Solutions #9: The Case For A Moratorium On Immigration

1. Previous Solutions Offered

CLICK HERE, for #1: Offering something to the other side.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Canada should leave the UN entirely.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Dumping multiculturalism and feminism.
CLICK HERE, for #4: More births instead of replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Restore 1934 Bank of Canada Act
CLICK HERE, for #6: Abolish Human Rights Tribunals Entirely.
CLICK HERE, for #7: Abolish Gladue, fix underlying problems.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Banning (political) corporate welfare.

2. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

CLICK HERE, for #1: temp workers, other migration categories.
CLICK HERE, for #2: close to 1M people/year entering on visas.
CLICK HERE, for #3: CANZUK, expansion and erasing the borders.
CLICK HERE, for #4: population replacement programs in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for #5: replacement numbers/countries since 2004.
CLICK HERE, for #6: domestic abuse as pathway to PR status.
CLICK HERE, for #7: the International Mobility Program.
CLICK HERE, for #8: economic imm, remittances, brain drain.
CLICK HERE, for #9: global remittance estimates, regulations.
CLICK HERE, for #10: economic immigration when unemployment high.
CLICK HERE, for #11: TD article on true migration rates.
CLICK HERE, for #12: pilot amnesty-for-illegals program in Toronto.
CLICK HERE, for #13: work permits, health care for illegals.
CLICK HERE, for #14: getting legal residence via fraud.
CLICK HERE, for #15: student/family member to PR pipeline.
CLICK HERE, for #16: start up visas = buying PR/citizenship.
CLICK HERE, for #17: ghost students visas for immigration.
CLICK HERE, for #18: “inadmissibles” legally let in anyway.
CLICK HERE, for #19: birth rates in Canada since 1991.
CLICK HERE, for #20: main sources for demographic replacement.
CLICK HERE, for #21: demographic changes cause voting changes.
CLICK HERE, for #22: estimating temp/students staying in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for #23: Municipal Nominee Program coming?
CLICK HERE, for #24: Rempel lies about temp ==> PR pipeline.
CLICK HERE, for #25: review of 2019 annual report to parliament.
CLICK HERE, for #26: facts/figures about replacement migration.

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

Note: If there are errors in calculating the totals, please speak up. Information is of no use to the public if it isn’t accurate.

3. Some Context Here

It is easy to target illegal entries into the country. Without borders, and enforcement of those borders, the nation ceases to exist. Everyone should be against illegal entries, sanctuary cities, voting rights and access to social services for those in the country illegally.

That being said, the mass LEGAL immigration is actually a much larger problem.

People excluded from Canada for various reasons (such as criminality, serious criminality, organized criminality, non-compliance, terrorism or human rights violations) should stay excluded. Global News reported on a program which brought in 3,000 people since 2010 under Rule 25.1 of IRPA, but omitted another 186,000 “inadmissibles” allowed in under Rule 24(1) of IRPA from 2002 to 2017. Considering we don’t even track people leaving the country, it’s hard to say where they are.

In recent years, we have been taking in a million people LEGALLY into Canada. In 2017, for instance, we had 950,000 people enter through regular immigration channels, refugee claims, and various temporary programs. This does not include visitors or illegals.

To start off with: our governments lie about the total number of people entering annually. Categories such as student visas (students and their families), temporary foreign workers, & International Mobility Program bring in hordes of people — are not temporary. These groups generally have access to a permanent residency pathway, and other ways to stay longer. There are several pilot programs underway on top of these, including a small amnesty-for-illegals program in Toronto. Heck, we even expedite work permits for fake refugees sneaking in from the U.S.

Even if these temporary workers were to go home (and many don’t), there is the topic of remittances. According to the World Bank, hundreds of billions of dollars are sent from the West annually. How does it help our economy when money is pulled from it?

Perhaps we can replace the money lost via remittances with money from selling investor visas, regardless of how well the business does.

Bringing in large numbers of people as cheap labour results in our own citizens having to compete against foreign, often subsidized labour. It does a huge disservice to those who really need the help.

Importing students at this scale means that Canadian graduates are forced to compete against others for a limited number of jobs. This is includes professional and skilled programs. How does it benefit Canadian graduates to have their prospects cut out like that? Does the downward pressure on wages help? How does it benefit other nations when their talent leaves is a sort of brain-drain?

It doesn’t seem to matter if the “students” are really students.

Considering all the fuss about environmentalism and climate change, answer one question. How does mass immigration remove or minimize stresses to the eco-system? How does clearing new areas for farming and housing avert this climate emergency that we are supposedly in?

The overwhelming majority of immigration coming into Canada over the last several decades is of 3rd World, non-European migrants (80 to 90%). A quick glance at the top 10 “source” countries tells the same story year after year: (a) China; (b) India; (c) the Philippines; and (d) an awful lot of Muslims. Multicultis and Civic Nationalists — which are the same thing — tell us that people who have nothing in common with each other can form a cohesive society based on abstract “values”. It’s nonsense. While other groups want to retain their identity, why are Europeans considered bigots for attempting the same?

The result is predictable: enclaves forming in the major cities, such as Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. In reality, multiculturalism is a lie that never works out as planned. Balkanization is not diversity. Furthermore, it is not a lack of screening, but the deliberate efforts to forcibly remake Canada.

The breakdown of social cohesion is obvious. And anyone who has read Robert Putnam’s study will see why.

At the heart of this is the replacement agenda going on in Western nations. Canada, for example, was 96% European, according to the 1971 census. It was 72% based on the 2016 census, and still falling. Europeans will be a minority in the next decade unless something drastic happens.

This is about preserving the foundation of European nations and ones formed in that image. Replacing the population replaces the culture and the history. It doesn’t matter to me whether it is replacement by Muslims, or by high IQ, high skill Asians. I still don’t want it, and nor should others. Call it tribalism, but Westerners should be allowed to protect their identities too.

We also now have a program for survivors of domestic abuse to apply for temporary, or even permanent residence. Guess that’s what happens with importing violent cultures.

It never seems to dawn on “conservatives” that bringing in large numbers of people from left-leaning nations means political suicide. Demographic shifts will make their ideology completely unelectable. Their only concerns seem to be: (a) come legally; (b) be economically productive; and (c) don’t be a terrorist. But beyond that, conservatives have no will to preserve their people, culture, heritage, and traditions.

While the solution may seem to be to import more Europeans, they cannot be spared as THEY are being replaced in their homelands as well. Europe is being flooded with Middle Eastern and African “refugees” and migrants. We cannot help ourselves at the Europeans’ expense. Still, we must resist the replacement here.

For these reasons, and other facts and figures, I support a moratorium on immigration into Canada. With a more complete picture of the actual situation in Canada, many more people should agree.

Solutions #8: Ending (Political) Corporate Welfare

1. Previous Solutions Offered

CLICK HERE, for #1: Offering something to the other side.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Canada should leave the UN entirely.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Dumping multiculturalism and feminism.
CLICK HERE, for #4: More births instead of replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Restore 1934 Bank of Canada Act
CLICK HERE, for #6: Abolish Human Rights Tribunals Entirely.
CLICK HERE, for #7: Abolish Gladue, fix underlying problems.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for BC political contributions, tax rebates.
CLICK HERE, for BC banning corporate donations.
CLICK HERE, for Alberta political donations, rebates
CLICK HERE, for Saskatchewan political donations and tax rebates.
CLICK HERE, for Winnipeg proposal to ban political tax breaks.
CLICK HERE, for ending the “per-vote” subsidy.

3. Context For The Article

It has been in the news a lot lately: the idea of scrapping corporate welfare. This notion is based on the simple concept that taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize businesses which privatize the profits.

While this is certainly valid, let’s expand that idea. Why are taxpayers forced to subsidize the voting preferences of people who donate to political candidates or parties? If a person wishes to support their local candidates, that is their choice. But how come the public has to provide tax breaks?

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Your donation should come from your wallet.
Practice what you preach.

And no, this article is not directed at any one party or politician. “ALL” parties and candidates should be forced to be self-sufficient. Stop reaching into the public purse to finance your campaigns.

4. Proposal In Winnipeg

Mayor Brian Bowman wants to end the practice of rebating Winnipeg election-campaign donations in a move one critic describes as a means of providing another advantage to incumbent candidates.

Bowman said in a notice of motion the city could save $700,000 by eliminating the rebates, stating “it is undesirable to fund election campaign expenses” and candidates should “solicit financial support from donors based on the strength of their platform rather than relying on taxpayer funds.

To be fair, there is some valid criticism that this will favour incumbents who are effectively able to campaign while under the pretext of doing their jobs.

However, taxpayers shouldn’t be forced help finance voting preferences. People who wish to make donations are free to do, but should use their own money. If a party platform is so unappealing that it needs taxpayer money to encourage donations, then it probably isn’t a very good one.

5. Ending The Per-Vote Subsidy

The NDP still hasn’t adapted to losing access to the per-vote party subsidy cancelled by the Harper government, the party’s treasurer said at the NDP convention in Ottawa Friday.

The federal Conservatives had phased out the per-vote subsidy by 2015, which was a party financing policy brought about in the Chretien-era that paid out public funds to parties based on their share of the popular vote.

Party Treasurer Tania Jarzebiak said the party plans to step up its fundraising with a “big push” on monthly giving and will invest more into its fundraising capacity, and has “ambitious plans” to reach an annual revenue target of $10.5 million.

Stephen Harper was criticized for this move, claiming it was designed to bankrupt smaller parties. It’s probably true, that the move ultimately benefitted the Conservative Party.

However, he should have ended all subsidies and tax breaks, not just pick and choose. If he truly cared about public money then those tax rebates would have been scrapped as well.

6. British Columbia

The credit is calculated as the lesser of:
1) The total of:
-75% of contributions up to $100
-50% of contributions between $100 and $550
-33 1/3% of contributions in excess of $550
2) $500

In B.C. taxpayers are on the hook for up to $500 for each person who contributes to B.C. political parties in a given year.

7. Alberta

According to Elections Alberta, the public has to pay up to $1000 in tax refunds to subsidize the voting preferences of people contributing to Provincial Candidates.

8. Saskatchewan

Taxpayers in Saskatchewan may be stuck with having to subsidize up to $650 for a resident’s political preferences. Seems that money could be better spent elsewhere.

9. Some Conclusions

The above listings are just a few examples of laws which force the public to help fund the donation choices of politically active people.

To be clear, I do not care whom you support, or what ideology the party or candidate is running on. The concern is that this subsidy amounts to corporate welfare, which we should not be paying. If the only way a person or party is able to finance a campaign is by bailouts with public money, then it probably isn’t very strong to begin with.

One final note: the common practice of “advertising” using taxpayer money is also abhorrent. True, incumbents do have an advantage in their ability to make announcements and fund plans to boost their image. That is not to be condoned either.

Solutions #7: Abolish Gladue, Fix Underlying Problems

1. Previous Solutions Offered

CLICK HERE, for #1: Offering something to the other side.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Canada should leave the UN entirely.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Dumping multiculturalism and feminism.
CLICK HERE, for #4: More births instead of replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Restore 1934 Bank of Canada Act
CLICK HERE, for #6: Abolish Human Rights Tribunals Entirely.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for race- based discounts in sentencing.
CLICK HERE, for Terri McClintic, child killer, in a healing lodge.
CLICK HERE, for 2016/2017 StatsCan data on incarceration rates.
CLICK HERE, for Table 5, incarceration by race and gender.
CLICK HERE, for Table 6.
CLICK HERE, for archived findings form Correctional Service of Canada form 1999.
CLICK HERE, for a Larry Elder video on single parent households.
CLICK HERE, for a documentary on drug use on reserves.
CLICK HERE, for a video on lack of drinking water on reserves.

CLICK HERE, for Gladue, 1997.
CLICK HERE, for Gladue, 1999.
CLICK HERE, for Ipeelee, 2012.
CLICK HERE, for R.v. Proulx (conditional sentencing guidelines).

3. Disproportionate Incarceration Rates

This is a proposal to scrap so-called “Gladue Rights” which specifically are designed to give Aboriginal offenders special consideration when it comes to sentencing in the criminal justice system.

Please don’t interpret this as an indication not to give anyone a break if the circumstances permit. Rather, rights and options should be available to everyone. They should not be given to one specific group, or denied to one specific group.

Disclaimer: I am not a criminologist, or a sociologist. Just a researcher.

Now, how great are the discrepancies?

From the StatsCan 2016/2017 findings:

The Criminal Code mandates that all sanctions other than imprisonment are to be considered with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. In 2016/2017, Aboriginal adults accounted for 28% of admissions to provincial/territorial correctional services and 27% for federal correctional services, while representing 4.1% of the Canadian adult population (Table 5). In comparison to 2006/2007, the proportion of admissions of Aboriginal peoples to correctional services was 21% for provincial and territorial correctional services and 19% for federal correctional services.

Aboriginal adults accounted for 30% of admissions to custody and 25% of admissions to community supervision among the provinces and territories in 2016/2017. Aboriginal adults accounted for 27% of admissions to custody and 26% of admissions to community supervision in federal correctional services (Table 5).

The proportion of Aboriginal admissions to adult custody has been trending upwards for over 10 years. It has increased steadily from 2006/2007 when it was 21% for provincial and territorial correctional services and 20% for federal correctional services.

Among the provinces, Aboriginal adults made up the greatest proportion of admissions to custody in Manitoba (74%) and Saskatchewan (76%). These two provinces also have the highest proportion of Aboriginal adults among their provincial populations at 15% for Manitoba, and 14% for Saskatchewan.

Aboriginal males accounted for 28% of admissions to custody in the province and territories, whereas non-Aboriginal males accounted for 72%, in 2016/2017. Aboriginal females made up a greater proportion of custody admissions than their male counterparts, accounting for 43% of admissions, while non-Aboriginal females accounted for 57% (Table 6).

Here is the data in a more visual form.

Category Abor. Total Pop’n Abor. Group Pop’n Non-Abor. Total Pop’n Non-Abor. Group Pop’n Ratio
Incar 4.1% 28% 95.9% 72% 9.1:1

Note: Here is how to calculate the rates. Assume there is a population of 100,000 people, and 1,000 of them are locked up and then break in down as percentages of the population.

category totals Non-Abor Abor
People 100,000 95,900 4,100
Locked Up 1,000 720 280
Rates Percentage 0.0075 0.068

Now that we can make an apples-to-apples comparison, 0.068/0.0075 =~9.1
So on a per-capita basis, Aboriginals are about 9 times as likely as non-Aboriginals to be locked up

Next, covering Aboriginal women and incarceration rate. For this. Assume that the overall percentages are about same: 95.9% non-Aboriginal, and 4.1% Aboriginal. Here instead of making up 28% overall in Provincial jails, it is 57%, approximately double.

Category Abor. Total Pop’n Abor. Group Pop’n Non-Abor. Total Pop’n Non-Abor. Group Pop’n Ratio
Incar 4.1% 57% 95.9% 43% 30.88:1

And once more we need to convert to rates of respective populations.

category totals Non-Abor Abor
People 100,000 95,900 4,100
Locked Up 1,000 430 570
Rates Percentage 0.0045 0.1390

When women inmates are looked at specifically, the ratio goes to 0.1390/0.0045 ~= 30.88

That’s right, looking at women, there are (per capita) 30 times as many Aboriginal women locked up as non-Aboriginal women.

4. Evidence Of Discrimination Or Bias?

By itself, no. Having groups with different rates of something is not evidence that there has been discrimination. Either these differences are caused by something that justifies it (such as higher crime rate), or there may be some external factor. Let’s start with the Criminal Code.

718.2(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

It is written right into the Canadian Criminal Code, to give offenders (where reasonable), an alternative to custody, with special consideration to Aboriginals. And this is codified in 3 cases.
R. v. Gladue, 1997 CanLII 3015 (BC CA)
R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC)
R. v. Ipeelee, [2012] 1 SCR 433, 2012 SCC 13 (CanLII)

Looking at the Criminal Code, and recent decisions, there doesn’t seem to be any legalized discrimination. So let’s look elsewhere.

5. R. v. Proulx (Conditional Sentencing Guidelines)

12 Since it came into force on September 3, 1996, the conditional sentence has generated considerable debate. With the advent of s. 742.1, Parliament has clearly mandated that certain offenders who used to go to prison should now serve their sentences in the community. Section 742.1 makes a conditional sentence available to a subclass of non-dangerous offenders who, prior to the introduction of this new regime, would have been sentenced to a term of incarceration of less than two years for offences with no minimum term of imprisonment.

13 In my view, to address meaningfully the complex interpretive issues raised by this appeal, it is important to situate this new sentencing tool in the broader context of the comprehensive sentencing reforms enacted by Parliament in Bill C-41. I will also consider the nature of the conditional sentence, contrasting it with probationary measures and incarceration. Next, I will address particular interpretive issues posed by s. 742.1. I will first discuss the statutory prerequisites to the imposition of a conditional sentence. Thereafter, I will consider how courts should determine whether a conditional sentence is appropriate, assuming the prerequisites are satisfied. I conclude with some general comments on the deference to which trial judges are entitled in matters of sentencing and dispose of the case at hand in conformity with the principles outlined in these reasons.

16 Bill C-41 is in large part a response to the problem of overincarceration in Canada. It was noted in Gladue, at para. 52, that Canada’s incarceration rate of approximately 130 inmates per 100,000 population places it second or third highest among industrialized democracies. In their reasons, Cory and Iacobucci JJ. reviewed numerous studies that uniformly concluded that incarceration is costly, frequently unduly harsh and “ineffective, not only in relation to its purported rehabilitative goals, but also in relation to its broader public goals” (para. 54). See also Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, Toward Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections (1969); Canadian Sentencing Commission, Sentencing Reform: A Canadian Approach (1987), at pp. xxiii‑xxiv; Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, Taking Responsibility (1988), at p. 75. Prison has been characterized by some as a finishing school for criminals and as ill-preparing them for reintegration into society: see generally Canadian Committee on Corrections, supra, at p. 314; Correctional Service of Canada, A Summary of Analysis of Some Major Inquiries on Corrections – 1938 to 1977 (1982), at p. iv. In Gladue, at para. 57, Cory and Iacobucci JJ. held:

Without rehashing the entire ruling, Proulx, which was based on Bill C-41, set the benchmark for giving out “conditional sentences”, aka “house arrest”. The ruling noted the destructive long term effect prison can have.

While conditional sentencing is completely inappropriate for certain offences, it can have its benefits.

In areas with high crime rates, poverty, or high drug use, a person has to reasonably ask what will be the best solution overall. Does the community benefit from locking up large amounts of its people?

One caveat, breaks in sentencing, and alternatives to prison should be equally available to all Canadians. One group shouldn’t receive a greater aid, or detriment.

See the next section for the CSC report on Aboriginal circumstances.

6. Information Worth Looking At

This comes from the 1998 Corrections Service of Canada Paper (linked above). It also has an impressive bibliography, worth at least a peek.

1.3 Aboriginal Population
Approximately, one-third of all Aboriginal children under the age of 15 in Census families lived in a lone-parent family, twice the rate within the general population. The rate was even higher in urban areas. About 46% of Aboriginal children under 15 in Census families who lived in a census metropolitan area were in a lone-parent family. One-quarter of the Aboriginal population reported that they had an Aboriginal language as mother tongue. Cree was the largest Aboriginal mother tongue. The number of people who could speak an Aboriginal language was about 10% higher than the number who reported an Aboriginal mother tongue, indicating that a significant number of persons learned such a language later in life. (Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1998).

This mentions a very interesting issue. Conservative commentator Larry Elder frequently talks about this. Single parent households (mostly missing fathers), is a very good indicator of crime and education. And it cuts across race.

1.4 Demographic and Socio-Economic Data
Increasing evidence points to a strong correlation between socio-economic disadvantage and involvement with the criminal justice system. A large proportion of the Aboriginal population in Canada suffers socio-economic disadvantage in comparison to non-Aboriginal Canadians. The social and economic conditions outlined in the section below illustrates a correlation between these factors and Aboriginal involvement with the criminal justice system. Poverty, inadequate educational opportunities, unemployment, poor living conditions, alcohol abuse and domestic violence all contribute to Aboriginal people coming into conflict with the law. The challenges to which the criminal justice system must respond are rooted in addressing these disadvantaged conditions.

These problems are prevalent, in particularly on remote reserves. To be fair, it isn’t restricted to reserves. It is heartbreaking to hear the problems and 3rd world conditions.

1.8 Suicide
Suicide is approximately three times more common among Aboriginal people than non-Aboriginal people. It is also five to six times more prevalent among Aboriginal youth than non-Aboriginal youth. In First Nations communities, suicide is more prevalent among the young and usually results from feelings of hopelessness and despair.

Wow. Just wow.

2.4 Urban vs. Rural Aboriginal Offenders
A recent study (Johnston, 1997) of Aboriginal inmates incarcerated in Canadian federal penitentiaries found that one-quarter (24%) of the group had originally came from reserve or remote areas; 44% originally came from rural areas, and 30% from urban areas. The interviewers did not ask about where the offenders had been living at the time of the offence. In addition, the study also found that a majority of the group had left their home community after their youth. Eighteen percent had lived in their home community all their life apart from periods spent incarcerated. Furthermore, the study found that 66% of the Aboriginal inmates incarcerated in federal penitentiaries were considered high-need. Forty-seven per cent were rated as both high-need and high-risk. A majority were rated by case management officers and other penitentiary staff who knew them, as having needs in the following areas:
-substance abuse needs (88%),
-personal/emotional needs (82%),
-employment needs (63%), and
-education needs (54%).

A large proportion were also rated as having needs in relation to:
-pro-criminal attitudes (49%),
-marital and family issues (42%),
-community functioning (36%),
-criminal associates (33%), and
-sexual offending (31%).

This is shocking. Almost 9 in 10 with substance abuse, 4 in 5 with personal needs, 2/3 with employment needs, and half lacking in education.

Canada is supposed to be a 1st world country, but standard of living for those away from any urban area are falling far short of what should be acceptable.

7. So Why Abolish Gladue?

Quite simply, it is a band-aid solution that ignores the real problems. “Rigging” the rules to let Aboriginal offenders off easier (or let them out earlier) turns a blind eye to the problems cited in the previous section. Lack of drinking water being one in the news lately.

Are Aboriginals disproportionately represented in criminal courts and jails? Yes, absolutely. The data and evidence for that is overwhelming.

But it is also plain and obvious that there are many problems with the more remote areas that should not be happening. Setting up different sentencing guidelines does nothing to address any of that.

It could easily be argued that problems with poverty, remote living, drugs, alcohol and domestic violence contribute to crime. These are the causes and crime is the effect. But Gladue gets it entirely backwards. It impacts the EFFECT, hoping to impact the CAUSES.

Hopefully this doesn’t come off as heartless. However, I view the “Gladue Rights” idea as completely missing the point, and ignoring genuine concerns.

8. Actually, There Is Discrimination

Instead of our Prime Minister blowing our money on virtue signalling foreign adventures, perhaps fixing the problems within our borders is a better approach.

  • Safe drinking water
  • Education/Work opportunities
  • Access to social services
  • Seriously evaluate if reserve system is sustainable

We certainly have money to blow on every UN adventure.

While the criminal justice system itself isn’t set up to discriminate, our government does. Entire sections of Canada’s population is left to die while we show the outside world how generous we are.

Gladue is the quick-fix that covers up the real problem.

Solutions #6: Abolish Human Rights Codes Entirely

1. Previous Solutions Offered

CLICK HERE, for #1: Offering something to the other side.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Canada should leave the UN entirely.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Dumping multiculturalism and feminism.
CLICK HERE, for #4: More births instead of replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Restore 1934 Bank of Canada Act

2. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for the BC Human Rights Code.
CLICK HERE, for Morgane Oger cashing in on victimhood.
CLICK HERE, for instances of abusing human rights tribunals.

3. Quotes From BC HRC

Discrimination and intent
2 Discrimination in contravention of this Code does not require an intention to contravene this Code.

This is common throughout the various Provincial Codes. No intent is needed on the part of anyone. Contrast this with criminal law, where intent is a required element.

Purposes
3 The purposes of this Code are as follows:
(a) to foster a society in British Columbia in which there are no impediments to full and free participation in the economic, social, political and cultural life of British Columbia;
(b) to promote a climate of understanding and mutual respect where all are equal in dignity and rights;
(c) to prevent discrimination prohibited by this Code;
(d) to identify and eliminate persistent patterns of inequality associated with discrimination prohibited by this Code;
(e) to provide a means of redress for those persons who are discriminated against contrary to this Code.

A major goal is to promote a climate of understanding and mutual respect. Makes it more difficult when this “respect and understanding” are imposed by force.

Persistent patterns of inequality? However, except the solution is often to impose quotas or affirmative action programs.

Discriminatory publication
7 (1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or that group or class of persons.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication, a communication intended to be private or a communication related to an activity otherwise permitted by this Code.

Good to know. However, “private” and “intending to be private” are could be open to interpretation. Also, is this not treading dangerously close to supressing free speech?

Remedies
37 (1) If the member or panel designated to hear a complaint determines that the complaint is not justified, the member or panel must dismiss the complaint.
(2) If the member or panel determines that the complaint is justified, the member or panel
(a) must order the person that contravened this Code to cease the contravention and to refrain from committing the same or a similar contravention,
(b) may make a declaratory order that the conduct complained of, or similar conduct, is discrimination contrary to this Code,
(c) may order the person that contravened this Code to do one or both of the following:
(i) take steps, specified in the order, to ameliorate the effects of the discriminatory practice;
(ii) adopt and implement an employment equity program or other special program to ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups if the evidence at the hearing indicates the person has engaged in a pattern or practice that contravenes this Code, and
(d) if the person discriminated against is a party to the complaint, or is an identifiable member of a group or class on behalf of which a complaint is filed, may order the person that contravened this Code to do one or more of the following:
(i) make available to the person discriminated against the right, opportunity or privilege that, in the opinion of the member or panel, the person was denied contrary to this Code;
(ii) compensate the person discriminated against for all, or a part the member or panel determines, of any wages or salary lost, or expenses incurred, by the contravention;
(iii) pay to the person discriminated against an amount that the member or panel considers appropriate to compensate that person for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect or to any of them.

Yes, hurt feelings, dignity and self respect are worth money. How would you even disprove that?

Can order someone to stop doing something, because a person said their feelings were hurt.

For what it’s worth, is a complaint is found to be not justified it must be dismissed. That’s something.

Exemptions
41 (1) If a charitable, philanthropic, educational, fraternal, religious or social organization or corporation that is not operated for profit has as a primary purpose the promotion of the interests and welfare of an identifiable group or class of persons characterized by a physical or mental disability or by a common race, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, political belief, colour, ancestry or place of origin, that organization or corporation must not be considered to be contravening this Code because it is granting a preference to members of the identifiable group or class of persons.
(2) Nothing in this Code prohibits a distinction on the basis of age if that distinction is permitted or required by any Act or regulation.

Interesting. You can’t discriminate against people based on protected grounds, unless the entire group is devoted to promoting based on a protected ground.

Of course, this exemption likely wouldn’t apply to men, whites, or straight people.

Special programs
42 (1) It is not discrimination or a contravention of this Code to plan, advertise, adopt or implement an employment equity program that
(a) has as its objective the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups who are disadvantaged because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, and
(b) achieves or is reasonably likely to achieve that objective.
(2) [Repealed 2002-62-23.]
(3) On application by any person, with or without notice to any other person, the chair, or a member or panel designated by the chair, may approve any program or activity that has as its objective the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups.
(4) Any program or activity approved under subsection (3) is deemed not to be in contravention of this Code.

So it is wrong to discriminate based on “protected grounds” unless those groups are considered “disadvantaged”. Then go for it.

And from Section 41, it is wrong to discriminate against a group. That is unless you are part of a group whose main purpose is to discriminate on other groups.

Non-compellability of commissioner and staff
47.10 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the commissioner, and anyone acting for or under the direction of the commissioner, must not be compelled to give evidence in court or in any other proceedings respecting any information received in the course of exercising powers or performing duties under this Code.
(2) The commissioner, and anyone acting for or under the direction of the commissioner, may be compelled to give evidence in a prosecution of an offence under this Code.

Interesting. Staff “can” be compelled to appear for an HRT hearing, but not for Court or other matters.

Personal liability protection of commissioner and staff
47.11 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no legal proceeding for damages lies or may be commenced or maintained against the commissioner, or against a person acting for or under the direction of the commissioner, because of anything done or omitted
(a) in the exercise or intended exercise of any power under this Code, or
(b) in the performance or intended performance of any duty under this Code.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person referred to in that subsection in relation to anything done or omitted by that person in bad faith.

As long as the Commissioner and staff “claim” that everything is in good faith, then they can’t be held liable. How exactly do you prove “bad faith”?

4. So Why Abolish Entirely?


To summarize (using BC as a model):

  • Intent not necessary to get a finding against you
  • Discrimination okay, if it is your group identity
  • Discrimination okay, if for affirmative action
  • Encroaches on legitimate free speech territory
  • Hurt feelings are grounds for monetary compensation
  • Commissioner and staff, cannot be compelled to appear in outside hearings, REGARDLESS of the power which they are allowed to wield
  • Cannot take action against staff unless you can prove “bad faith”, an almost impossible standard
  • Terminology is broad and open to overreach
  • These tribunals are allowed to behave as courts do, and implement court-style punishments. However, there are almost no standards when it comes to deciding what is a violation.

    Ancient ideas, past their due date.

    Solutions #5: Restoring The 1934 Bank Of Canada Act

    (Bank for International Settlements, or BIS)

    (Basel Committee)

    (Great video by Stephan Smith)

    (Jack Layton and Elizabeth May know full well about the international banking cartel. However they act as controlled opposition and remain silent)

    (Great video by NoLongerATheory on 1974 sellout by Trudeau Sr.)

    1. More On International Banking Cartel

    CLICK HERE, for #1: restoring 1934 Bank of Canada Act.
    CLICK HERE, for #2: Rocco Galati, COMER court case.
    CLICK HERE, for #3: U.S. Federal Reserve, End The Fed.
    CLICK HERE, for #4: questions to Finance Department.
    CLICK HERE, for #5: globalist approved talking points.
    CLICK HERE, for #6: response from the Bank of Canada.
    CLICK HERE, for #7: Carney, Climate Finance, CCX.

    2. Previous Solutions Offered

    CLICK HERE, for #1: Offering something to the other side.
    CLICK HERE, for #2: Canada should leave the UN entirely.
    CLICK HERE, for #3: Dumping multiculturalism and feminism.
    CLICK HERE, for #4: More births instead of replacement migration.

    3. Important Links


    CLICK HERE, for StatsCan data on National debt.

    CLICK HERE, for the Bank for International Settlements.
    CLICK HERE, for BIS mainpage.
    CLICK HERE, for the 60 banks which own BIS.
    CLICK HERE, for the Basil Committee.

    CLICK HERE, for an interesting article from Canadian Dimension.
    CLICK HERE, for an article from www.globalresearch.ca.
    CLICK HERE, for a failed Court bid to reform the banking process in Canada
    CLICK HERE, for amended Statement of Claim.
    CLICK HERE, for the Bank of Canada Act, 1985 version.
    CLICK HERE, for John Ryan’s explanation of our situation.

    4. Some Background


    The Bank of Canada Act was passed in 1934. It allowed the Canadian Government to borrow from its own central bank, in a sense, to “borrow from itself”. However, things drastically changed in 1974. Pierre Trudeau changed it so that Canada would now be borrowing from “private banks”, and racking up debt and interest charges in the meantime.

    From the Global Research article:

    Between 1939 and 1974, the government actually did borrow from its own central bank. That made its debt effectively interest-free, since the government owned the bank and got the benefit of the interest. According to figures supplied by Jack Biddell, a former government accountant, the federal debt remained very low, relatively flat, and quite sustainable during those years. (See his chart below.) The government successfully funded major public projects simply on the credit of the nation, including the production of aircraft during and after World War II, education benefits for returning soldiers, family allowances, old age pensions, the Trans-Canada Highway, the St. Lawrence Seaway project, and universal health care for all Canadians.

    This is the main takeaway here: Borrowing from your own central bank effectively makes the loans interest free, since you are borrowing from yourself as opposing to borrowing from someone else.

    From the Canadian Dimension article:

    The critical point is that between 1939 and 1974 the federal government borrowed extensively from its own central bank. That made its debt effectively interest-free, since the government owned the bank and got the benefit of any interest. As such Canada emerged from World War II and from all the extensive infrastructure and other expenditures with very little debt. But following 1974 came a dramatic change.

    Reiterating the point, that Canada was borrowing from itself until 1974.

    5. Pierre Trudeau’s Dual Loyalty


    In 1974 the Bank for International Settlements (the bank of central bankers) formed the Basel Committee to ostensibly establish global monetary and financial stability. Canada, i.e., the Pierre Trudeau Liberals, joined in the deliberations. The Basel Committee’s solution to the “stagflation” problem of that time was to encourage governments to borrow from private banks, that charged interest, and end the practice of borrowing interest-free from their own publicly owned banks. Their argument was that publicly owned banks inflate the money supply and prices, whereas chartered banks supposedly only recycle pre-existing money. What they purposefully suppressed was that private banks create the money they lend just as public banks do. And as banking specialist Ellen Brown states: “The difference is simply that a publicly-owned bank returns the interest to the government and the community, while a privately-owned bank siphons the interest into its capital account, to be reinvested at further interest, progressively drawing money out of the productive economy.” The effect of such a change would remove a powerful economic tool from the hands of democratic governments and give such control to a cabal of foreign bankers. This was one of Milton Friedman’s radical free-market ideas.

    At that time it seems that Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau came under the influence of neoliberalism, promulgated by Frederich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Then, while attending the Basil Committee sessions, he probably came under further influence of fellow Bilderberg attendees and as a result he accepted the partisan flawed logic from the world’s top banks. Apparently on the basis of this, he decided that Canada should dramatically reduce borrowing interest-free money from Canada’s own bank and instead borrow the bulk of its money from chartered banks and pay interest on the loans. It appears that this decision was made without informing Canada’s parliament. This was such a fundamental change of policy that it should not only have been debated in parliament, this should have been put to a national referendum. Strangely, even when this became known, this was apparently never questioned by the opposition parties, especially the NDP, and never revealed in the media. Strange indeed.

    John Ryan, writing for Canadian Dimension points out the obvious flaw in the logic of private bank loans. Yes, they create money as well, but their obligations are to shareholders.

    Why is it that Canada’s mainstream media has never brought any of these matters to the public’s attention? After the Supreme Court declined to deal with this case, citing specious reasoning that this was more of political issue than a judicial one, the media boycotted the story and therefore hardly anyone in Canada knows of this case. Canada’s top constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati who handled this lawsuit has always gotten major media attention, except for this case, which he considers to have been his most important lawsuit. Prior to this, Galati had been best known for stopping the Supreme Court appointment of Judge Marc Nadon, whose nomination had been put forward by Stephen Harper. Although Galati is unable to identify his sources, he states that he was informed that the government instructed the mainstream media to give this case, and prior lawsuits on this matter, limited coverage. And they complied. The story trickled out through alternative news sources.

    In the course of five court hearings dealing with this case, Rocco Galati, as the lead lawyer, maintained that since Canada joined the Bank of International Settlements all their ensuing meetings have been kept secret. Their minutes, discussions and deliberations are secret and not available nor accountable to Canada’s Parliament, notwithstanding that the Bank of Canada policies emanate directly from these meetings. As Galati has stated: “These organizations are essentially private, foreign entities controlling Canada’s banking system and socio-economic policies.” As such, private foreign banks and financial interests, contrary to the Bank of Canada Act, dictate the Bank of Canada and Canada’s monetary and financial policy.

    Galati is of course correct, and the COMER case is the subject of the next article. The Governments of both Stephan Harper and Justin Trudeau fought tooth and nail to keep the banking cartel in place in Canada.

    One would THINK that the NDP would be all over the case, but surprisingly not. Guess standing up for the little guy has its limits.

    As a result of being part of the banking cartel, our “debt” keeps increasing. Truth be told, it will never be paid off, since it is designed not to be.

    6. How Much Debt?


    Dollars (millions)
    Net federal government financial debt
    1930 $2,178
    1931 $2,262
    1932 $2,376
    1933 $2,596
    1934 $2,730
    1935 $2,846
    1936 $3,006
    1937 $3,084
    1938 $3,102
    1939 $3,153
    1940 $3,271
    1941 $3,649
    1942 $4,045
    1943 $6,183
    1944 $8,740
    1945 $11,298
    1946 $13,421
    1947 $13,048
    1948 $12,372
    1949 $11,776
    1950 $11,626
    1951 $11,427
    1952 $11,163
    1953 $11,151
    1954 $11,092
    1955 $11,229
    1956 $11,241
    1957 $10,967
    1958 $11,015
    1959 $11,627
    1960 $12,047
    1961 $12,394
    1962 $13,378
    1963 $14,079
    1964 $15,262
    1965 $15,748
    1966 $15,381
    1967 $15,866
    1968 $16,713
    1969 $17,396
    1970 $18,095
    1971 $18,581
    1972 $19,328
    1973 $20,123
    1974 $21,580
    1975 $24,769
    1976 $28,573
    1977 $32,629
    1978 $45,846
    1979 $59,040
    1980 $72,555
    1981 $86,280
    1982 $99,600
    1983 $128,302
    1984 $164,532
    1985 $209,891
    1986 $245,151
    1987 $276,735
    1988 $305,438
    1989 $333,519
    1990 $362,920
    1991 $395,075
    1992 $428,682
    1993 $471,061
    1994 $513,219
    1995 $550,685
    1996 $578,718
    1997 $588,402
    1998 $581,581
    1999 $574,468
    2000 $561,733
    2001 $545,300
    2002 $534,690
    2003 $526,492
    2004 $523,648
    2005 $523,344
    2006 $514,099
    2007 $508,122
    2008 $490,412

    See the source.

    In 1930, Canada’s national debt was about $2 billion. In $1974, it was about $20 billion. A decade after changes to the Act, the debt was about $160, or 8 times higher.

    Worth noting, that Brian Mulroney, who was PM from 1984 until 1993 added over $300 billion to the national debt.

    7. Fighting Back: Committee on Monetary & Economic Reform

    Supreme Court of Canada Dismisses Constitutional Bank of Canada Case, Claiming It Is a Political Matter

    We believe that the case has ample legal merit, and should have proceeded to trial. It is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to refuse leave on a given issue multiple times, finally to grant leave, hear the appeal and the case then succeeds. The Supreme Court controls its own agenda, both in its timing and on the merits of issues it will or will not hear. (Annually, fewer than 8–10% of all cases filed are granted permission and heard at the Supreme Court of Canada.)

    It should be noted that throughout this arduous and expensive legal process, the substance of this lawsuit initiated in the public interest has not been addressed. The matters raised by the lawsuit are summarized in the original news release (pdf) issued on December 19, 2011.)

    See the source

    A 5 1/2 year legal fight to restore the original central banking. Even more frustrating is that the Courts have never really addressed the issues which led to the challenge in the first place.

    The Supreme Court says it is a “political matter”, but no politicians in Canada have the willpower to address it, never mind fix it. Even “socialist” and “populist” politicians seem unwilling to take it on.

    8. Who Are These People?

    About BIS – overview

    Our mission is to serve central banks in their pursuit of monetary and financial stability, to foster international cooperation in those areas and to act as a bank for central banks.

    Established in 1930, the BIS is owned by 60 central banks, representing countries from around the world that together account for about 95% of world GDP. Its head office is in Basel, Switzerland and it has two representative offices: in Hong Kong SAR and in Mexico City.

    We pursue our mission by:

    • fostering discussion and facilitating collaboration among central banks
    • supporting dialogue with other authorities that are responsible for promoting financial stability
    • carrying out research and policy analysis on issues of relevance for monetary and financial stability
    • acting as a prime counterparty for central banks in their financial transactions
    • serving as an agent or trustee in connection with international financial operations

    As part of our work in the area of monetary and financial stability, we regularly publish related analyses and international banking and financial statistics that underpin policymaking, academic research and public debate.

    With regard to our banking activities, our customers are central banks and international organisations. We do not accept deposits from, or provide financial services to, private individuals or corporate entities.

    Supposedly, the Bank for International Settlements is “owned” by 60 central banks. It then facilitates discussions between those 60 banks. In short, it is a global collusion to fix monetary policies.

    Interesting that the “central banks” are supposed to be owned by their respective nations, yet, BIS recommends borrowing from “private” bankers. Almost as if it wasn’t acting in the nations’ self interests.

    9. Not in Canada’s Interests


    This should be obvious, but borrowing from private banks is not in Canada’s best interests, nor any nations. This is bankrupting our nation, to enrich global bankers.

    Restore the 1934 Bank of Canada Act, and let us take back control over our own finances.

    Curious, even when national and provincial debts are in the news so much, no one asks the obvious question. Why are we jacking up our debt by borrowing from private banks?

    A Case For Tort Reform: Free-Speech “Grifters” Want $5M

    (Peterson interview after suing)

    (Peterson announcing lawsuit to follow Shepherd)

    (Pedantic Shepherd, YouTube is beside the point)

    (Shepherd sues, then complains about being sued)

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for a prior review on Jordan Peterson.
    CLICK HERE, for a prior review on Bill C-16 (gender identity)
    CLICK HERE, for Louder With Crowder interview.
    (See 49:00 and 50:20 for Peterson comments on OHRC policies)
    CLICK HERE, for Peterson & Cathy Newman (cringe)
    CLICK HERE, and HERE, for Peterson’s cognitive dissonance deplatforming Faith Goldy at free speech event.
    CLICK HERE, for Shepherd’s site: identitygrifting.ca.
    CLICK HERE, for Peterson announcing $1.5M lawsuit and Wilfrid Laurier University and 3 employees.
    CLICK HERE, for Peterson interview on lawsuit (2:55)
    CLICK HERE, for National Post article on WLU 3rd party defence.
    CLICK HERE, for the Ontario Human Rights Code.
    CLICK HERE, for Ontario Court forms index.
    CLICK HERE, for Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure.
    CLICK HERE, for Ontario Libel and Slander Act.
    CLICK HERE, for Hill v. Church of Scientology, 1995.
    CLICK HERE, for Ontario Bill 52, protecting expression in matters of public interest.

    2. Background Information

    The details of the Wilfrid Laurier University scandal (Lindsay Shepherd, the 3 staff members, and Jordan Peterson), is old news at this point. The article just focuses on the lawsuits brought against WLU and its staff by Peterson and Shepherd.

    It is the opinion here that although the facts alleged are basically true, the claims are fraudulent. They are combined seeking 5 million dollars (Shepherd $3.6, Peterson $1.5M). This is an abuse of the court system, and a way to unjustly enrich themselves.

    Keep in mind, Peterson’s only claim to damages was that the tape defamed him (comparing him to Hitler, and other comments). His critics were vilified by the media. He suffered no actual damage, other than being named in a tape that Shepherd released.

    Shepherd claims that not only was this 42 minute meeting difficult (surely it was), but that she was never treated the same way again. She cites a few examples, but nothing that would lead a reasonable person to think this would be worth millions in damages. Shepherd claims to be unemployable in academia, but her new love for media probably helped that.

    Did WLU staff act like d*****bags? YES
    Were inappropriate things said? YES
    Was a tape of this leaked to the media? YES
    Does any of this amount to millions in damages? NO

    3. Complete Hypocrisy

    During the Louder With Crowder interview, Peterson (at 50:20) criticizes the Ontario Human Rights Code for automatically making employers vicariously liable for things employees say. However, he has no issue with USING vicarious liability in order to name the University in his lawsuit.

    Peterson claimed that it was libel for Rambukkana to compare him to Hitler, yet Peterson compares trans activists to Communists, who have caused the deaths of millions of people.

    Peterson has come to fame claiming to be a free speech champion, but has no issue deplatforming speakers he doesn’t agree with. Faith Goldy is a particularly bad example.

    Shepherd and Peterson both claim to be free speech champions, but then sue over words they don’t like.

    4. Karma Is A B***h

    In 2018, Shepherd launched a $3.6 million lawsuit against Wilfrid Laurier University and 3 of its staff (Nathan Rambukkana, Herbert Pimlott, and Adria Joel). Although the infamous meeting was cited, there were other problems occurring later which were cited in the statement of defense.

    Jordan Peterson filed a $1.5 million lawsuit of his own, claiming that Laurier hadn’t learned its lesson. Peterson claimed that the infamous tape had damaged his reputation.

    Regarding Peterson’s claim, the WLU filed a 3rd party claim (Form 29A). It stated that if Peterson actually had suffered damages, he should be suing Lindsay Shepherd, as she made the tape secretly and released it.

    Shepherd was outraged. After filing a lawsuit against her university, she is shocked that they would use her as a defence in a related lawsuit. She brought this on herself.

    WLU should consider Rule 2.1.01

    5. Some Law On Frivilous Proceedings

    Rule 2.1 General Powers to Stay or Dismiss if Vexatious, etc.
    .
    Stay, Dismissal of frivolous, vexatious, abusive Proceeding
    Order to Stay, Dismiss Proceeding
    2.1.01 (1) The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1

    Although litigation tends to drag on a long time, something like this should be used. The litigation (particularly Peterson’s) is an abuse of process.

    6. Ontario Libel & Slander Act

    Definitions
    1 (1) In this Act,
    “broadcasting” means the dissemination of writing, signs, signals, pictures and sounds of all kinds, intended to be received by the public either directly or through the medium of relay stations, by means of,
    .
    (a) any form of wireless radioelectric communication utilizing Hertzian waves, including radiotelegraph and radiotelephone, or
    (b) cables, wires, fibre-optic linkages or laser beams,
    and “broadcast” has a corresponding meaning; (“radiodiffusion ou télédiffusion”, “radiodiffuser ou télédiffuser”)
    “newspaper” means a paper containing public news, intelligence, or occurrences, or remarks or observations thereon, or containing only, or principally, advertisements, printed for distribution to the public and published periodically, or in parts or numbers, at least twelve times a year. (“journal”) R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, s. 1 (1).

    Wilfrid Laurier and its 3 staff members did not do this. Shepherd did. She released the recording to the media, with the intent of making it widely distributed. So Rambukkana and Pimlott have a valid point. If Peterson did suffer damages, it was caused by Lindsay Shepherd.

    Yes, Rambukkana and Pimlott were unprofessional for making the comments in the first place. However, it is clear they never meant to be recorded.

    There is also some ambiguity as to the Statute of Limitations, whether it would be 3 months, or 2 years. If it is 3 months, then it has already lapsed.

    7. Some Canadian Cases

    Here is Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995), which dropped “actual malice” as a requirement.

    Here is Grant v Torstar (2009), which created an exception for responsible journalism.

    Here is Crookes v Newton (2011), which ruled that linking, or hyperlinking stories does not count as publishing.

    However, all of this may be irrelevant, since it was Shepherd who SECRETLY recorded the meeting, and then chose to publish it WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT of the other parties.

    8. Ontario’s Bill 52

    Not sure if this would be relied on in the proceedings, but in 2015, the Ontario Government passed Bill 52 on this subject. Interesting is section 137.1

    Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate
    Purposes
    Rejet d’une instance limitant les débats
    Objects
    137.1 (1) The purposes of this section and sections 137.2 to 137.5 are,
    (a) to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest;
    (b) to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest;
    (c) to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and
    (d) to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action.

    9. Final Thoughts On This

    The topic of tort reform is a popular one in recent years, particularly in the United States. Putting a cap on maximum damages, or making it harder to collect on bogus claims is a goal worth pursuing.

    Any google or online search of “tort reform” will lead to an almost endless number of matches.

    This is not at all to say that a person should “never” go to civil court. If an employer doesn’t pay your wages, or your property is damaged, or bills are not paid, then litigation can be a very valid path. Admittedly, “reasonable” is very subjective. However, most people can agree that one must suffer actual damages to go to court.

    However, Shepherd and Peterson have both laid million dollar lawsuits because people said mean things to them. (Shepherd’s claim cites more detail). And hypocritically, both think nothing of mocking their detractors.

    These 2 are not the free speech champions they pretend to be. Rather, they support free speech when it is convenient to do so. They are “free-speech grifters”.

    Hard to feel sorry for her anymore.