Loophole in Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement

CLICK HERE, for full text for the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement.

THE UNDERSTANDING

From the opening of the agreement


EMPHASIZING that the United States and Canada offer generous systems of refugee protection, recalling both countries’ traditions of assistance to refugees and displaced persons abroad, consistent with the principles of international solidarity that underpin the international refugee protection system, and committed to the notion that cooperation and burden-sharing with respect to refugee status claimants can be enhanced;

DESIRING to uphold asylum as an indispensable instrument of the international protection of refugees, and resolved to strengthen the integrity of that institution and the public support on which it depends;

NOTING that refugee status claimants may arrive at the Canadian or United States land border directly from the other Party, territory where they could have found effective protection;

CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;

AWARE that such sharing of responsibility must ensure in practice that persons in need of international protection are identified and that the possibility of indirect breaches of the fundamental principle of non-refoulement are avoided, and therefore determined to safeguard for each refugee status claimant eligible to pursue a refugee status claim who comes within their jurisdiction, access to a full and fair refugee status determination procedure as a means to guarantee that the protections of the Convention, the Protocol, and the Torture Convention are effectively afforded;

The wording is pretty clear here. Canada and the United States view each other as safe countries. If you land in one country, you “should” not be able to hop to the other and claim refugee status.

It is of interest to read in particular, articles 4, 5, 6

ARTICLE 4
Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, the Party of the country of last presence shall examine, in accordance with its refugee status determination system, the refugee status claim of any person who arrives at a land border port of entry on or after the effective date of this Agreement and makes a refugee status claim.
Responsibility for determining the refugee status claim of any person referred to in paragraph 1 shall rest with the Party of the receiving country, and not the Party of the country of last presence, where the receiving Party determines that the person:
-Has in the territory of the receiving Party at least one family member who has had a refugee status claim granted or has been granted lawful status, other than as a visitor, in the receiving Party’s territory; or
-Has in the territory of the receiving Party at least one family member who is at least 18 years of age and is not ineligible to pursue a refugee status claim in the receiving Party’s refugee status determination system and has such a claim pending; or
-Is an unaccompanied minor; or
-Arrived in the territory of the receiving Party:
With a validly issued visa or other valid admission document, other than for transit, issued by the receiving Party; or
Not being required to obtain a visa by only the receiving Party.
The Party of the country of last presence shall not be required to accept the return of a refugee status claimant until a final determination with respect to this Agreement is made by the receiving Party.
Neither Party shall reconsider any decision that an individual qualifies for an exception under Articles 4 and 6 of this Agreement.

Makes clear about a formal point of entry. However, those who value sovereignty will note with concern there are many exceptions to keep alleged “refugees” in Canada far longer.

ARTICLE 5
In cases involving the removal of a person by one Party in transit through the territory of the other Party, the Parties agree as follows:
Any person being removed from Canada in transit through the United States, who makes a refugee status claim in the United States, shall be returned to Canada to have the refugee status claim examined by and in accordance with the refugee status determination system of Canada.
Any person being removed from the United States in transit through Canada, who makes a refugee status claim in Canada, and:
whose refugee status claim has been rejected by the United States, shall be permitted onward movement to the country to which the person is being removed; or
who has not had a refugee status claim determined by the United States, shall be returned to the United States to have the refugee status claim examined by and in accordance with the refugee status determination system of the United States.

It appears clear cut. You cannot country shop from one to another, and there is a specific agreement to remove those people who try.

ARTICLE 6
Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement, either Party may at its own discretion examine any refugee status claim made to that Party where it determines that it is in its public interest to do so.

So, either Canada or the United States could remove anyone at any time if deemed in national interest.

HERE is the problem:

Where the Agreement is in effect
The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:
-at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
-by train or
-at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S.

As if plain and obvious, this only applies to border crossings entries. This means that fake refugees can bypass the agreement simply by entering anyplace other than an official border crossing.

That has been happening, by the thousands. See HERE, see HERE, and HERE.

One obvious solution would be to declare the “ENTIRE BORDER” a point of entry. However, there seems to be little willpower in Ottawa to do that.

In fact, Prime Minister Trudeau has no issues with calling a racist anyone who questions the open border.

What If Bill C-16 Took Effect Outside of Canada?

(Never mind. It already has in some places.)

1. Canada’s Bill C-16

CLICK HERE, for an earlier article on amending both the Canadian Criminal Code and Human Rights Code for ”gender identity or expression”.

2. New York City

CLICK HERE, for the link to the NYC Human Rights Commission.

The document is a very long one, but let’s start with the first topic: misnaming or misgendering someoneone.

1. Failing To Use an Individual’s Preferred Name or Pronoun
.
The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.
.
Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. 10 Many transgender and gender non-conforming people choose to use a different name than the one they were given at birth.
.
All people, including employees, tenants, customers, and participants in programs, have the right to use their preferred name regardless of whether they have identification in that name or have obtained a court-ordered name change, except in very limited circumstances where certain federal, state, or local laws require otherwise (e.g., for purposes of employment eligibility verification with the federal government). Asking someone their preferred gender pronoun and preferred name is not a violation of the NYCHRL

And the penalties for this?

IV. PENALTIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

The Commission can impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct. The amount of a civil penalty will be guided by the following factors, among others:

The severity of the particular violation;
The existence of previous or subsequent violations;
The employer’s size, considering both the total number of employees and its revenue; and
The employer’s actual or constructive knowledge of the NYCHRL.
These penalties are in addition to the other remedies available to people who successfully resolve or prevail on claims under the NYCHRL, including, but not limited to, back and front pay, along with other compensatory and punitive damages. The Commission may consider the lack of an adequate anti-discrimination policy as a factor in determining liability, assessing damages, and mandating certain affirmative remedies.

Yes, a potential $250,000 fine for misgendering someone.

Incidently, New York now recognizes 31 genders. Not a joke.

3. California Senate Bill 219

CLICK HERE, for the text of SB 219

1439.50. For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
.
(a) “Gender expression” has the same meaning as defined in Section 51 of the Civil Code.
.
(b) “Gender identity” means a person’s identity based on the individual’s stated gender identity, without regard to whether the self-identified gender accords with the individual’s physical appearance, surgical history, genitalia, legal sex, sex assigned at birth, or name and sex, as it appears in medical records, and without regard to any contrary statement by any other person, including a family member, conservator, or legal representative. An individual who lacks the present ability to communicate his or her gender identity shall retain the gender identity most recently expressed by that individual.

Existing law, the California Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of residential care facilities for the elderly by the State Department of Social Services. Under existing law, a person who violates the act, or who willfully or repeatedly violates any rule or regulation adopted under the act, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law also provides for civil penalties for a violation of the act.

So, just in case you are wondering, yes, it would be an actual offence. To be fair, it is being challenged in court.

4. Australia

CLICK HERE, got the tedious guidelines for awarding costs.

CLICK HERE, for the section on gender identity.

The Commission recognises that terminology can have a profound impact on a person’s identity, self-worth and inherent dignity. The use of inclusive and acceptable terminology empowers individuals and enables visibility of important issues.
.
The Commission supports the right of people to identify their sexual orientation and sex and/or gender as they choose. The Commission also recognises that terminology is strongly contested, particularly terminology to describe sex and/or gender identity. The consultation revealed that there is no clear consensus on what is appropriate terminology in this area.
.
This report uses the phrase ‘gender identity’ in two specific contexts. First, international human rights discourse often uses the phrase gender identity. Second, many state and territory laws use a variation of this phrase. As a result, the phrase ‘gender identity’ is used when referring to international human rights agreements or state and territory laws.
.
This report also frequently uses the phrase ‘sex and/or gender identity’. This term is used to refer to the whole spectrum of sex and/or gender in our community. It aims to include all people regardless of whether they identify within or outside of the binary gender.

5. New Zealand

CLICK HERE, for the list of things you can complain about.

The Human Rights Act 1993 makes it unlawful to discriminate based on:
.
Sex – includes pregnancy and childbirth, and discrimination against transgender and intersex people because of their sex or gender identity.
Marital status – includes marriages and civil unions that have ended.
Religious belief – not limited to traditional or mainstream religions.
Ethical belief – not having a religious belief.
Colour, race, or ethnic or national origins – includes nationality or citizenship.
Disability – including physical, psychiatric, intellectual or psychological disability or illness.
Age – people are protected from age discrimination if they are over 16 years old.
Political opinion – including not having a political opinion.
Employment status – being unemployed, on a benefit or on ACC. It does not include being employed or being on national superannuation.
Family status – includes not being responsible for children or other dependants.
Sexual orientation – being heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian or bisexual.
These grounds apply to a person’s past, present or assumed circumstances. For example, it is unlawful to discriminate against someone because they have a mental illness, had one in the past, or someone assumes they have a mental illness.
.
The prohibited grounds for discrimination are covered in detail in part two of the Human Rights Act.

6. Europe

The ECHR refers to the European Court of Human Rights

CLICK HERE, for some decisions over the years.

CLICK HERE, for an ECHR guidebook.

ARTICLE 8

Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family
life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
of others

However, this is the same ECHR that upheld Islamic blasphemy law in Austria.

7. More Nonsense

CLICK HERE, for an absurd article that tries to erase biology altogether.

Note: While laws and punishments do vary, this stupidity is pushing the limits of tolerance and accomodation. It causes people to be openly contrarian, especially when discussion of these topics leads to stigmatizaion.

While there is legitimate concern and sympathy for trans-people, laws like these have the unintended consequence of being weaponized against undeserving targets.

Even open minded people are sick of it.

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

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

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

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

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

Cathy McLeod, CPC MP

Futile Attempt To Get CPC MPs to Email on UN Compact

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

2 Questions:

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

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

Thanks,

Alex
Editor/Founder
http://canucklaw.ca


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


To date, no one has answered the email.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antifa Mob Stalks Tucker Carlson’s Family

(Antifa outside the Carlson residence)

(Follow-up telephone interview with Tucker Carlson)

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

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

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

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

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

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

1st Amendment of U.S. Constitution

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

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

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

But these fundamental rights are also enshrined elsewhere:

Section 2 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solutions #2: (Canada Should Leave The U.N. Entirely)

(The U.S. leaving the UN Human Rights Council. The violators are part of the council)

(The Hungarian Foreign Minister defending “legal-only” migration)

CLICK HERE, for the main page of the United Nations (in English).

1. Previous Solutions Offered

CLICK HERE, for offering something to the other side.

2. Reasons To Dump The UN

The main argument here is that Canada would be MUCH better off as a country if we left the United Nations, permanently. No deals, no special arrangements, no reform, just leave forever.

For the political junkies, take this to heart: traditional arguments of “left v.s. right” are no longer relevant. The choice we must face is the “globalist v.s. nationalist” one. Is Canada a sovereign nation, one that determines its own future, or is it a U.N. colony or puppet state? If Canada is to be a free and independent nation, then the U.N. is the last thing we need. Here are several reasons, each to be explored.

(1) The U.N. Articles are incompatible with free and sovereign nations.
(2) The U.N. destroys borders through political means.
(3) The U.N. destroys borders through direct means.
(4) The U.N. destroys national sovereignty
(5) The U.N. erodes individual cultures and societies.
(6) The U.N. has become a money pit, with the climate change scam
(7) The U.N. funds do not go where they are supposed to
(8) The U.N. “councils” are beyond hypocritical.
(9) The U.N. would just be a bigger version of the E.U.

Of course, this list could be much, MUCH longer. However, the point is to demonstrate that the U.N. is a globalist institution, and that it has no respect for individual nations.

(1) The U.N. Articles are incompatible with free and sovereign nations.

Click here, for the full text, but here are some worth noting:

Article 8
The United Nations shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of men and women to participate in any capacity and under conditions of equality in its principal and subsidiary organs.

This is a bit amusing, since many of its members do not believe in women’s rights.

Article 19
A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a Member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the Member.

No money, no vote. Sort of a pay-to-play system.

Article 24
In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII.
The Security Council shall submit annual and, when necessary, special reports to the General Assembly for its consideration.

Article 25
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

So, if 8 nations got together, they could override the nation’s sovereignty. Great idea.

Article 32
Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council or any state which is not a Member of the United Nations, if it is a party to a dispute under consideration by the Security Council, shall be invited to participate, without vote, in the discussion relating to the dispute. The Security Council shall lay down such conditions as it deems just for the participation of a state which is not a Member of the United Nations.

Yes, no joke, you won’t even get a vote if you are not on the council.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations

If this weren’t the United Nations doing this, it would seem an awful lot like the mafia. There are more clauses, but the point here has been made. Signing on with the U.N. means losing control of your country.

(2) The U.N. destroys borders through political means.
This was addressed in an earlier article. The U.N. does try to push mass immigration (a.k.a. “open borders”) on the rest of the world. The latest effort is the global compact for migration, which would effectively give the U.N. control over the host countries’ borders.

Interestingly, the U.N. site has both a: compact for migration and a compact on refugees. However, the U.N. seems hell bent on pushing migrants.

(3) The U.N. destroys borders through direct means.
It is not enough for the U.N. to destroy borders with political means. The agency also directly aids and abets others, such as the Honduran migrant caravan. The U.N. openly admits helping to help thousands of economic migrants “illegally” get into the U.S.

And they admit it here.

“IOM maintains its position that the human rights and basic needs of all migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status,” said Christopher Gascon, UN Migration’s Chief of Mission in Mexico.

In other words, we don’t care if they are illegal economic migrants. How is this not human smuggling? Further, the U.N. has been known to help flood Europe with more than 1 million “refugees” since 2015.

(4) The U.N. destroys national sovereignty
Too many examples to cite, but here are a few from the U.N. website.

(a) If you think Trudeau is bad, gender neutral language is a serious thing here.

(b) The U.N. is big on stopping terrorism, but its efforts are seriously called into question considering how much it pushes migration.

(c) The Human Rights Council has ruled that the French burka ban is a human rights violation. Interestingly, the Council doesn’t mention that being forced to wear it is a human right, or the security risk it poses is an issue.

(d) Of course, it wouldn’t be complete without gender quotas.

(e) Here is some Trudeau style concern for ISIS terrorists.

(5) The U.N. erodes individual cultures and societies.

The U.N pages make many references to respecting religion and culture, particularly on the migration pages. Funny, they never mention assimilation

Throughout its many sections on migration, the U.N. talks about how religions and cultures need to be respected, but notably absent is any expectation to respect the host country. Acceptance has to be a 2-way street.

(6) The U.N. has become a money pit, with the climate change scam
This was covered in a another article. The short story is that the U.N. is knowingly pushing a bogus climate change narrative, in order to extract large amounts of money, for “polluting” with carbon dioxide.

(7) The U.N. funds do not go where they are supposed to
There are many examples, but an infamous one was the oil for food program imposed on Iraq after the 1991 invasion of Kuwait. Under the scheme, Iraq could keep exporting oil, and the proceeds were supposed to help the citizenry. However, the program served largely to enrich Saddam Hussein and his family, while leaving the population in poor conditions.

(8) The U.N. “councils” are beyond hypocritical.
This was alluded to in the video at the start.
Members with the worst human rights records are part of the Human Rights Council. See here for the 2018 list. The list includes: Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, U.A.E., and others

The U.N. Status of Women Council is just as big a joke. Their membership, elected for 4 year terms, includes: Algeria, Congo, Kenya, Iraq, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and others.

The Human Rights Council is filled with member states who don’t believe in human rights. The Status of Women Council is filled with member states who don’t believe women should have equal right. Kind of flies in the face of the U.N.’s own declarations.

(9) The U.N. would just be a bigger version of the E.U.
Where to start here. The E.U. triggered Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty against both Hungary and Poland for rejecting “migrant quotas”, which would strip them of their voting rights. Yes, Poland and Hungary might lose voting rights for daring to say that “they” will choose who lives in their own countries.

Italy has had its budget blocked by the EU. Yes, the democratically elected government needs to get approval of their own budget. Brexit was a rejection of E.U. controls, and Nigel Farage addresses it well.

While there are too many examples to cite, the point with #9, is that the European Union effectively destroys the sovereignty of the European States. The U.N. would just be a global example of the same problem.

3. Does The UN Serve Any Purpose?

I would argue, yes, to a point. However, we need to be concerned with our borders, and the sovereignty of our national policies. Becoming a province of the U.N. will only destroy Canada, as will flooding our borders with migrants (the U.N. doesn’t pretend they are refugees at times).

As for worthwhile causes, it would be better to decide for ourselves on a case by case basis whether to add any funding, or to send any personnel.

The battle for Canada will not be Left v. Right, or of Liberal v. Conservative, or of Poor v. Rich. It will be of Globalism v. Nationalism. As such, Canada should get the heck out of the U.N.

Canada for Canadians.

Lawsuit Against Harvard for Racial Quotas Continues

(Harvard University, one of the most well known U.S. schools)


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

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE


A lawsuit continues today against Harvard University filed by several Asian students. They allege that Harvard has “racial quotas” to fill, and that Asian students, despite on average having higher academic accomplishment, are not getting offers of admission at the rates they should.

The suit alleges that only about 20% of offers of admission — in continuous years — go to Asian students, even though their population is applying in even higher proportional rates, and that they are on average more accomplished.

Let’s make an important distinction of equality.
(1) Equality of opportunity: Everyone is treated the same. Everyone has the same chances to rise or fall based on their own actions. This creates a merit based society, as is explained here.
(2) Equality of outcome: Different rules are used to ensure certain results are obtained. If 50% of the general population are women, then 50% of the group will be women. If 35%, 25%, and 10% percent of the population are races A, B, C, then the racial makeup of the group will be 35%, 25%, and 10%. This completely undermines a meritocracy, as double standards will almost always have to be used.

The Washington Post linked a transcript in one of its articles. It is worth a read. Although that is appreciated, there were a few commenters in the article that merit listing.

There was Sarah F. Cole, and African American who graduated in 2016, who said: “Race-blind admissions is an act of erasure. To not see my race is to not see me.”

and this one ….

“Tang Diep, a Vietnamese immigrant who is currently a senior, said: “I personally, really believe that I benefited from affirmative action. Like in allowing the admissions process to take into account my race and ethnicity, it allows my immigration history to be taken into account. It allows my own experiences of overcoming the — my racial identity when I was younger and understanding that to really be portrayed….

That is right. These people are actually defending race-based discrimination. Rather, they seem to completely miss the point, while this man didn’t. Disregarding a person’s race for college admissions or job offers is not “erasing” them. Rather, it is treating them equally and fairly.

The EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the 14th Amendment reads as follows:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The U.S. Supreme Court has already made some rulings on the issue of affirmative action. For example:

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) ruled that affirmative action was legal, but that setting aside a certain number of spots for a specific group was illegal. Actually, this seems to be what Harvard was (allegedy) doing.

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) ruled that the University of Michigan Law School could have affirmative action in order to bolster underrepresented groups, but like with Bakke, specific quotas could not be set.

The Supreme Court has ruled that affirmative action was okay within the parameters of merit, in essence. So equality of outcome is okay, as long as it is done within equality of opportunity. Oh, the mental gymnastics of the Supreme Court Justices.

Race and IQ has long been a contentious topic for debate. So has the topic of race and academic accomplishment. Here is one such finding. And a quick online search will find many studies done which contrast IQ and race.

One development worth watching is the U.S. President Donald Trump is encouraging colleges to stop the practice of affirmative action, and to steer more towards a racially-blind admissions process.

Of course, there is a Canadian perspective of the issue to be shown here. (This is CanuckLaw after all). Affirmative Action is directly mentioned in Section 15(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

>Equality Rights
Marginal note:
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Marginal note:
Affirmative action programs
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

In fact, there is an inherent contradiction within the Canadian Charter itself. 15(1) promotes equality of opportunity, while 15(2) promotes equality of outcome.

Canadian National Railway Co.v. Canada (Human Rights Comm.) and Action travail des femmes (1987), 8 C.H.R.R. D/4210 (S.C.C.) was one such case in Canada, where the Canadian National Railway was ordered to have 1 of every 4 new hires to be women. The Supreme Court of Canada noted that 0.7% were female, and enforced the original Human Rights Tribunal order.

The fact that women were, on average, much less inclined to seek heavy manual labour was irrelevant. The vast discrepancy “had” to be because of systemic bias.

In summary, affirmative action (whether it is racial, gender, or otherwise) should not be a part of society. In a “merit-based” society, people succeed on their positive merits: education, experience, attitude, work ethic, qualifications, etc…. Further, people should fail based on negative traits: lack of experience, lack of education, poor attitude, etc….

As was outlined earlier in the article, there is a huge difference between (1) Equality of Opportunity; and of (2) Equality of Outcome. The former promotes the idea that hard work drives success, while the latter argues all of that should be negated in favour of a “politically correct” group that reflects the general population. These 2 ideas cannot co-exist, as they are contrary to each other.

It will be interesting to see how the U.S. case plays out. The U.S. Supreme Court has (for now) been willing to allow affirmative action to take place in higher education, provided no specific quotas were used. This appears to violate that exception, but we will have to see.

Final thought: A workforce or a college class should comprise a group that works hard. It should not look like a random sample of society …. just because it’s 2015, or some such nonsense.