Category: Canadian Bills

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1 Section 159 of the Criminal Code is repealed.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.

Posted on

Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs #2: An Assault On Free Speech And Democracy In Canada

1. Important Links

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/foreign-interference-in-canadas-democracy-centre-for-israel-and-jewish-affairs/”
(2) https://cija.ca/
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=895791&blnk=1
(4) http://archive.is/NR9tZ
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/clntCmmLgs?cno=111&regId=895791
(6) http://archive.is/czbFk
(7) https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism
(8) http://archive.is/4tjCw
(9) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/section-13-20021231.html
(10) http://archive.is/lMLRz

2. Context For The Article

The last piece focused mainly on the extensive lobbying efforts that CIJA was involved in doing, namely who and when it was taking place.

Now we get to the “what”. What exactly is CIJA lobbying for, and what do they want? If an organization spends that kind of time and money, they must be serious about it.

3. CIJA’s Prolific Lobbying Efforts

As was covered in the previous article, CIJA, the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs has been heavily involved in lobbying the Federal Government for decades. Now, let’s take a deeper look into what they actually are lobbying for.

4. CIJA’s Stated Goals

What makes CIJA different from other Jewish organizations?
.
CIJA is the only registered lobbyist for the Jewish community. It is the sole advocacy agent of Canada’s Jewish Federations, focusing much of its work on communications with the non-Jewish community. Its approach to advocacy is strategic, based on research, polling, and analysis. CIJA is the only organization to bring – literally – hundreds of Canadian influencers and decision-makers to Israel on educational missions every year.

Based on information provided in the FAQ, CIJA openly states its goal is to influence policy, and states it brings hundreds of Canadians to Israel annually to help achieve that.

5. IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism

About the IHRA
The IHRA is the only intergovernmental organization mandated to focus solely on Holocaust-related issues, so with evidence that the scourge of antisemitism is once again on the rise, we resolved to take a leading role in combatting it. IHRA experts determined that in order to begin to address the problem of antisemitism, there must be clarity about what antisemitism is.

The IHRA’s Committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial worked to build international consensus around a working definition of antisemitism, which was subsequently adopted by the plenary. By doing so, the IHRA set an example of responsible conduct for other international fora and provided an important tool with practical applicability for its Member Countries. This is just one illustration of how the IHRA has equipped policymakers to address this rise in hate and discrimination at their national level.

The Working Definition of Antisemitism
In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism.

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.”

And if this sounds too vague, don’t worry. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance will get much, MUCH more detailed in what fits this definition.

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.

Yes, this IHRA definition of anti-Semitism means any such behaviour listed above should be criminalized.

Also note: it has the wording “include, but not limited to”. This means that the extensive list of “anti-Semitic behaviour” may be expanded on as time passes.

Language that seems dehumanizing? That also is extremely vague, and seems ripe for abuse. And Jews are greatly overrepresented in government, academia, banking and the media. How is pointing out these facts considered bias?

Even questioning even the scale of the Holocaust is considered a hate crime according to these people?

And Israel DOES practice a double standard when it comes to managing its affairs. Israel has strong border walls, strict immigration, and is extremely ethno-centric when it comes to determining who it should allow to live there. But if you question the hypocrisy, you are an anti-Semite.

Is all of this an academic exercise? Hardly.

6. Pushing IHRA Definition on Others

CIJA has been successful in getting Westmount (Montreal), and Vaughn, and Toronto, to adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, which is basically anything Jews don’t like.

As a political tactic, this is proving to be very effective.

Looking at this in terms of silencing potential critics: how is this different from the Motion M-103 which Iqra Khalid previously got passed in the House of Commons? The effect is the same — using the claim of victimhood to silence free speech.

7. Changing Human Rights Code

Hate messages
13 (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Marginal note:
Interpretation

(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.
Marginal note:
Interpretation

(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.

CIJA wants to bring back Section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act, which was repealed in 2013. The idea is to make it easier to claim anti-Semitism by pointing to electronic communications.

8. (Internet) Hate Speech, Criminal Penalties

The previous section dealt with “online hate” via the Canada Human Rights Act, but here, CIJA wants to push for it to be “criminally punishable” as well. That’s right, not only would this be a human rights violation, but potentially a criminal offence as well.

Of course, CIJA supports the extremely broad and excessive definition of “anti-Semitism” as laid out by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Don’t worry, this won’t trample on your free speech or anything.

9. Deportations For “Hate Speech”

One of CIJA’s stated goals is to influence policy to make it easier to remove citizenship of Canadians for a variety of reasons, including what it calls: extreme promotion of hate.

Presumably — although it doesn’t specify — this would only apply to people who immigrate to Canada and later become citizens. One can also assume — but again, it doesn’t state — that after the citizenship is revoked the person would then be deported.

While removing people who commit terrorism and crimes against humanity is certainly a reasonable goal, it is disturbing to see “hate speech” included as well. This is especially true since CIJA doesn’t really believe in free speech to begin with.

It would be interesting (at least in some academic sense), to see how this plays out. Under Bill C-6, we no longer pull the citizenship of actual terrorists. Yet we are now supposed to do so for hate speech?

10. Holocaust Training Obligations

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance unites governments and experts to strengthen, advance and promote Holocaust education, research and remembrance and to uphold the commitments to the 2000 Stockholm Declaration.

The IHRA (formerly the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research, or ITF) was initiated in 1998 by former Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson. Today the IHRA’s membership consists of 34 member countries, each of whom recognizes that international political coordination is imperative to strengthen the moral commitment of societies and to combat growing Holocaust denial and antisemitism.

The IHRA’s network of trusted experts share their knowledge on early warning signs of present-day genocide and education on the Holocaust. This knowledge supports policymakers and educational multipliers in their efforts to develop effective curricula, and it informs government officials and NGOs active in global initiatives for genocide prevention.

Yes, this is very productive: constantly reminding Canadians that Jews are victims.

Interesting to note: IHRA wants to criminalize it (everywhere) to deny or even question the Holocaust, but it is only “this” one that is off limits. Every other alleged atrocity is fair game to dissect and analyse. Perhaps the cover story is falling apart after all these years, so the skeptics must be silenced.

11. CIJA And Durban II

From 20-24 April 2009, the Durban Review Conference took place in Geneva. It is also known as Durban II, a follow-up to the infamous “Durban I” World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in the late summer of 2001. At Durban I, an NGO Forum accepted what can be summed up as a declaration of war against Israel. Participating nongovernmental organizations adopted a strategy for the complete isolation of Israel through boycotts, divestment, and sanctions.

The Durban I is seen as waging war on Israel. So CIJA is trying to lobby Canada and other nations to act as a counter-weight against future proposals or movements.

12. CIJA Behind Media Licensing Req

Period (2012-05-10 to 2012-07-19)

Period (2015-02-02 to 2015-06-10)

Period (2016-03-01 to 2016-03-18)

Period (2017-06-15 to 2017-08-04)

Period (2019-09-01 to 2020-01-14)

Do you get the picture? For years, the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs has been lobbying the Federal Government about the issuances of broadcast licenses.

This is not a one time thing, but has been going on for several years, at least. Any wonder why we now have a government that openly calls for all media outlets (regardless of size), to be regulated? This is a deliberate attempt to give control to the government to deplatform anyone who is deemed to be anti-Semitic, or involved in hate speech.

That is correct. The ISRAELI group has spent years lobbying the CANADIAN Government over how media licenses should be issued. This is straight up foreign interference in our affairs.

The CRTC has recently made many recommendations, including forcing those in the media to get licenses. Understandably, the Minister, Steven Guilbeault, and the Federal Government are taking a lot of flak over this. People may have believed it to be the Islamic groups that led to this, and that certainly is a reasonable suspicion. However, the fact is that CIJA has lobbying specifically for this for many years.

13. More Than Just Free Speech

Of course, there are many other things CIJA advocates for.

One is increasing markets for kosher food, that is food killed in barbaric and inhumane ways (much like Islamic halal). Looks like animal rights don’t matter as long as it is cloaked in culture and diversity.

This group also pushes for increased trade and for changes to the tax code that presumably Jews would personally benefit from.

CIJA also wants to see more immigration with easier pathways. But of course, this only applies to people coming to Canada. Israel can remain an ethno-state. CIJA further wishes to entangle Canada in its military and political obligations.

So there is no denying that this group — which has filed 1248 “communications reports” has been busy trying to change Canada’s laws. But the worst one in the eyes of many is its continuous assault on free speech in Canada.

White Westerners are told that identity politics is evil and wrong. But CIJA, and groups like it, endlessly play JEWISH identity politics in order to get their way. Seems hypocritical.

Posted on

Canada’s Bill C-14, Assisted Suicide

1. Important Links

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying.html
(2) https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14637/index.do
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1993/1993canlii75/1993canlii75.html
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html
(5) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-53.html#h-119931
(6) http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-14/royal-assent#EH3

C-14 British Columbia Humanist Association
C-14 Christian Legal Fellowship
C-14 Communication Disabilities Access Canada
C-14 Dying with Dignity Canada Nova Scotia Chapter
C-14 Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
C-14 Justice For Children And Youth
C-14 Life Canada
C-14 Protection Of Conscience Project
C-14 Quebec Association for the Right to Die with Dignity
C-14 Saskatchewan Pro-Life Association Inc
C-14 St. Catharines Right To Life Association</a

2. Law Against Assisted Suicide

Suicide
Marginal note:
Counselling or aiding suicide
241 (1) Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years who, whether suicide ensues or not,
(a) counsels a person to die by suicide or abets a person in dying by suicide; or
(b) aids a person to die by suicide.

Now there is more to be considered. See section 6.

3. Canadian Charter, Section 7

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

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

The 2015 decision ruled that the blanket ban violated the Section 7 Charter rights, and that there was no “saving” of it under Section 1.

4. SCC Orders Parliament To Fix Law

XIII. Conclusion
[147] The appeal is allowed. We would issue the following declaration, which is suspended for 12 months:
Section 241 (b) and s. 14 of the Criminal Code unjustifiably infringe s. 7 of the Charter and are of no force or effect to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the prohibition against assisted suicide violated Section 7 of the Charter, which addresses security of the person.

The ruling is very long, and addressed the issue from a number of legal questions. It also addressed whether the Lower Courts should be bound by a 1993 ruling on much the same issues. It’s too lengthy to go through in an article, but is worth a read.

5. Bill C-14, Assisted Dying

SUMMARY
.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create exemptions from the offences of culpable homicide, of aiding suicide and of administering a noxious thing, in order to permit medical practitioners and nurse practitioners to provide medical assistance in dying and to permit pharmacists and other persons to assist in the process;
(b) specify the eligibility criteria and the safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person;
(c) require that medical practitioners and nurse practitioners who receive requests for, and pharmacists who dispense substances in connection with the provision of, medical assist­ance in dying provide information for the purpose of permitting the monitoring of medical assistance in dying, and authorize the Minister of Health to make regulations respecting that information; and
(d) create new offences for failing to comply with the safeguards, for forging or destroying documents related to medical assistance in dying, for failing to provide the required information and for contravening the regulations.

Following the Supreme Court ruling, the Federal Government was ordered to remedy the situation. Bill C-14 was introduced in 2016 to set out the guidelines for medically assisted death.

6. Medical Assistance Exemption

Eligibility for medical assistance in dying
241.2 (1) A person may receive medical assistance in dying only if they meet all of the following criteria:
(a) they are eligible — or, but for any applicable minimum period of residence or waiting period, would be eligible — for health services funded by a government in Canada;
(b) they are at least 18 years of age and capable of making decisions with respect to their health;
(c) they have a grievous and irremediable medical condition;
(d) they have made a voluntary request for medical assistance in dying that, in particular, was not made as a result of external pressure; and
(e) they give informed consent to receive medical assistance in dying after having been informed of the means that are available to relieve their suffering, including palliative care.

Grievous and irremediable medical condition
(2) A person has a grievous and irremediable medical condition only if they meet all of the following criteria:
(a) they have a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability;
(b) they are in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability;
(c) that illness, disease or disability or that state of decline causes them enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable; and
(d) their natural death has become reasonably foreseeable, taking into account all of their medical circumstances, without a prognosis necessarily having been made as to the specific length of time that they have remaining.

To be fair, there are considerable safeguards written into the law to ensure that the person suffering is actually the one making the decision, and that it is voluntary and informed.

7. Where Does It Go From Here?

Currently, the law applies only to adults. But what happens when children decide that they want to make decisions over their own “health care”? Will minors be allowed to get it themselves? This is currently being considered.

The law allows for assisted suicide in the case of serious conditions which cause pain and is irreversible, and to get worse. How much will that get watered down over time? Perhaps this is just a foot-in-the-door technique to be able to end lives over more minor things.

What will happen to medical staff who refuse to participate in this? Will they become subject to sanctions for discrimination, or failing to fulfill a duty?

In fairness to Trudeau (it feels weird defending him), introducing this, or similar legislation, was forced by the 2015 Supreme Court ruling. Some bill had to be introduced at some point, so he doesn’t own this one.

Personally, this is conflicting. People should have control over their own lives, yes, but trending down a slope where lives are valued less and less is very troubling. How we treat and care for people reflects the society we live in, and this is the wrong direction to head in.