Public Policy #7: Abolish Gladue, Fix Underlying Problems

1. 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).

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

Public Policy #6: Abolish Human Rights Codes Entirely

1. 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.

2. 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”?

3. 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.

    Public Policy #5: Restoring The 1934 Bank Of Canada Act

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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)

    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.

    SOME BACKGROUND


    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

    TOTAL 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.

    KARMA IS A B****


    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

    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.

    From the 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.

    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.

    ONTARIO’S BILL 52 (2015)


    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
    Objets
    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.

    FINAL THOUGHTS


    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.

    Reasons For Leaving The PPC

    (Maxime Bernier defends “dysfunctional” UN, won’t leave)

    (March 8 Rebel Media video on Brooks, AB)

    (Rebel Media on Islamic Relief Funding Terrorism)

    (Islamic Party Wanting To Impose Sharia In Belgium)


    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    1. Important Links


    CLICK HERE, for the PPC Platform
    CLICK HERE, for the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.
    CLICK HERE, for TFWP data, 1990 to 2009.
    CLICK HERE, for more TWFP data.
    CLICK HERE, for 2018 Angus Reid poll on immigration.
    CLICK HERE, for UN Secretary General’s High-level Panel on Global Sustainability (co-authored by Jordan Peterson).
    CLICK HERE, for Abacus Poll, Bernier at 13%.
    CLICK HERE, for Globe & Mail, Bernier at 17%.
    CLICK HERE, for articles written on the binding nature of UN resolutions.
    CLICK HERE, for wasted foreign aid in Afghanistan.
    CLICK HERE, for Quebec opposing pipelines.

    After much though, I cannot support the People’s Party of Canada anymore. As a Canadian nationalist with social conservative views, the PPC is not substantially different than the Conservative party of Canada.

    There are many reasons, which will be addressed below.

    There are far more important issues than the dairy cartel.

    2. Index of Topics


    Personal Reasons
    (1) The Name Sounds Communist
    (2) PPC Purging/EDAs
    (3) Lack of Transparency

    Ideological Reasons
    (4) PPC Won’t Leave the UN
    (5) PPC Will “Only Review” Foreign Aid
    (6) PPC Will “Only Review” Equalization Formula
    (7) PPC Supports Mass Migration
    (8) Import Labour While Canadians Unemployed
    (9) Civic Nationalism is Glorified Multiculturalism
    (10) Quebec Hypocrisy in Protecting Identity
    (11) Bernier Compares Himself to Macron
    (12) PPC’s new hero: Jordan Peterson
    (13) Complete Dismissal of Social Conservatives
    (14) Political Islam
    (15) Hypocrisy in “Call-Out Culture”
    (16) Free Trade With China

    3. Topics Expanded


    Personal Reasons

    (1) The Name Sounds Communist
    This is probably the most trivial, so let’s get it out of the way. “People’s Party” sounds like something you would see in a Communist country.

    (2) PPC Purging
    Well, it wouldn’t be a “People’s Party” without a massive purge at some point (pun intended).

    While the party was originally touted as a right wing alternative, it seems that less and less viewpoints are now tolerated.

    Nationalists, and others who reject the mass migration and rapid replacement of Canadians are dismissed as racists and bigots. Apparently, the non-PC party decided that it had to reject people to appear more tolerant.

    Although the party calls itself “conservative”, attempts to bring socially conservative issues into the platform have failed, and their supporters not well received.

    There have also been entire EDAs that were set up, but then members were removed ad-hoc, with no reason given. Guess they didn’t quite fit the mold.

    (3) Lack of Transparency
    Admittedly, it was an exciting project to get behind.
    But looking back, I knew nothing of who were the people running the show, or how it operated. 6 months later that is still the case.

    Ideological Reasons

    (4) PPC Won’t Leave the UN

    As Canada’s former Foreign Affairs Minister, I witnessed first-hand how the international relations establishment has a set of priorities that are very different from those of ordinary Canadians.

    They care about attending global conferences in trendy cities and getting photographed in the company of important foreign leaders. They worry about prestige and glamour, about Canada’s presence on the international scene even if that simply means having a tiny influence on events in parts of the world where we have almost no interest.

    Whether it’s a bunch of bureaucrats discussing how to spend billions of dollars to kick-starting Canada’s economy; or a bunch of bureaucrats discussing how to spend billions of dollars on international organizations and development aid in other countries; it’s all the same. They are mostly furthering their own interests and wasting a lot of taxpayers’ money.

    We are not going to try and please the foreign affairs establishment and the United Nations, a dysfunctional organisation which for years has disproportionately focused its activities on condemning Israel as if it were the source of most conflicts in the world. Last year for example, the UN General Assembly adopted 20 resolutions targeting Israel, while passing one each about the human rights situation in North Korea, Syria, and Iran.

    Bernier’s now famous line: “The UN is a useless joke”. Is in the platform, and in many of his public comments and appearances, he criticizes the UN as wasteful. Sounds great, but one thing: why not leave the UN altogether? If Bernier truly views it money pit, against Canadians’ interests, and serves little value, why not leave? That detail is interestingly omitted.

    While Bernier claims to cut spending on the UN (although not leave). Yet UN agreements result in pressure being applied to nations even for “non-binding” resolutions. Worse still, “non-binding” resolutions can still be used as a legal reference in future court challenges.

    Further, if a Provincial or State level virtue signaller wants, a “non-binding” UN resolution can be legislated at that level (such as the case with BC wanting to pass the UN DRIP).

    If a nation wanted to support humanitarian causes: great, but why would they need to be officially in the UN at all? Couldn’t personnel and/or supplies be sent directly to a cause? Seems unlikely that it would be refused simply because the donor was not a member. If anything, not being in the UN would prevent (or at least make it harder), for our interests to be run over.

    (5) PPC Will “Only Review” Foreign Aid

    Third, my government will review the $5 billion that Canada spends every year on international assistance programs.
    Our refocused international assistance will centre on core humanitarian efforts to fight global health crises and respond to emergencies such as major conflicts and natural disasters. Canada has to show solidarity and do its part to help when populations are dying and suffering in countries that don’t have the means to save them.

    However, every year, we spend billions of dollars funding job training, farming technology, infrastructure building and various other programs to help develop other countries’ economies. We will phase out this development aid, for which there is no moral or economic efficiency argument.

    Serious question, given the waste and mismanagement in international agencies, how will PPC ensure that money given for “humanitarian purposes” is actually used as such? Also worth noting, how much of that $5 billion is development aid? And will this be cut completely, or redirected into “humanitarian aid?

    Also, if the only money being spent is on emergency actions, why would it be necessary to be part of the UN at all?

    In fairness to Bernier, it is nice to have the topic addressed. However, it would be naïve to assume that Canada will actually save anywhere near $5 billion annually.

    Finally, given the widespread corruption and mismanagement in the UN and other global organizations, how can we be sure that aid is reaching the people it’s supposed to? How can we be sure that some or even all of it simply does not disappear? How can we be sure foreign aid is not used to finance nefarious causes? See above video. This is not to say all organizations are bad, but that there has to be real accountability as to how and where it goes.

    (6) PPC Will “Only Review” Equalization Formula
    Rather than continuing the welfare trap that our system of equalization has become, Bernier proposes to create an environment that encourages provinces to succeed and thrive, rather than relying on aid from other parts of the country.
    Bernier’s plan has two key components:

    -Immediately freeze the envelope of taxpayer dollars dedicated to equalization to stop the ever-increasing spending.
    -Form a Parliamentary Committee dedicated to reviewing the equalization formula, proposing common sense solutions that will give provinces the right incentives to grow their economies.

    In fairness, it is nice to see this issue addressed. It hasn’t at the Federal level in any meaningful way since its inception. However, it is inter-provincial welfare, plain and simple. Perhaps the real reason there’s no proposal to scrap it entirely is it would be political suicide in Quebec and the Maritimes, which depend on these handouts.

    If a province still gets payments after 60 years, it should be obvious they have no intention of stopping. Phasing out completely would be a better option.

    (7) PPC Supports Mass Migration

    Of course, Canadian society is also transformed by immigration, as it has for centuries. But this has to be done organically and gradually. When it happens too fast, it creates social tensions and conflicts, and provokes a political backlash, as we can see today in several countries.

    This is why I am opposed to increasing the annual intake of immigrants from 250,000 to 300,000, as the Liberal government has announced.

    This is laughable. At 250,000/year, it is stable. At 300,000 (or 310,000) it is mass migration.

    Also worth mentioning is the petition Bernier sponsored, E-1906, cited here, to oppose the UN Global Migration Compact. In the height of the furor, thousands of Canadians protested against it. However, the PPC condemns “white nationalists” who are against mass migration, open borders, the UN in general, and in favour of protecting Canadian sovereignty and identity.

    It would take some mental gymnastics for the PPC to call Stephen Harper out as a globalist, but then cite “his” number of 250,000/year. Also, how would they explain why a 20% reduction in immigration is “good and stable”, but that a 50-75% cut would be xenophobic and anti-immigrant.

    Of course, this isn’t anywhere near a 20% reduction. Bernier omits the TFWP, which allows well over 100,000 people into Canada every year, many of whom becomes permanent residents. For example, in 2011, 192,000 TFW were admitted into Canada, and 29,000 TFW obtained permanent resident status. (See source). Also left out is the large number of student visas issued to college and university students annually. And of course, graduation is a quick path to permanent residence.

    Of course this doesn’t include illegals getting a pathway to citizenship, nor refugees, nor anchor babies (birth tourism).

    A far more accurate estimate would be that PPC wants an immigration reduction of about 10%.

    Bernier frequently cites the Angus Reid poll (shown here), saying 49% of Canadians want less immigration. It would be nice if Angus Reid had followed up and asked how deep the cuts should be. 10% isn’t a major reduction, it’s just a tweaking.

    Canada already has people from all corners of the globe. And most would love to have families, or at least bigger ones. See this initiative, recently announced by Hungary.

    (8) Import Labour While Canadians Unemployed

    Preventing our businesses from hiring the immigrant manpower they need with red tape is a big government policy. At the other extreme, mass immigration that would create social tensions and is not in the interest of Canadians is also a big government policy. A government under my leadership would find an appropriate middle ground so as to unleash Canada’s economic potential.

    In particular, it should answer the needs of sectors where there is a scarcity of manpower with specialized skills; and in more general terms contribute to increasing the number of younger workers in a society that is fast aging.

    Too little immigration means we will not get as much of these economic benefits as we could. But too much immigration also has its dangers.

    See the above video from Rebel Media on Jason Kenney flooding Brooks, AB with Somali Muslims in order to obtain cheap labour. While an extreme case, there is nothing in the PPC website that states ensuring cultural compatibility with immigrants is necessary. It’s all about money.

    And an obvious piece of information: businesses will ALWAYS say they need workers. From a supply side, there’s no downside, as it allows a greater choice for them.

    With the high unemployment in Canada, particularly in Alberta, is there need for economic immigration or at least much smaller amounts? As with H1B visa in the US, it has the effect of driving down wages and forcing locals to face even stiffer competition.

    The Temporary Foreign Workers Program (TFW) allows companies to import cheaper labour which gets subsidized by taxpayers. And again, this is done while Canadians are unemployed. This is even more true with young graduates who often struggle to find work in glutted professions.

    When people can’t find work, it hurts them and hurts their families. There are larger impacts to consider than simply job growth or GDP. And in the larger picture, instead of relying on migration to grow a country, why not focus more on getting Canadian children to have more children? The overwhelming majority of Canadian families would want more.

    (9) Civic Nationalism is Glorified Multiculturalism
    Though not explicitly in the PPC platform, many PPC members have stated that the PPC is a “civic nationalist party”. So what’s the problem?

    CIVIC NATIONALISM REJECTS ANY NATIONAL IDENTITY

    The main features of civic nationalism is that people are joined by “values” as opposed to identity. Free speech, a constitution, equality under the law are all common tenants of the ideology. While those “are” important to have, they are not enough to unify a society.

    Civ-Nat rejects common bonds such as: culture, spoken or written language, faith or religion, heritage, traditions, customs and yes (ancestry or ethnicity). These identity unifiers are stronger within groups than the “values”. It is not bigoted to want there to be something in common with all the people. A common culture and language are the bare minimum. Without it, people break off into groups who share similar traits.

    Worse is the 1988 Multiculturalism Act (passed by “Conservative” Brian Mulroney). This Act actually encourages people to keep their old cultures, traditions and languages. In fact, it discourages assimilation.

    And how do people maintain their culture? They band together, form a group — or balkanize — and keep practicing it.

    Another bit of mental gymnastics for the PPC: “Why” do you object to Trudeau’s comments about Canada being a post-national country if you “don’t” support having a distinct and dominant identity?

    It is not “extreme multi-culturalism” to have balkanization and ghettos. It is in fact the point of multiculturalism. And this leads to the next point….

    (10) Quebec Hypocrisy in Protecting Identity
    Quebec has laws to protect its language and culture.

    There is nothing wrong with that. However, multiculturalism and bilingualism are forced down the throats of the rest of Canada. The bulk of Canada was built as a British colony, with and English tradition.

    Distinct identity for Quebec.
    Melting pot for everyone else.

    Every nation should have its own identity. But to allow a region to province to have one, but not elsewhere is hypocrisy.

    (11) Bernier Compares Himself to Macron
    In an interview, Bernier compared himself to Emmanuel Macron, who became President of France less than a year after launching his party in France.

    While that sounds harmless enough, consider this: Macron is a Rothschild banker. While running as a “populist”, he proved to be anything but. He is now an EU globalist calling for the further break down of European nations. See this earlier review.

    Interesting role model.

    (12) PPC’s new hero: Jordan Peterson
    While it is normally wrong to judge someone by the company they keep, this article covers why getting involved with Peterson would be a serious mistake for any serious “populist” party.

    (13) Complete Dismissal of Social Conservatives
    PPC has made it clear from the beginning that they will not have any sort of social conservative policies being advanced by the party. They seem to believe that killing unborn children using tax dollars, sex changes for children, and the like are not issues the Feds need to be concerned with.

    Indeed much of it is pushed off as “Provincial Issues”. Who cares if the culture declines as long as you are tolerant?

    For a party that claims to offer a voice to Canadians who otherwise would feel excluded, this is a little rich.

    Interesting that in recent by-elections, Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson did by far the best at 11%. She is a social conservative whose values would never actually be promoted by the PPC (except “possibly” as a private member’s bill).

    Do we value lives of unborn children?
    Are children best off with a mother and father?
    Do we want young children corrupted by SOGI?

    In September 2018, Bernier, even without a party had 13-17% support.
    Now PPC has 2% nationally. (more than 80% drop)

    Also consider the drop in support for 2 petitions Bernier sponsored:
    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE
    (I) 68,500 for the anti-global migration compact petition.
    (II) 4,100 for the anti-UN Parliament. (90% drop)

    (14) Political Islam

    First, my government will continue to work closely with our allies to ensure peace and security, especially against radical Islamic terrorism. We will only get involved in foreign conflicts when we have a clear strategic interest in doing so and when the security of Canadians is directly impacted.

    What could possibly be wrong with this statement? Nothing, except it omits the elephant in the room: POLITICAL ISLAM.

    Lebanon was a Christian country.
    Turkey was a Christian country.
    Afghanistan was a Buddhist country.
    Iran (Persia) was a secular country.
    Pakistan was part of India and a Sikh country.
    And so on….

    Islam has entered dozens of countries across the globe and infiltrated their politics. The OIC (Organization of Islamic Countries) makes up 57 of the 193 countries in the UN, and is in fact the largest voting bloc. Yet another reason to leave the UN.

    Islamic operatives are in the Canadian Government, and they have made serious inroads in American and European politics. The goal is the same: world domination and to spread Islam across the globe.

    Condemning terrorism is an easy thing to do. When people are slaughtered for their beliefs, and their religious institutions vandalized or burned, it is a straightforward matter. But the PPC doesn’t call out the political branches of Islam trying to weaponize corrupt democratic governments.

    Recently, the newly formed Islamic Party of Ontario made headlines. The founder, Jawed Anwer, stated that liberalism is killing off Islam. To be fair, Bernier did take a shot at this “ideological diversity making us stronger”.

    Although terrorism and direct violence are more overt and obvious, the creeping Sharia into Western countries is the bigger threat growing.

    (15) Hypocrisy in “Call-Out Culture”
    Probably Bernier’s strongest asset is his ability (and willingness) to call out pandering and political correctness. However, he seems uninterested in addressing criticism of the above topics.

    (16) Free Trade With China
    This is addressed in another video. But given how China does not play by the same rules, why would we undercut the job prospects of our own citizens?

    Policies That Are Good Ideas
    To be fair, there are some PPC policies that are great.

    (a) Ending Corporate Subsidies
    (b) Reviewing equalization is at least a start
    (c) Protecting Gun Owners
    (d) A Proposed Smaller Tax Structure
    (e) Opposing Climate Change Scam
    (f) Ending Supply management

    4. Final Thoughts


    Those 6 items are nice, though it misses bigger issues. As such, I can no longer be a part of this. Far from a full solution, in many ways it is a half measure.

    PPC offers nothing to Nationalists concerned with mass migration.
    PPC offers nothing to social conservatives.
    PPC is not substantially different than CPC on issues of Canadian sovereignty and independence.

    The CPC isn’t a solution either — for anyone who might make the “shill” accusation. They have signed plenty of bad deals such as Agenda 2030 (Harper) and Agenda 21 (Mulroney), and support for Paris Accord (Scheer).

    Time to keep looking.

    Public Policy #4: UN Promotes Replacement Migration, While Hungary Boosts Family Growth


    (UN Promotes replacement migration)


    (Hungary proposes making it more affordable for Hungarian women to have children)


    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

    (1) Challenge to UN Global Migration Compact dismissed in Calgary, however Court rules that it is not intended to be a legally binding contract.

    (2) Challenge launched to close loophole in Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement


    CLICK HERE, for the topic of “REPLACEMENT MIGRATION”.
    CLICK HERE, for March 2000 Report.

    NEW REPORT ON REPLACEMENT MIGRATION ISSUED BY UN POPULATION DIVISION
    20000317

    NEW YORK, 17 March (DESA) — The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled “Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.

    United Nations projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of Japan and virtually all countries of Europe will most likely decline. In a number of cases, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Italy, countries would lose between one quarter and one third of their population. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of population to historically unprecedented high levels. For instance, in Italy, the median age will rise from 41 years in 2000 to 53 years in 2050. The potential support ratio — i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person — will often be halved, from 4 or 5 to 2.
    Focusing on these two striking and critical trends, the report examines in detail the case of eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). In each case, alternative scenarios for the period 1995-2050 are considered, highlighting the impact that various levels of immigration would have on population size and population ageing.

    Major findings of this report include:
    — In the next 50 years, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of low fertility and increased longevity. In contrast, the population of the United States is projected to increase by almost a quarter. Among the countries studied in the report, Italy is projected to register the largest population decline in relative terms, losing 28 per cent of its population between 1995 and 2050, according to the United Nations medium variant projections. The population of the European Union, which in 1995 was larger than that of the United States by 105 million, in 2050, will become smaller by 18 million.

    — Population decline is inevitable in the absence of replacement migration. Fertility may rebound in the coming decades, but few believe that it will recover sufficiently in most countries to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future.

    – 2 – Press Release DEV/2234 POP/735 17 March 2000

    — Some immigration is needed to prevent population decline in all countries and regions examined in the report. However, the level of immigration in relation to past experience varies greatly. For the European Union, a continuation of the immigration levels observed in the 1990s would roughly suffice to prevent total population from declining, while for Europe as a whole, immigration would need to double. The Republic of Korea would need a relatively modest net inflow of migrants — a major change, however, for a country which has been a net sender until now. Italy and Japan would need to register notable increases in net immigration. In contrast, France, the United Kingdom and the United States would be able to maintain their total population with fewer immigrants than observed in recent years.

    — The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent the decline of the total population are considerably larger than those envisioned by the United Nations projections. The only exception is the United States.

    — The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent declines in the working- age population are larger than those needed to prevent declines in total population. In some cases, such as the Republic of Korea, France, the United Kingdom or the United States, they are several times larger. If such flows were to occur, post-1995 immigrants and their descendants would represent a strikingly large share of the total population in 2050 — between 30 and 39 per cent in the case of Japan, Germany and Italy.

    — Relative to their population size, Italy and Germany would need the largest number of migrants to maintain the size of their working-age populations. Italy would require 6,500 migrants per million inhabitants annually and Germany, 6,000. The United States would require the smallest number — 1,300 migrants per million inhabitants per year.

    — The levels of migration needed to prevent population ageing are many times larger than the migration streams needed to prevent population decline. Maintaining potential support ratios would in all cases entail volumes of immigration entirely out of line with both past experience and reasonable expectations.

    — In the absence of immigration, the potential support ratios could be maintained at current levels by increasing the upper limit of the working-age population to roughly 75 years of age.

    — The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require a comprehensive reassessment of many established policies and programmes, with a long-term perspective. Critical issues that need to be addressed include: (a) the appropriate ages for retirement; (b) the levels, types and nature of retirement and health care benefits for the elderly; (c) labour force participation; (d) the assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers to support retirement and health care benefits for the elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration,

    – 3 – Press Release DEV/2234 POP/735 17 March 2000

    in particular, replacement migration and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.
    The report may be accessed on the internet site of the Population Division (http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm). Further information may be obtained from the office of Joseph Chamie, Director, Population Division, United Nations, New York, NY, 10017, USA; tel. 1-212-963-3179; fax 1-212-963-2147.

    Hungary understands
    Far better than “importing” replacement populations, Hungary has decided to make it more affordable to have their own children. Recently, Prime Minister Victor Orban announced a policy that women who have 4 children or more will no longer pay income tax. The goal is to encourage women to have more children, and reverse falling birth rates.

    By growing your own population, you don’t have to worry about “multiculturalism”. You don’t have to hope that a group assimilates and adopts your values. There isn’t language and culture clash, like their is with mass migration.

    Mostly importantly, you don’t have to worry about cultures (like Islam) INTENTIONALLY REFUSING to assimilate and replace your way of life with their way of life.

    Note: in small amounts, immigration “can” benefit a nation. But mass migration to “replace” the dwindling old-stock simply leads to the disappearance of the host culture and people.

    Conservatism & Libertarianism fail
    In order to preserve a nation, unity and common bonds are far more important than merely “keeping the numbers up”. There is more to a nation than number of people, GDP, and economic growth. Nationalists understand this. Conservatives and Libertarians do not.

    Canada — and all nations — wanting to grow, should follow the Hungarian lead of boosting its own population. Forget about using replacement migration as a solution.

    Public Policy Ideas #3: Canada Should Dump Multiculturalism and Feminism Althogether

    (Putin: “We are a multi-ethnic country, but one civilization.”)

    (Samantha Brick, possibly the UK’s dumbest feminist)

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

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

    UN GCM Challenged In Calgary Fed Court, 300-635 8th Ave SW.
    Case File: T-2089-18. Filed December 6, 2018.
    CLICK HERE for more information
    ***********************************************************************

    If Canada wants to move forward as a strong, unified country, here are 2 related ideas:

    (1) Get rid of multiculturalism
    (2) Get rid of feminism

    Multiculturalism does not work.
    It never has, and never will.

    Seehere, the Multiculturalism Act.

    ”Multiculturalism Policy of Canada
    Marginal note:Multiculturalism policy

    3 (1) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to

    (a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;

    (b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future;

    (c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation;

    (d) recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development;

    (e) ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity;

    (f) encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada’s multicultural character;

    (g) promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins;

    (h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;

    (i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and

    (j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.”

    What this act does it promote, in fact legislate, that there are to be multiple societies within Canada. People are not expected to adopt a Canadian identity, but instead, Canada is expected to accept and promote other identities. Nonsense.

    (a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;

    That is right, we don’t want to have any sort of ”national” heritage. Rather, apparently we prefer to
    have the country made up of individual cultural heritages. Not that it will lead to balkanization or anything.

    (b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future;

    Again, reinforcing the idea that Canada is to have no unique identity, but to be a ”stew” of other identities.

    (i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and

    This statement actually contradicts itself. If you are preserving and enhancing languages other than English and French, then logically, they are beginning to replace English and French.

    (j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.

    This statement also contradicts itself. If you are advancing other cultures (whose main languages are not English or French), then you are promoting those other languages at the expense of English and French. Further, multiculturalism does not lead to harmony, but to division and segregation.

    (h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;

    (A) If a culture views women as 2nd class citizens? Do we embrace it?
    (B) If a culture tolerates honour killings, do we respect it?
    (C) If a culture traditionalises animal cruelty, do we celebrate it?
    (D) If a culture views child marriages as tradition, do we allow it?
    (E) If a culture allows cousin marriages/inbreeding, keeps the family ties, do we accept it?
    (F) If a culture promotes killing of gays, do we celebrate it?
    (G) if a culture calls for violence towards outsiders, do we turn the other cheek?

    Under the multiculturalism act, yes, differences should be celebrated.

    Interestingly, Quebec takes a different stand. They protect their French language, and they protect their French culture. However, multiculturalism and billigualism are forced on the rest of Canada, by Quebec, under a constitution Quebec never signed.

    Further, this obsession with having no cohesive or unifying identity is also codified in the Canadian Charter.


    Multicultural heritage
    27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

    This article, was originally going to be included, but now is a separate piece. An extreme example of how promoting culture really misses the big picture.

    This is not to say that people of different races cannot live together. That is possible. However, different cultures cannot co-exist. Vastly different social structures in a given area either leads to parallel societies, or it leads to segregation and balkanization. Both are harmful to a nation. Here is an idea brought up in earlier articles.

    CIVIC NATIONALISM: People joined by abstract ideas such as laws, values, freedom, equality, and justice.

    ETHNO NATIONALISM: People joined by identity such as race, ethnicity, culture, tradition, customs, spoken/written language, heritage, religion, spirituality.

    Having common values and laws (civic nationalism) is important, but alone it is insufficient. There has to be something that actually unites the people. While this is not a call for any racial supremacy, there has to be some commonality (ethno nationalism) to make the society cohesive. While people understandably have different standards, here is one

    (a) People in a society need to speak a common language.
    (b) People in a society need to have a common culture.

    If we have these 2 items, a society will function, although, the more devout would argue that there would need to be a third unifier:

    (c) People in a society need to have a common faith.

    Hate Crime Laws Divide By Identity

    This will be the topic of a separate article. But here are the hate crime laws on the books in Canada.


    Public incitement of hatred

    319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred

    (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    Marginal note:Defences

    (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

    (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

    (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

    (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

    (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

    While this seems harmless enough, will legislation such as M-103 (Islamic Blasphemy) or C-16 (Compelled Speech for Gender Pronouns) do an end run around these terms?

    Also, a quick glance at Provincial Human Rights Code (such as British Columbia, shows that it is all about dividing by identity.

    Feminism is Destructive
    Also, one can make a very strong case that FEMINISM is also harmful to society. Of course, we are decades past the point where it is about fighting for equality (1st wave), and we are past the point of so-called ”reproductive equality” (2nd wave).

    It is no longer about equality with men, but rather, supremacy over men, (3rd wave). Feminism no longer subscribes to be about an sort of cohesion, but that of privilege and domination.

    This ”equality of outcome”, or affirmative action, is even enshrined in Part 15(2) of the Canadian Charter


    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 short feminism allows women to demand to be on a level playing field with men, but still demand special treatment if the outcomes are not what they want.

    Here is an extreme case of feminist thinking gone wrong:

    The Article Samantha Brick, April 7, 2009
    Normally the Daily Mail is not the best source, but this article was too great to pass up. Here are some quotes (in bold) and comments below:

    “Over in one corner sat Alice, a strong-minded 27-year-old who always said what she thought, regardless of how much it might hurt someone else. In the other corner was Sarah, a thirtysomething high-flier who would stand up for herself momentarily – then burst into tears and run for the ladies.

    Their simmering fight lasted hours, egged on by spectators taking sides and fuelling the anger. Sometimes other girls would join in, either heckling aggressively or huddling defensively in the toilets. It might sound like a scene from a tawdry reality show such as Big Brother, but the truth is a little more prosaic: it was just a normal morning in my office.

    The venomous women were supposedly the talented employees I had headhunted to achieve my utopian dream – a female- only company with happy, harmonious workers benefiting from an absence of men.”

    Admittedly this intro is catchy, but one would get the impression that Samantha Brick had absolutely no clue about how women interact in groups. Did she not grow up with them?

    “It was an idealistic vision swiftly shattered by the nightmare reality: constant bitchiness, surging hormones, unchecked emotion, attention-seeking and fashion rivalry so fierce it tore my staff apart.”

    The author will go on to elaborate at great length on these details. But the obvious question remains: why keep these women employed if they are this destructive? Remember, you did mortgage your home to get this building going.

    “Working in TV is notoriously difficult for women. There is a powerful old boys’ network, robust glass ceiling and the majority of bosses are misogynistic males.

    Gradually, what had started out as a daydream – wouldn’t it be great if there were no men where I worked? – turned into an exciting concept. I decided to create the first all-female production company where smart, intelligent, career-orientated women could work harmoniously, free from the bravado of the opposite sex.”

    Again, from reading this, you would think that Samantha had absolutely no clue how women interact in groups. She also seems to buy the notion that men only succeed because they are men (sexism and patriarchy). Perhaps men on average achieve more because they don’t create drama, complete with: constant bitchiness; surging hormones; unchecked emotion; attention-seeking; and fashion rivalry. Am just quoting the author’s description here.

    “In hindsight, I should have learned the lessons of my past – at my mixed secondary school I was bullied by a gang of nasty, name-calling girls, so I knew only too well how nasty groups of women could become.”

    Now we get to the heart of it. Samantha Brick knew full well how women can be in groups, then decided to launch this all-female project anyway, using her mortgaged home as collateral.

    “I hired a team of seven staff and set up an office in Richmond upon Thames, Surrey. While the women I interviewed claimed to be enthused by the idea, they still insisted on high salaries. Fair enough, I thought at the time – they are professionals, and I knew most of them were talented and conscientious because I’d worked with them before.

    But within a week, two cliques had developed: those who had worked together before and those who were producing ‘new ideas’.

    Most days would bring a pointed moment when some people were invited out for lunch or a coffee break – and some weren’t. Nothing explicit was ever said; the cutting rejection was obvious enough.

    Even when we all went to the pub after work, strict divisions remained, made clear according to who sat where around the table and who would be civil – or not – to whom.

    Fashion was a great divider, though in this battlefield everyone was on their own. Hideously stereotypical and shallow as it sounds, clothes were a huge source of catty comments, from sly remarks about people looking over-dressed to the merits of their fake tan application.

    I always felt sorry for anyone who naively showed off a new purchase in the office, because everyone would coo appreciatively to their face – then harshly criticise them as soon as they were out of earshot. This happened without exception.”

    Someone less idealistic who had their personal wealth (and home) tied up in this venture would have started looking to replace these women after a week or two. It is not worth dragging down a company, and these women are clearly too petty to be productive.

    “My deputy, Sarah, the general manager, first showed how much style mattered when she advertised for an office assistant and refused to hire the best-qualified girl because she could not distinguish Missoni from Marc Jacobs. This girl would have been making tea and running errands. But I didn’t challenge the decision not to hire her because I had a policy of picking my battles carefully.”

    Had that been me, Sarah would have been let go that day. A manager who refuses to hire good talent for such a trivial reason is not someone who should be a manager. However, Samantha doesn’t see that she shows the same flaw: not dismissing a poor manager because she wants to ”pick her battles”.

    “Employees considered it acceptable to take time off for beauty treatments – and not out of their holiday allowance. One girl regularly came in late because she was getting her hair coloured, and when I mentioned this she blew up in outrage. Though at least she had a reason; most just turned up late regardless, and huffed ‘That’s the time my train gets in’ if I pointed at the clock.

    In hindsight, I can see I should have been more strict. My idealism was my downfall because I tried to see the best in people – I was convinced they would behave as they were treated, so I treated everyone kindly.”

    At least Samantha is taking some responsibility for allowing this to happen. However, a half way decent boss would have let them go a long time ago.

    “Though Sarah, my general manager, was present, she refused to get involved because she didn’t want to be the ‘bad cop’.

    Despite being in charge, she was scared at the prospect of being bitched about – it was as though, in a women-only environment, staff were unable to keep their defined roles.

    Soon, arguments became a daily occurrence. It would start with snide comments between two people then, as others joined in, emotion and anger would grow until an eruption – shouting, screaming, swearing – which always left someone in tears.

    Then the friends of the woman who was upset would follow her to console her, leaving one group in the office and another group in the ladies. Both would then bitch unreservedly about each other – and do absolutely no work.

    It reached the point that I even wrote a handbook for staff on how to be nice to each other. The advice centred on being respectful to everyone and treating people equally – taking phone messages properly whether the call was for me or a junior.”

    Again, Sarah should have been let go. She is clearly not management material.

    Samantha needs to own up for this. If this is becoming a daily pattern, and no work is getting done, I would be getting new staff (and a new manager) lined up right away. Remember, you did re-mortgage your house for this,

    “But the biggest force wasn’t personality type, it was hormones. When one woman started having IVF, she unleashed her rage without warning and without apology.

    At ‘that time of the month’ – which in an office staffed only by women meant someone was always at that point – any bad mood was swiftly passed on to the rest of team as if by osmosis.”

    Still waiting for some justification as to why these women haven’t all been replaced. For all the whining about how men are only on top because of discrimination, Ms. Brick provides example after example of how an all-women workforce causes nothing but problems. These issues do not exist in male-majority places. Hence, there may be a valid reason that there are more men in management.

    While skipped over in this review for expediency, the actual article does provide many more examples of the problems caused by this all-female staff. And remember, the author tells us that they were “very accomplished” women.

    “In this climate, I didn’t dare employ any men because of the distraction and – even worse! – catfights they created. I hate how much that sounds like stereotyping, but I’m afraid it’s what I found to be true.

    And while I stand by my initial reason for excluding male employees – because they have an easy ride in TV – if I were to do it again, I’d definitely employ men. In fact, I’d probably employ only men.”

    And this takes us to the final blow: Samantha Brick has learned absolutely nothing from the experience. She “stands by her reason” for creating an all-women workforce, because men have “an easy ride”. It had nothing to do with the 1/ constant bitchiness; 2/ surging hormones; 3/ unchecked emotion; 4/ attention-seeking and 5/ fashion rivalry so fierce it tore her staff apart. These are the author’s own observations.

    It never seems to dawn on her that perhaps men are having an easier time because these issues don’t come up, or at least nowhere near as often.

    When Ms. Brick refers to this group as “accomplished women” I really have to wonder how detached from reality she is. They seem like 14 year old children.

    Final Thoughts
    Though the article contained several topics, there is one theme that was hopefully clear: unity. We need a society that is strong and cohesive, not something that divides along gender, linguistic, cultural, or other grounds. What we need, as Canadians, is a national identity. Not some mash up of ”whatever” or ”diversity is our strength”, but something that is unabashedly ours.

    Multiculturalism, feminism, (and separate hate crime laws), do nothing to bring us together as a society, but rather make the divide bigger.

    The video of Vladmir Putin and the Samantha Brick article were added to contrast two very different ideas of unity.

    (1) While the Brick case is extreme: it does help to illustrate the point that merit should be the driving factor in employment, school, or any other competition. Affirmative action, quotas, or accepting everything “as diversity” are really bad ideas.

    (2) Vladmir Putin, by comparison, comes across as very reasonable and realistic in this video. Someone who actually puts country ahead of identity, be it racial, gender, or otherwise.

    Public Policy Ideas #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).


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

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE


    Disclaimer: The views are personal and no claim is made that they represent any other person, policy or party.

    (1) UN Global Migration Compact
    (2) Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement, and see HERE
    (3) Proposed UN Parliament/World Gov’t
    Mein Kampf 2.0 (in German)
    (4) Paris Accord
    (5) The Multiculturalism Act
    (6) Can. Citizenship Act (birth tourism)
    (7) Bill C-6 (citizenship for terrorists)
    (8) M-103 (Iqra’s Blasphemy Motion)
    2008 UN Vote to ban blasphemy (worldwide)
    (9) $595M bribery of journalists, Pg40
    (10) Agenda 21 (June 1992)
    (11) Agenda 2030 (September 2015)
    (12) UN Global Citizen Education
    UN Education Learning Objectives
    UN Education Global Citizen FAQ
    UN Education Global Citizen, Manitoba
    (13) UN Internet Governance
    Items in the above list addressed:
    RIGHT HERE

    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 9 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 mirgrants “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.

    Does the U.N. do any good?
    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.

    Public Policy Ideas #1: (Bring The Lefties/Normies to the Other Side)

    Disclaimer: The views are personal and no claim is made that they represent any other person, policy or party.

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

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

    Maxime Bernier makes policy arguments about why he left the CPC: (a) Equalization formula being unfair; (b) Supply management screwing over Canadians; (c) Free trade not supported by CPC members; (d) Trade war looming with U.S. over NAFTA and tariffs; (e) Corporate subsidies, to Ford, Bombardier, and others, which are a form of welfare; (f) Bloating bureaucracy with new ministers; (g) Vote buying in individual regions; (h) Refusing to discuss immigration and multiculturalism for fear of offending; (i) Pandering to ethnic groups and identity politics to buy votes; (j) Relying on polls and focus groups rather than having principles; (k) CPC has become morally bankrupt and stands for nothing; (l) Politics should be done differently

    Andrew Scheer makes personal arguments about why Bernier left the party: (a) MB refusing to accept his 2017 loss; (b) MB is selfish; (c) MB needs to offer ideas and never did; (d) MB is putting personal ambition over party success.

    At 0:20 (in the top video), Bernier states: ”My job is to offer solutions from a conservative perspective. Otherwise, what would be the point of getting involved in politics?”

    Here is the main point of the article. Bernier started the PPC in order to advance conservative ideas, and to offer an alternative voice to millions of Canadians. However, there are some conservative policies that can benefit more left leaning voters as well, if the benefits are discussed honestly.

    In order to attract Canadians from all areas on the political spectrum, it is necessary to offer ideas that benefit Canadians from all sides of the political spectrum. Not to pander to any particular group, but to offer common solutions.

    Here are some ideas: (1) Lowering immigration; (2) Ending identity politics; (3) Promoting unity; (4) Dismantling crown corporations; (5) Environmental Protection.

    ***********************************************************

    #1: Cutting Immigration Benefits Low Income Canadians

    This is not to assert at all that there are not benefits to limited and controlled immigration. And to preempt any such claims, no, it is not a call to racial supremacy. However, there are a number of valid arguments to support this position:

    (a) The employment rate is a supply/demand type of issue. When the number of job seekers (supply) rises, then the relative need (demand) falls. It means more people competing for fewer jobs, and that employers are in a position to pay less. That impacts lower earners the most. This is not racial claim in any way, just acknowledging a fact: more workers for less jobs drives down wages. Ann Coulter explains it very well.

    (b) As social justice types like to point out, people usually don’t commit crime because they are bad, but often because of poverty, society, and lack of opportunities. To a degree, they are right. By that logic, wouldn’t it reduce some of the stressers that lead to crime?

    (c) Housing prices, likewise, are also determined in a supply/demand fashion. See this article. More people competing for the same amount of housing drives prices up for both buying and renting.

    (d) School learning may be drastically altered depending on the demographics and size of the immigration. For example, in California, Proposition 58 overturned the requirement that school be taught in English. Many parents were outraged that American born students were now having lessons taught in Spanish. This isn’t bigotry. The U.S. is an English country. And who attends public schools as opposed to private schools?

    (e) Publicly funded health care is something the left claims is fundamental to being a Canadian. And to a degree, they are right. However, with higher immigration rates, it will put a burden on Canada’a public system, especially for those coming from countries where health care is relatively lacking. This results in longer wait times, and it won’t be the wealthy in those long waiting lines. It will be lower income people.

    (f) If less money is spent on immigration programs, then there will be more money available to promotes Canadians to have more children. Which socio-economic group would benefit most from that?

    (g) Regarding illegal immigration, the above still applies, but with the added downside that it is a slap in the face to those who come through legally. It rewards people for breaking the law, and punishes those who follow the law.

    ***********************************************************

    #2: Ending Identity Politics Benefits All Canadians

    This could have been added to #1, but after some thought, it deserves its own category.

    As Canadians, we are one people. Yes, we have equality based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc…. But just because we are equal under all these criteria, does not mean we must constantly focus on all these criteria.

    Many people come every year to Canada, to be Canadian. They want to be a part of the society, not to be singled out for their differences. Identity politics makes this a problem since you are nothing but part of an identity group (or groups) under this system. As such, what we have in common as a nation should be the focus of our talks and discussions.

    That is explained here, here, here, and here. We do not need race hustlers like this, or like this.

    Identity politics is division. Full stop.

    That said, it still is baffling how people who support identity politics are offended by the idea of a national identity. A nation is reflected by its people. Rather than standing as one unit (albeit with some internal differences), those would support dividing the nation into small tribes that consider each other enemies.

    This is not the message we should be sending to newcomers. We are one people.

    ***********************************************************

    #3: Unity is Our Strength, Regardless of Your Politics

    The whole idea of multiculturalism is absurd. Having nothing in common with your neighbours does not make for a strong society. Tolerating everything, including this, becomes more important than defining what a nation is. To repeat, we can have differences between people, and different groups of people, but there has to be something that binds us together.

    Civic nationalism is the concept that a nation and its people are held together by civic values, such as freedom and equality. The nation are bonded by abstract ideas, which are shared and promoted within. There certainly is a strong case to made that values and laws bind us.

    However, what makes one civic nationalist country different than another? Don’t they all support freedom, tolerance and equality? And besides values, don’t people need something to bond them? If not values, then identity?

    Tucker Carlson argued at PolitiCon that a common language is a strong unifier. Vladimir Putin argued that religion is such a unifier. Writer Steve Turley argues that religion and cultural traditions are what hold a society together. Candace Malcolm wrote that diversity is only one part of the picture. Maxime Bernier himself tweeted about focusing on traditions. All argue a form of ethno nationalism. (And no, it doesn’t have to be about race). There are many of these types of unifiers, but the underlying element is that the people have to have something in common. Values alone is insufficient.

    Nations have been splitting up over the last century because they had nothing in common. They were balkanised. One exception is East and West Germany reuniting because they had a common language and culture.

    It would be far more productive than what the status quo to have an honest discussion about what unites us as Canadians, and how we can make the society more cohesive. Unity is our strength.

    ***********************************************************

    #4: Dismantling Crown Corporations Makes Things Affordable

    In short, a private business must operate efficiently in order to survive. If it delivers poor service, strikes frequently, or has huge cost overruns, then it goes out of business.

    A government agency, for the most part, does not have to worry about such things. It is being supported by the public, and usually holds a monopoly. If it is run inefficiently, just raise taxes. If the workers strike every year, oh well. If the service and employees are truly awful, it doesn’t matter, as they are the only game in town.

    2 such examples are ICBC, and Canada Post. Privatizing services where possible leads to more affordable products.

    ***********************************************************

    #5: Protecting the Environment Benefits Everyone

    The UN global warming summits are a complete hoax. Polluting is okay as long as you pay a tax, or fly tens of thousands of people every year to summits to discuss cutting carbon emissions.

    However, that is not to say there are not significant issues to address. There are: lacks of clean drinking water in areas; forest fires in the west annually; issues around oil extraction and pipelines; air quality in some areas; hazards in mining; forestry and invasive species; and many other problems.

    The environment should be of everyone’s concern regardless of whether you view it from: an individual point of view, or a societal point of view. Unfortunately, when money and politics gets involved, honesty is about the first thing to go.

    Admission: I don’t know nearly enough to advocate for specific policies. However, this is an issue which we have a common interest.

    ***********************************************************

    The list could go on, but Part 1 will stop here. Expect a followup article.

    Despite personally having conservative/libertarian views, it does not mean that reaching out is impossible.

    Bring the lefties/normies to the other side where possible. There is much we have in common, and there are so many laws and policies that can benefit us all. We should focus on solutions for everyone, rather than pandering to each ”tribe” or ”clan”.

    Unity is strength.
    Diversity (of thought) is strength.