organization is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Participation in activities of criminal organization
467.11 (1) Every person who, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament, knowingly, by act or omission, participates in or contributes to any activity of the criminal organization is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Smuggling children across the border, or providing children for these marriages could be considered organized crime. Perhaps that is why they were included in the hybridization list.

And of course, lowering the age of consent for anal sex was addressed in previous sections. There are many provisions in Bill C-75 that were not addressed. The likely reason was that the terrorism changes made were so shocking.

5. Submissions In Bill C-75 Hearings

CanadianAllianceForSexWorkLawReform-e
The Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform made a submission for the Bill C-75 hearings, asking for restrictions to sex work be removed. The rationale being that having portions of the “job” that were not fully legal endangered the workers and limited their access to courts and the police if need be.

UNICEFCanada-e
UNICEF also made a submission in the hearings. They claim that their mandate is to advocate for the well being of all children. That extends to both child victims of crime, and child criminals. While the intent may be good, foreign institutions should not be trying to influence Canadian law.

CanadianCentreForGenderSexualDiversity-e
The Canadian Centre for Gender & Sexual Diversity made a submission, including a list of items they thought should have been included in Bill C-75.
1-Bill C-75 fails to address sex work criminalization
2-Bill C-75 fails to protect intersex children from non-consensual surgery
3-Bill C-75 fails to repeal the ‘bawdy house’ laws or obscenity laws that disproportionately affect queer and trans people
4-Bill C-75 fails to properly define marginalized person

VancouverRapeReliefAndWomensShelter-e
The Vancouver Rape Relief wrote in support of the “reverse-onus” burden in domestic violence cases, where men would have to show that they deserve bail. However, the group laments that “rich white men” will be able to get off the hook, while men of colour will more often remain locked up. Oh, intersectionality at its finest.

CanadianCentreForChildProtection-e
The Canadian Center for Child Protection spoke very critically about certain changes which would weaken the penalties for abduction of children and forced marriages. A well written piece, but pretty sad that these facts need to be stated.

It was also addressed in the previous review that changes were being made to (for the most part) make it easier for accused criminals to get out on bail and to remain out even when breaching conditions. Crime just isn’t something the government takes seriously.

6. Liberals All Voted For This

All Liberal MPs voted for Bill C-75. Every single one who was in the House of Commons. They all voted for a Bill that reduces the criminal penalties for terrorism offences, and crimes against children. Regardless of whether the vote was whipped (it probably was), MPs in the government should have been standing up against this.

7. More Then Just Terrorism At Stake

The review from 2018 seems to be incomplete, so a follow up was called for. While terrorism related charged were prominent in the bill, there were many other things that needed to be addressed as well.

Slipping in content from Bill C-32 (lowering the age of consent for anal sex) was just one thing that wasn’t discussed in the media. Seems that when Bill C-32 died, the discussion died as well. A cynic might wonder if the exclusive focus on the terrorism elements was deliberate.

(a) Focus on the reduced penalties for terrorism offences
(b) Ignore the degeneracy, child exploitation aspects of the bill

In watering down penalties in this manner, the Trudeau Government puts people — particularly children — in danger. It is difficult to comprehend how this makes children safer when the potential punishments for crimes against children are reduced.

Under the guise of criminal justice reform, the Trudeau Government is making it more likely that children will continue to be harmed. After all, Bill C-75 reduces potential penalties for serious crimes against children.

Hopefully this gives a more rounded summary of Bill C-75 than the what last article did.

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/canadas-bill-c-75-watering-down-penalties-for-terrorism-rioting-weapons/
(2) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=8587634
(3) http://archive.is/p1AqH
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-75/royal-assent
(5) http://archive.is/QYxr0
(6) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/
(7) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10210275
(8) http://archive.is/efXwo

Posted on

CV #16: Koch/Atlas Ties On Both Sides Of Alberta Bill 10 Court Challenge

In the 1990s, Jason Kenney was the head of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation. He has lobbied the Federal Government in that capacity.

The Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms belongs to the same organization that the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation does.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here.

2. Media Bias, Lies, Omissions And Corruption

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/unifor-denies-crawling-into-bed-with-government
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/full-scale-of-inadmissibles-getting-residency-permits-what-global-news-leaves-out/
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/post-media-controls-msm-conservative-alternative-media/
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/4-much-conservative-content-dominated-by-koch-atlas/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/the-origins-of-true-north-canada-which-its-founder-hides/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/inner-workings-of-the-post-millennial-staff/
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/how-to-do-your-own-research-investigative-journalism/

3. Important Links

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/unifor-interview-denies-crawling-into-bed-with-government/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/whos-really-behind-canadian-conservative-alt-indy-media/
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/much-of-conservative-media-in-canada-dominated-by-koch-atlas/
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/the-true-origins-of-candice-malcolms-true-north-canada/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/taking-a-post-truth-look-at-the-post-millennial/

(6) Alberta.Bill.10.Emergency.Powers
(7) Alberta.Bill.10.JCCF.Legal.Challenge.April.30
(8) http://lobbycanada.gc.ca
(9) https://www.jccf.ca/about-us/the-staff-of-the-justice-centre/
(10) http://archive.is/2fJYj
(11) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jason-kenney-canadian-taxpayers-federation-alberta-1.3668514
(12) http://archive.is/etJls
(13) https://www.atlasnetwork.org/partners/global-directory/canada
(14) https://www.jccf.ca/health-minister-challenged-over-use-of-new-bill-10-powers-to-violate-confidentiality-of-patient-medical-information/
(15) http://archive.is/2zCDw

4. Context For This Piece

Having a healthy opposition, or group fighting the government is generally a great thing. Having an organization challenge bad laws or decisions in court benefits society as a whole. In this case, the bad law is Alberta’s Bill 10, rushed through Parliament. No serious person would deny that there are positives to challenging it. This is especially true given the hyped nature of CV.

Bill 10, in short, is a gross overreach and overreaction in response to this coronavirus “planned-emic”. It steps on many freedoms Albertans are used to having.

In a larger sense, it seems that many Western leaders are using this as an opportunity to crack down on civil liberties, under the guise of security. See Section #4 for a few quotes.

The JCCF is right, that such a Bill passed, especially with little real debate is a problem. For that, they deserve credit.

That said, when the power BEING challenged, and the party DOING the challenging are owned by the same organization, the public needs to know about it. One can legitimately ask if the entire event is staged, or at a minimum, if there is some conflict of interest.

Such is the case here. The commonality is the Koch funded Atlas Network. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney is the former President of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation, which is an Atlas Group. Many of his former colleagues are also part of Atlas. The Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms is also part of Atlas Network, and in fact, its founder also worked for the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation, though after Kenney stepped down.

A major problem is that none of these groups publicly admit belonging to the same institution: Atlas. There are 12 such think tanks in Canada, yet not one of their websites discloses their common bonds. This lack of transparency shows the whole Bill 10 proceedings in a whole new light.

5. Atlas Network’s Canadian Partners

  • Alberta Institute
  • Canadian Constitution Foundation
  • Canadian Taxpayers Federation
  • Canadians For Democracy And Transparency
  • Fraser Institute
  • Frontier Center For Public Policy
  • Institute For Liberal Studies
  • Justice Center For Constitutional Freedoms
  • MacDonald-Laurier Institute For Public Policy
  • Manning Center
  • Montreal Economic Institute
  • World Taxpayers Federation

There are 12 so-called “think tanks” in Canada which are part of Atlas Network. There were 13, but only 12 now. In the United States, about 140 operate. These groups push for globalist principles and are heavily funded by the Koch Brothers.

However, the individual websites don’t mention that these groups are have the same parent company, or even that they are linked in general. Interesting.

6. Challenge To Alberta’s Bill 10

DISCLAIMER: this article isn’t to defend Alberta ramming through Bill 10, nor is it an attack on the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms. Instead, it is to point out that both Jason Kenney and the JCCF have ties to the same organization.

Bill 10 was pushed through the Alberta Legislateure with minimal debate. This is especially bad considering how far reaching it is. The action brought by the JCCF is an attempt to get at least portions of that bill thrown out.

CALGARY: The Justice Centre is challenging the Alberta government and Minister of Health Tyler Shandro over using sweeping new powers under the Public Health Act via Bill 10 to provide police across the province with confidential patient medical information.

Bill 10 was rushed through the Legislative Assembly of Alberta in under 48 hours and passed on April 2, 2010 with only 21 out of 87 elected MLAs present and voting on the final reading. It provides sweeping, extraordinary, and nearly unlimited powers to any government minister at the stroke of a pen. Prior to Bill 10, the Public Health Act already gave extraordinary powers to Cabinet, the Minister of Health, and the Chief Medical Officer in the event of a public health emergency. These existing powers include taking a citizen’s real or personal property without consent, authorizing entry into a person’s residence without a warrant, requiring mass immunization of the public, and imposing mass public testing. Under these existing provisions, a minister could suspend – for up to 60 days – the operation of any existing law.

The Justice Centre warned last month that adding to these existing draconian powers, Bill 10 would allow a single Minister to unilaterally make new laws and create new offences for the populace without consultation with the Legislative Assembly. In response to concerns, the government initially claimed the changes were “minor” and “technical” in nature.

The allegations made here are certainly serious, but that is not the focus of the article. It is who controls both sides.

7. JCCF Part Of Atlas Network

John Carpay – President
John Carpay was born in the Netherlands, and grew up in British Columbia. He earned his B.A. in Political Science at Laval University in Quebec City, and his LL.B. from the University of Calgary. Fluent in English, French, and Dutch, John served the Canadian Taxpayers Federation as Alberta Director from 2001 to 2005, advocating for lower taxes, less waste, and accountable government. Called to the Bar in 1999, he has been an advocate for freedom and the rule of law in constitutional cases across Canada. As the founder and president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, John has devoted his legal career to defending constitutional freedoms through litigation and education. He considers it a privilege to advocate for courageous and principled clients who take great risks – and make tremendous personal sacrifices – by resisting the unjust demands of intolerant government authorities. In 2010, John received the Pyramid Award for Ideas and Public Policy in recognition of his work in constitutional advocacy, and his success in building up and managing a non-profit organization to defend citizens’ freedoms. He serves on the Board of Advisors of iJustice, an initiative of the Centre for Civil Society, India.

The President of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms also spent 4 years with the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation (2001 to 2005). Of course the CTF is also an Atlas group.

Not only was John Carpay a member of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation (again, Jason Kenney’s old organization), but he was actually a registered lobbyist employed by the CTF. Kenney and Carpay both acted in lobbyist roles at some point for the CTF. Nice disclosure.

jccf.1.directors.founding
jccf.2.bylaws.rules
jccf.3.certificate.of.continuance
jccf.4.change.of.registered.address

The JCCF never mentions that it has a parent company (Atlas Network). Nor does it disclose that Atlas is the same parent company of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation, which Jason Kenney used to head.

Does this make Bill 10 okay, or the challenge bad? No it doesn’t. However, for the purpose of openness, some real transparency would have been nice.

8. Jason Kenney’s Ties to Atlas

Even after Kenney became a Member of Parliament, his old organization, the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation, continued to lobby the Federal Government afterwards. Above are some of the meetings that took place.

“I only decided to do this in the past couple of weeks. I have a lot of things I’d like to finish in Ottawa. I’d also like to be in the House to say farewell to colleagues,” he said.
.
But it’s not soon enough for some.
.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which Kenney led in the 1990s, says its position on Kenney is the same as it is for all politicians who are seeking office at another level — they should take an unpaid leave of absence.
.
Aaron Wudrick of the Canadian Taxpayer Federation says Jason Kenney should take unpaid leave while he seeks the Alberta PC leadership. (CBC)
.
“Politicians are elected, and paid, to do a job. If they are not doing that job, they shouldn’t be getting paid for it,” said Aaron Wudrick, a director with the federation.

Fast forward to 2016, the CTF is criticizing their former boss for continuing to hold a Federal seat, while campaigning to become Premier of Alberta.

They do have a valid point though. If Kenney is getting a salary as a Federal MP, he should be working in that capacity, not actively campaigning for a new job.

Beyond Kenney being the former President of the CTF, and using that to launch into politics, many of his co-workers (Provincially and Federally) also have various connections to Atlas.

9. Kenney’s Colleagues Have Atlas Ties

Let’s look at some specific examples of people that Jason Kenney has been associating with in his professional life. Here are some of the more prominent names.

  • Fellow ex-MP Maxime Bernier was Executive Vice-President of the Montreal Economic Institute. It is headed by Helene Desmarais, Paul Desmarais Jr’s wife.
  • Ex-Alberta MLA Derek Fildebrandt was a member of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation. He was involved in a scandal for subletting a taxpayer funded apartment.
  • Kenney’s ex-staffer Candice Malcolm was part of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation and the Fraser Institute.
  • Fellow ex-MP Joe Oliver is a member of the Manning Institute.
  • Fellow ex-MP Preston Manning is the head of the Manning Institute. In fact it is named after him.
  • Kenney’s ex-staffer Kasra Nejatian, is a Director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation. He is also a Director at True North Canada, though it’s not publicly disclosed.
  • Ex-Alberta MLA (and former Wildrose Leader), Danielle Smith, worked for the Fraser Institute for a short time in the 1990s.
  • Fellow ex-MP Chuck Strahl is a member of the Manning Institute. He was also part of the Trudeau Foundation.

This is of course by no means an exhaustive list. However, it’s worth pointing out that many prominent conservatives — many with ties to Jason Kenney — are all connected in some way to the same organization. It seems that Atlas is a stepping stone for people to get into politics. If you check the history of many of these people, they had some Koch/Atlas connection immediately prior to getting into politics. Or it helped get them further in politics.

Much of that information is detailed here, but it’s worth emphasizing just how controlled and consolidated “conservative” politics in Canada really is. All of these think tanks work for the same group.

10. Kenney’s Ex-Staffers Run Fake Charity

True.North.1.Certificate.Of.Amendment
True.North.2.Change.Of.Directors
True.North.3.Certificate.Of.Continuance

Malcolm seems to not be aware that her new “charity” is required to file annual returns. This will be a strange way to find out (if she ever reads it).

This was covered previously, but worth another mention because of how underhanded it is. Here are the main points to note.

  • Malcolm was previously a Staffer for Jason Kenney when he was Immigration Minister. So was her husband Kasra Nejatian. If you are going to establish a media outlet on immigration, it seems absurd to leave that connection out. It gives status.
  • Malcolm made her husband a director of the company without disclosing it publicly. In fact, you have to research the company to find that out.
  • As listed above, both Malcolm and Nejatian have ties to various Atlas groups.
  • While claiming to do “timely research into immigration issues”, a lot of what comes out is “Conservative Inc.” talking points on the subject.
  • Most importantly, Malcolm misleads and deceives about the real origins of this “charity”. While presenting herself as the founder, she omits that she simply took over and existing charity called the Independent Immigration Aid Association. Malcolm used an existing charity for the tax breaks since she likely wouldn’t qualify on her own. Saying she founded the “non-profit” branch, True North Initiative is technically true, but leaves readers with a distorted view. It is the charity part which makes her eligible for the tax breaks.

Worth mentioning: Press Progress also did a great piece on it.

One more point to add. Lindsay Shepherd works at True North Canada. Her boss is Candice Malcolm, an ex-Kenney staffer who was (is?) part of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation. The CTF is the same group that Jason Kenney once ran. Shepherd is also a fellow with the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, the group suing the Alberta Government, which is now headed by Kenney. Nothing inherently wrong, though it’s strange how these people just flow between groups. Conservative Inc. must be one big happy family.

11. Honourable Mention: Spencer Fernando

Although the National Citizen’s Coalition is not an Atlas Group, it was once headed by Stephen Harper. It is disappointing to see Spencer Fernando, who claims to be independent, spouting CPC talking points on his website and elsewhere.

12. Same Group Influences Both Sides

Again, this is not in any way to justify ramming Bill 10 through the Alberta Legislature. Nor is it a claim that such legislation should not be contested. It hits out against Canadians’ fundamental freedoms, and clearly wasn’t very well thought through. Using the fake pandemic to take away people’s freedoms and civil rights is just plain wrong. This is a horrible bill.

Instead, it is to point out that both sides in this, (Jason Kenney and the JCCF), have connections to the same globalist organization: Atlas Network. And Atlas gets much of its funding from Koch. Yet the mainstream media does not mention it, let alone provide any details.

None of these 12 Atlas groups mention that they are affiliated with each other, let alone that they have the same parent company. For groups that demand transparency in government, it is rather hypocritical. That alone should be cause for concern.

A cynic might wonder if this legislation was pushed through specifically so that the JCCF could launch a challenge. But we will never know for sure.

Posted on

Ontario’s Bill 168: Doug Ford To Ban Criticism Of Jews Under Guise Of “Anti-Semitism”

1. Important Links

(1) bill.168.antisemitism
(2) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-4.html
(3) https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-1/bill-168
(4) http://archive.is/PPk8V
(5) https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/
(6) http://archive.is/FMY3i
(7) https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
(8) http://archive.is/In7MJ

2. Context For This Article

Free speech is under attack again, and this time it comes from the Zionists, trying to push their version of anti-Semitism laws. Iqra Khalid was heavily criticized for pushing her Islamophobia motion, M103 a few years ago, but this gets a pass from the media and from public scrutiny. Both are horrible pieces of legislation,

3. Criminal Law Exclusively Federal

Under Section 91(27) of the Constitution, criminal law is exclusively the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. This means that the Ford Government couldn’t actually criminalize criticism of Jews, even if they wanted to. Still, it’s pretty chilling to put this on the books in Ontario, even if it is meant to be symbolic.

This is address the elephant in the room: jurisdiction in the event of potential criminal law changes.

4. Text Of Bill 168

Will Bouma and Robin Martin, the sponsors for Bill 168, which was actually a private member’s bill.

Bill 168 2019
An Act to combat antisemitism
Preamble Antisemitism is a multi-faceted problem that requires a multi-faceted strategy, encompassing a range of ministries and agencies. For that reason, it is desirable to require the Government of Ontario to implement a whole-of-government approach in combating antisemitism. As part of that approach, it is desirable to apply a consistent interpretation of Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism. Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:
.
Interpretation
1 In interpreting Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism, the Government of Ontario shall be guided by the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016. Legislation Act, 2006 amendment
.
2 Section 87 of the Legislation Act, 2006 is amended by adding the following definition: “antisemitism” has the meaning set out in the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016; (antisémitisme”) Commencement
.
3 This Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent. Short title
.
4 The short title of this Act is the Combating Antisemitism Act, 2019.
.
______________
.
EXPLANATORY NOTE The Bill requires the Government of Ontario to be guided by the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it, adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016, when it interprets Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism. The Bill also amends the Legislation Act, 2006 to adopt that working definition.

The text is pretty clear. Ontario (if this law passes) is to be guided by the working definition of anti-Semitism as provided by the IHRA. Interestingly, the bill doesn’t say what that definition is. So let’s take a look for ourselves.

What is it exactly that Ontario will be signing up for?

5. IHRA Definition Of Anti-Semitism

On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:
.
Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
.
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Don’t worry. While this sounds pretty vague, it is about to get much, MUCH more detailed in what exactly counts as anti-Semitism.

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

  • Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
  • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
  • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
  • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
  • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
  • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
  • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
.
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
.
Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

Just reading the definition provided, it has to be asked: what DOESN’T make the list? What ISN’T anti-Semitism according to these people?

When it refers to anti-Semitic acts as criminal, is that in indication that criminalization of “anti-Semitism” is where they intend to go with this?

6. Status Of Bill 168

It’s already had its second reading. Not too far to go. Considering Ford has a majority government, he should encounter little resistance in getting Bill 168 passed and signed into law.

7. CIJA Lobbied For Bill 168

CIJA, the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (the Israeli lobby), is found in the Ontario Lobbyist Registry as attempting to influence the Ford Government to pass Bill 168.

8. Double Standard For Islamophobia Motion

A few years back, there was a huge public stink when Iqra Khalid, a Pakistani Muslim and “paper Canadian”, got M-103 passed at the Federal level. This was a (supposedly non binding) motion to combat Islamophobia, but without defining what it actually was.

Why no media outrage over this? Is it because of the Jewish influence and power in the media that the story is buried? I guess that’s anti-Semitism to ask that.

Should this ever come to pass, what’s to stop the Feds (or any court) from using it as a precedent to push binding anti-Semitism laws? This is a scary step to take.

Posted on

B’nai Brith Canada Is Anti-Free Speech, Ontario’s Bill 168

1. Important Links

(1) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?V_SEARCH.command=refineCategory&V_TOKEN=1234567890&V_SEARCH.scopeCategory=solr.facetName.subjectMatters%3D5
(2) http://archive.is/3hU27
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=12176&regId=496692
(4) http://archive.is/jcNOM
(5) https://www.bnaibrith.ca/our_appeal_to_the_prime_minister_confronting_antisemitism_will_strengthen_national_unity
(6) http://archive.is/diKdj
(7) https://www.bnaibrith.ca/our_letter_to_the_prime_minister
(8) http://archive.is/rBhiF
(9) https://www.bnaibrith.ca/b_nai_brith_canada_welcomes_government_s_acceptance_of_ihra_definition_of_antisemitism
(10) http://archive.is/mXEUO
(11) https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism
(12) http://archive.is/4tjCw
(13) https://www.robinmartinmpp.ca/bill168
(14) http://archive.is/IuWAY
(15) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/campaigns/anti-racism-engagement/anti-racism-strategy.html
(16) http://archive.is/nUEwE
(17) https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-1/bill-168
(18) http://archive.is/PPk8V

2. Corporate Documents

B’nai Brith League For Human Rights
bblhr.01.bylaws
bblhr.02.change.registered.office
bblhr.03.amendments
bblhr.04.certificate.of.incorporation
bblhr.05.director.changes

B’nai Brith National Organization
bbno.01.director.changes
bbno.02.certificate.of.incorporation
bbno.03.change.registered.office
bbno.04.notice.of.financials

3. B’nai Brith & The Lobbying Commission

A very disturbing sight: broadcasting. Want to take a bet that B’nai Brith is (among other things) pushing for more speech restrictions?

B. Lobbyists Employed by the Organization
Name: LISA ARMONY
Position title: INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, NAT’L DIRECTR
Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.

Name: JOYCE ASTER
Position title: ONTARIO REGIONAL OFFICE, DIRECTOR
Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.

Name: DAVID COOPER
Position title: LEAGUE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, RESEARCH & COMMUNICATIONS
Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.

Name: FRANK DIMANT
Position title: Executive Vice President
Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.

Name: RUBIN FRIEDMAN
Position title: GOVERNMENT RELATIONS OFFICE, DIRECTOR
Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.

Name: PEARL GLADMAN
Position title: NATIONAL FIELD SERVICES, NATIONAL DIRECTOR
Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.

Name: ANAT LEWIN
Position title: INSTITUTE FOR INT’L AFFAIRS, RESEARCH & POLICY
Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.

Name: ROBERT LIBMAN
Position title: QUEBEC REGIONAL OFFICE, DIRECTOR
Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.

Name: KAREN MOCK
Position title: LEAGUE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, NATIONAL DIRECTOR
Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.

Although the lobbying reports found are from around 20 years ago, they show B’nai Brith had a persistent interest in lobbying Parliament on a variety of topics.

4. B’nai Brith’s Anti-Free Speech Agenda

Also included is the letter to the Prime Minister.

Quote: Among the main priorities also raised with the Prime Minister are:

  • Ensuring that Canada’s new Anti-Racism Strategy will address concerns of and threats to religious minorities, including the Jewish community.
  • Pursuing standardized and mandatory education curricula on antisemitism and the Holocaust, in collaboration with the provinces and territories.
  • Creating a federal position to coordinate domestic action on antisemitism, working with a special envoy to combat antisemitism globally.
  • Fully implementing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism, as adopted by the federal government in June, and launching a program to educate Canadians about it.
  • Adopting the recommendations made in November by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief and its landmark report on antisemitism.

“Antisemitism must be addressed through a national effort that strengthens our society and promotes unity,” said Michael Mostyn, Chief Executive Officer of B’nai Brith Canada. “Given the importance of federal leadership, and the beginning of a brand new Parliament, raising the concerns of our community at this time is essential. [End quote]

In a practical sense, how is this different than Iqra Khalid wanting to make “Islamophobia” illegal? The Islamists and the Zionists are using essentially the same tactics.

5. Gov’t Adopts IHRA Def’n Of Anitsemitism

Antisemitism
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
Footnote 2

Of course, footnote #2 comes from:

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance “Working Definition of Antisemitism”. For further information, visit: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism.

But don’t worry kids, it’s not binding.

6. What Is IHRA Definition Of Anitsemitism?

Does it sound scary? Well, here is the definition of anti-Semitism IHRA provides:

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

-Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

-Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

-Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

-Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

-Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

-Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

-Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

-Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

-Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

-Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

What a lot of projection here. And what an attempt to criminalise things that are in fact true:
(a) A lot of Jews “are” more loyal to Israel than where they live
(b) Why can’t the Holocaust be questioned? Every other event in human history is allowed to be questioned, but not this apparently.
(c) Nothing wrong with Jews having their own place. The problem arises in the double standard hypocrisy, where Jews try to open borders of OTHER nations.
(d) Making dehumanizing or stereotypical comments? Sure that won’t ever be abused.

7. Other Media On A-S Definition Acceptance

From the Jerusalum Post:

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Pablo Rodríguez, announced on Tuesday that the Canadian government intends to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism as part of its anti-racism strategy.

From the Jewish News Syndicate

“Canada adopting IHRA’s definition of antisemitism is an important symbolic and declaratory move,” said NGO Monitor founder and president Gerald Steinberg. “We hope that the next steps will pertain to its implementation within Canadian policy, including regarding Canadian international aid and support of NGOs.”

B’nai Brith Canada labeled the IHRA standard “the most universally accepted and expertly driven definition of anti-Semitism available today,” and one that “enjoys unprecedented consensus.”

8. B’nai Brith’s 8-Pt Plan On Antisemitism

bnaibrith.8.point.plan

[1] INSTITUTE DEDICATED HATE CRIME UNITS IN EVERY MAJOR CITY The lack of investment in hate crime-specifi c units contributes to both a perceived sense of impunity for the purveyors of hate crimes and generates frustration on the part of affected communities. Dedicated hate crimes units could produce more substantive results in the field.

[2] PROVIDE ENHANCED TRAINING FOR HATE CRIMES OFFICERS What often appears to be a clear-cut case of a hate crime can be interpreted differently among police services. A standard understanding of what constitutes a hate crime is critical, as well as proper liaison functions between police services and civil society organizations representing affected communities, such as the League for Human Rights.

[3] PUBLISH THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S GUIDELINES FOR SECTIONS 318 AND 319 The Attorney-General’s decision-making process on hate propaganda prosecutions is not public and therefore open to charges of political bias. B’nai Brith believes revealing the internal guidelines elucidating this process will help the public know when to submit complaints to law enforcement, and clarify what is and is not legal.

[4] DECLARE A ZERO-TOLERANCE APPROACH TO GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF ANTISEMITISM Government funding has again found its way to organizations that have promoted antisemitism in the past. Government must be vigilant when dispensing public funds to such organizations, and take swift action when such instances come to its attention, including an immediate withdrawal of all publicly-provided funds.

[5] INTRODUCE ANTI-SLAPP LEGISLATION IN ALL PROVINCES AND TERRITORIES Only B.C., Ontario and Quebec have enacted legislation against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or “anti-SLAPP” legislation, which is meant to prevent frivolous libel lawsuits designed to dissuade groups engaging in issues of public interest by using lawsuits to intimidate and deter critique or inquiry. B’nai Brith encourages all provinces and territories to enact this legislation so this protection can be extended to the benefit of all Canadians

[6] HOLD UNIVERSITIES ACCOUNTABLE FOR CAMPUS ANTISEMITISM Universities recently surfaced as significant breeding grounds for antisemitism in Canada, including through an increase in far-left activism against Israel. Universities must do more to combat antisemitism, as do provincial ministries of education, including enforcing existing antidiscrimination policies and ensuring that appropriate disciplinary measures are employed.

[7] ADOPT A NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR ANTISEMITISM Canada must adopt a National Action Plan to Combat Antisemitism, as have France and Norway, in recognition that adequate resources must be offered to strategically combat anti-Jewish rhetoric. Such a plan would involve all levels of government, which could help law enforcement, communities, and schools prevent and respond to antisemitism.

[8] DEVELOP AN ACTION PLAN TO COUNTER ONLINE HATE B’nai Brith believes that the federal government, along with social media platforms and other stakeholders, can work in tandem to establish a viable strategic plan to counter online hate. Government must examine how to strengthen laws against perpetrators of online hate and improve law enforcement training in how to respond.

9. Ontario And Bill 186

EXPLANATORY NOTE
The Bill requires the Government of Ontario to be guided by the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it, adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016, when it interprets Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism.

The Bill also amends the Legislation Act, 2006 to adopt that working definition.
Bill 168 2019
An Act to combat antisemitism
Preamble
.
Antisemitism is a multi-faceted problem that requires a multi-faceted strategy, encompassing a range of ministries and agencies. For that reason, it is desirable to require the Government of Ontario to implement a whole-of-government approach in combating antisemitism. As part of that approach, it is desirable to apply a consistent interpretation of Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism.
.
Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:
.
Interpretation
1 In interpreting Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism, the Government of Ontario shall be guided by the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016.
Legislation Act, 2006 amendment
.
2 Section 87 of the Legislation Act, 2006 is amended by adding the following definition:
“antisemitism” has the meaning set out in the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016; (antisémitisme”)
Commencement
.
3 This Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent.
Short title
4 The short title of this Act is the Combating Antisemitism Act, 2019.

bill.168.antisemitism

Of course, the Ontario Government is a “Conservative” majority, headed by “populist” Doug Ford. Wasn’t aware that passing anti-free speech laws was a conservative value.

B’nai Brith was a main player in getting this legislation pushed.

10. B’nai Brith Is Anti-Free Speech

The above is just a sample of what the group is up to.

And yes, B’nai Brith is a huge supporter of aiding mass migration to the West, and using our countries as dumping grounds. Israel is off limits of course – More migrants for thee, but none for me.

However, that will be a post all on its own.

As for all of the players trying to undermine Canadian sovereignty, let’s name them.

11. Who Are These Open Borders NGOs?

(1) AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
(2) B’NAI BRITH
(3) BRIDGES NOT BORDERS
(4) CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF REFUGEE LAWYERS
(5) CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES
(6) CANADIAN COUNCIL OF CHURCHES
(7) CENTER FOR ISRAEL AND JEWISH AFFAIRS
(8) JEWISH REFUGEE ACTION NETWORK
(9) PLATTSBURGH CARES
(10) SOLIDARITY ACROSS BORDERS

Honourable mention: ex-Israeli Ambassador David Berger

This is by no means a complete list, but a starting point. One will immediately notice a common thread that runs between most of these groups. However, not everyone is willing to address that.

Anthony Furey (see above tweet) writes for the Toronto Sun, and has contributed to True North Canada, Candice Malcolm’s “charity”.

While Furey clearly knows that the efforts are coordinated to smuggle these people into Canada, Furey (and other outfits like Rebel Media) refrain from exposing WHO is behind these efforts. They focus on a symptom, and not the disease.

This is probably because these groups are mainly Jewish, and Furey has a self-preservation instinct. He doesn’t want to hit too close to home, and end his media career.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress