Category: Canada

Posted on

Claim That Masks, Other Restrictions, Violate Religious Beliefs

(This is Doug Ford in April 2020 telling the public that he thinks masks are beneficial, but won’t say or do anything without the approval of the Health Department. Not like he’s Premier of Ontario or anything.)

(This is Doug Ford in October 2018 telling the public that respecting civil rights and religious freedoms is more important than public safety. Apparently the laws of gravity don’t apply since the turban is religious.)

1. Previous Solutions Offered

A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.

2. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

As of the time of writing this, the “planned-emic” series has 23 pieces in it, including efforts to shift the culture, in order to make mask wearing the new normal. Lots of detail in the series.

3. Helmets Mentioned In Previous Article

The topic of letting motorcycle riders evade health and safety regulations was mentioned on this site nearly 2 years ago. While it seemed absurd at the time, perhaps there is a silver lining to this double standard.

Whatever faith you may belong to, it doesn’t matter. But know that from this day on: your religious beliefs don’t allow you to wear a mask in public. Forcing you to do so will violate your conscience and beliefs.

4. Resisting The “Culture Shift”

This was brought up in the last coronavirus piece but worth repeating. There is a deliberate, conscious, and planned effort to make mask wearing normalized and mandatory throughout the world. In parts of the West, this is not so much being imposed, but by attempts to “shift the culture”, to make this the new way of life. It’s time to fight back against it.

There aren’t criminal penalties in the West for not wearing masks — yet. But that doesn’t mean that it won’t happen at some point in the future.

5. BC Exemption On Helmets For Sikhs

“Point in Time” Regulation Content
Motor Vehicle Act
Motorcycle Safety Helmet Exemption Regulation
B.C. Reg. 237/99
Section 1 BEFORE amended by BC Reg 62/2017, effective March 1, 2017.
Exemption
1 The following persons are exempt from the requirements of section 221 of the Motor Vehicle Act:
(a) a person who
(i) practices the Sikh religion, and
(ii) has unshorn hair and habitually wears a turban composed of 5 or more square meters of cloth.

BC has given Sikhs an exemption on wearing helmets when riding a motorcycle since 2017.

6. Alberta Exemption On Helmets For Sikhs

Overview
Sikhs who wear turbans are exempt from:
.
the Vehicle Equipment Regulation helmet requirement in the Traffic Safety Act
the Off-highway Vehicle Regulation helmet requirement in the Traffic Safety Act
.
This means:
drivers and passengers who are over 18 and are bona fide members of the Sikh religion who wear a turban can ride a motorcycle without using a helmet
.
drivers and passengers who are bona fide members of the Sikh religion who wear a turban can ride an off-highway vehicle without using a helmet
.
Turbans are an integral part of the Sikh identity. This decision allows them to ride without having to remove their turban.
Alberta is the third jurisdiction in Canada to allow this exemption, alongside British Columbia and Manitoba.

In March 2018, Alberta gave Sikhs and exemption on helmets.

7. Manitoba Exemption On Helmets For Sikhs


Motorcycle-handbook.manitoba

The following persons are exempt from wearing a helmet:
• persons riding motorcycles in a legally-authorized parade
• bona fide members of the Sikh religion

On page 8 of the handbook, it clearly states that Sikhs are exempt from wearing helmets, as are people taking part in a parade.

8. Ontario Exemption On Helmets For Sikhs

Despite obvious safety concerns with letting some people ride motorcycles without helmet, Ford seems to think that religious freedom is a much more important virtue.

9. Quebec Hypocrisy On Face Coverings

(This is Quebec Premier Francois Legault in 2019 saying that he will use the “Notwithstanding Clause” if needed to ban religious symbols — which include face coverings — from people in government positions. Many countries have banned the Muslim face veil as a security risk.)

(This is Francois Legault in 2020 saying that he strongly recommends everyone wearing face masks in public. Apparently it’s in order to help protect public health.)

10. CHRC – Duty To Accommodate

Employers and service providers have an obligation to adjust rules, policies or practices to enable you to participate fully. It applies to needs that are related to the grounds of discrimination. This is called the duty to accommodate.

The duty to accommodate means that sometimes it is necessary to treat someone differently in order to prevent or reduce discrimination. For examples, asking all job applicants to pass a written test may not be fair to a person with a visual disability. In such cases, the duty to accommodate may require that alternative arrangements be made to ensure that a person or group can fully participate.

What is Undue Hardship?
It is also important to consider that there is a reasonable limit to how far your employer or service provider has to go to accommodate your needs. Sometimes accommodation is not possible because it would cost too much, or create health or safety risks. This is known as undue hardship. Your employer or service provider can claim undue hardship as the reason why certain policies or practices need to stay in place, even though they may have a negative effect on you. They will need to provide sufficient evidence.

Would a service provider be required to make an exception for this planned-emic? Difficult to say how it would play out in court, or at a human rights tribunal. That said, this tactic can definitely be a “boot on the neck” to getting around any requirements in most cases.

11. Mask Objections: Specific Religions

If you are a Muslim (or just “identifying” as one) remind the person that in the Middle East, the headscarf and face coverings are used to subjugate and enslave women. It’s not a sign of religious freedom, but one of being a prisoner. If the service provider doesn’t take a hint, you can always can them a sexist and Islamophobe.

If you are Jewish (or just “identifying” as such) remind the person that attempts to erase your people have been made throughout history. If the service provider doesn’t take the hint, remind him/her that 6 million people died in the Holocaust. If the person still doesn’t get it, feel free to start dropping the term anti-Semite.

There are other religions of course. Feel free to find a scripture that helps your case, no matter how weak or flimsy, to justify your refusal. Reminder, passages can always be quoted out of context, and store clerks probably won’t know the difference. Should that fail, just gaslight the person as a bigot.

12. Alternative: Get A Medical Note

An alternative to this is going to a walk in clinic to get a medical note to attest to the fact that you have a medical condition (such as asthma) that will make wearing a mask unhealthy. There will probably be a fee to pay, but it may be worth it to you.

A further alternative is to just create your own doctor’s note. With Photoshop, and many similar applications, the average computer user can generate a realistic looking note in minutes. No need to prove anything, since doctor-patient confidentiality is grounded in law.

13. Reject Masks, Vote With Your Wallet

If you have a variety of places to shop from, one option is to stop patronizing places which require masks. This avoids the confrontation aspect, but in numbers it sends the message that people won’t shop at such a place.

14. Masks Are About Asserting Control

Does it make sense that a Quebec town would change the law to require masks be worn in public, but not have it kick in for another month? How about Brampton announcing they will be mandatory on transit, in another month? Or Toronto requiring them for transit riders — in another 2 weeks? Make no mistake. This is all about asserting control and domination over you.

But there is a solution. Remember, your religious beliefs do not allow you to wear face coverings. Governments, employers and service providers have a duty to accommodate. While a few may push back and claim it is an undue burden, most will not. This is especially true if you happen to be filming them and suggest it will be posted online.

Never forget: your well being, and the well being of your family members come first. If it means putting a “foot on the neck” of someone just following orders, then so be it. That excuse didn’t work for the Nazis either.

Posted on

The Mockingbird (Trudeau) Foundation Of Canada

1. Media Bias, Lies, Omissions And Corruption

CLICK HERE, for #1: Unifor in bed with Federal Gov’t
CLICK HERE, for #2: Global News’ selective truth on TRP granted.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Post Media owning most Canadian media.
CLICK HERE, for #4: conservative content dominated by Koch/Atlas.
CLICK HERE, for #5: origins of Malcolm’s “charity” True North Canada.
CLICK HERE, for #6: the people running the Post Millennial.
CLICK HERE, for #7: how to do research, investigative journalism.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Koch/Atlas both sides, AB court challenge.
CLICK HERE, for #9: picking up on predictive programming.
CLICK HERE, for #10: Trudeau Foundation & media embeds.
CLICK HERE, for #11: Trudeau swapped out for body double?
CLICK HERE, for #12: Shanifa Nasser, racism narrative, FHA.
CLICK HERE, for #13: George Floyd “murder” was staged psy-op.
CLICK HERE, for #14: culture shift to make face masks normal.
CLICK HERE, for #15: response times, crisis actors, dummy swap.

2. Context For This Article

In order to fairly and accurately report on political and social events, the media has to have a certain level of detachment from the situation. Understandably, one cannot be a part of an organization, yet do any real investigative work on it. There is an obvious conflict of interest.

But that is exactly the case with the Trudeau Foundation. Many prominent members of the media (and former members) are part of the Foundation. This becomes a problem since they do little to hold the Foundation, or the Trudeau Family, to account for anything.

It must be mentioned, however, that Koch/Atlas cronies are prominent in so-called conservative media. Also, Post Media is the parent company of not only mainstream publications, but many alternative ones as well.

3(a). Candis Callison

From the UBC Graduate School of Journalism.

3(b). Susan Delacourt

Delacourt writes for (among other outlets), the Toronto Star.

3(c). Graham Fraser

After a long career in journalism, he is appointed Commissioner of Official Languages in Canada.

3(d). John Fraser

Now he is Executive Chair of the National NewsMedia Council.

3(e). Chantel Hebert

A longtime writer for many outlets, such as Toronto Star.

3(f). Daniel Lessard

After 39 years with Radio Canada, he gets the order of Canada.

3(g). Laxmi Parthasarathy

The Chief Operating Officer of Global Press.

3(h). Valerie Pringle

Much of Pringle’s career spent at the CBC.

3(i). Jeffrey Simpson

Former writer for the Globe & Mail.

3(j). John Stackhouse

Former editor-in-chief of the Globe & Mail

3(k). Robert Steiner

From the Munk School of Global Affairs, Steiner is a fellow.

3(l). Rosemary Thompson

20 years in journalism, mostly with CBC and CTV.

3(m). Marie Wilson

Yet another ex-CBC journalist on the Trudeau Foundation.

3(n). Lynn Zimmer

Former writer for Peterborough Examiner.

What is the result of the media being in bed with the Trudeau Foundation? For starters, they don’t seem to care about how many politicians or judges are also part of the group. Again, the conflict of interest is clear for everyone to see.

4(a). Ed Broadbent – NDP Leader

4(b).Philippe Couillard – QC Premier

4(c). Raymond Chretien – Ambassador

4(d). Michael Fortier – Senator

4(e). Michael Harcourt – BC Premier

4(f). Megan Leslie — NDP Deputy Leader

4(g). Wade MacLauchlan – PEI Premier

4(h). Elizabeth May – Green Party Leader

4(i). Anne McLellan – Deputy PM

4(j). Ed Roberts – NFLD Lt. Governor

4(k). Roy Romanow – Saskatchewan Premier

4(l). John Sims – Deputy AG

4(m). Chuck Strahl – Privy Council

Yes, politicians across the spectrum are also involved with the Trudeau Foundation. Makes one wonder how ideologically divided they are if membership in this group (named after a former Prime Minister), is no big deal for any of them. And things are about to get even worse still.

of course, many of these people have left their positions, but still.

5(a). Thomas Cromwell – SCC Justice

5(b). Marie DesChamps – SCC Justice

5(c). Louis LeBel – SCC Justice

5(d). Beverley McLachlin – SCC Justice

5(e). Louise Arbour – SCC Justice

5(f). Lynn Smith – BCSC Justice

Five former Supreme Court of Canada Justices, and 1 BC Supreme Court Justice are also members of the Trudeau Foundation. This won’t help with the impression that the judiciary is independent of the executive branch of government.

6. Jacques Bougie – SNC Lavalin

This person being with both Trudeau Foundation and on the SNC Lavalin Board of Directors wouldn’t have anything to do with how Lavalin got its deferred prosecution agreement, would it? No, didn’t think so.

Of course let’s not forget John McCall MacBain, head of the European Climate Foundation, or Roy Heenan, co-founder of the law firm Heenan Blaikie.

7. Are They All Involved?

Why is the mainstream media in Canada so hesitant to report on topics like the Trudeau Foundation, and why won’t they go into depth when they do? Consider the makeup of past and present members of the Trudeau Foundation:

  • Prominent members of the media
  • Politicians of all parties
  • Supreme Court Justices
  • Members of academia

What you see is an organization that has members of: (a) the media; (b) politicians; (c) the courts; and (d) universities, all under the same umbrella. There is no independence here, no checks and balances.

Posted on

Push Back On Pride And “Conversion Therapy” Bans

1. Previous Solutions Offered

A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.

2. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

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

3. Important Links

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/un.conversion.therapy.risks_.pdf
(2) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=10686845
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Bill.c8.ban_.on_.conversion.therapy.pdf
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-37.html#h-118363
(5) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/conversion-therapy-what-you-need-to-know-1.5209598
(6) https://www.jwatch.org/pa200901280000004/2009/01/28/does-gender-dysphoria-young-children-persist
(7) http://archive.is/yyJ99
(8) https://www.psypost.org/2017/12/many-transgender-kids-grow-stay-trans-50499

4. Context For This Piece

This isn’t an attempt to make a religious argument on the SOGI (sexual orientation, gender identity) agenda. Instead, this is more of the effects — both intended and unintended — that this ideology causes. The primary focus is on changing one’s gender/sex, though the same issues apply (to a lesser degree), for sexual orientation.

Undeniably, having this issue promoted the way it is creates a few problems. First, there are a lot of physical and mental health issues that are still present. Second, genuine criticism and concern is frequently shut down under the pretense of bigotry. This can also lead to doxing and damaged careers. Third, it allows those with an agenda to essentially rewrite the laws for society as a whole. Fourth, the lives that get destroyed are often lost and ignored afterwards.

While the “conversion techniques” described in the UN report are barbaric and savage, this is not an effort to endorse SOGI. Trying to change one’s sex is not something that should become normalized or promoted. This is especially true among children.

Don’t get the wrong idea. There are serious issues that people face, and compassion is needed. However, the solutions that are promoted and pushed in society today are destructive and harmful, and need to be called out.

Consider this: instead of mangling and destroying your body, what if that peace could be achieved another way? Isn’t finding a way to be happy a better option?

5. Why Is Pride Even Needed?

Let’s just address this briefly: what is even the point of having Pride every year? If the goal was about legal equality, that has been achieved long ago. Even same sex marriage became legalized nationally in 2005.

Think it through. Once all of the major issues are resolved, then whatever is left is less and less important. Bake my cake? Wax my privates? Cater my wedding? Are these really the problems that are plaguing society?

Whether accidental or by design, the continued push by LGBTQ activists has the effect of causing people who were otherwise accepting of the movement to begin rejecting it. Purity spirals never end well.

6. UN Wants Ban On Conversion Therapy

83. Practices of “conversion therapy”, based on the incorrect and harmful notion that sexual and gender diversity are disorders to be corrected, are discriminatory in nature. Furthermore, actions to subject lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans or gender-diverse persons to practices of “conversion therapy” are by their very nature degrading, inhuman and cruel and create a significant risk of torture. States must examine specific cases in the light of the international, regional and local framework on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and/or punishment.

84. Perpetrators of abuse through practices of “conversion therapy” include private and public mental health-care providers, faith-based organizations, traditional healers and State agents; promoters additionally include family and community members, political authorities and other agents.

85. Under the conditions established by international human rights law and the international framework on torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, practices of “conversion therapy” may engage the international responsibility of the State.

86. Practices of “conversion therapy” provoke profound psychological and physical damage in lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans or gender-diverse persons of all ages, in all regions of the world.

87. In view of the foregoing, the Independent Expert recommends that States:
(a) Ban the practices of “conversion therapy” as described in the present report, including by:
(i) Clearly establishing, through appropriate legal or administrative means, a definition of prohibited practices of “conversion therapy”, and ensuring that public funds are not used, directly or indirectly, to support them;
(ii) Banning practices of “conversion therapy” from being advertised and carried out in health-care, religious, education, community, commercial or any other settings, public or private;
(iii) Establishing a system of sanctions for non-compliance with the ban on practices of “conversion therapy”, commensurate with their gravity, including in particular, that claims should be promptly investigated and, if relevant, prosecuted and punished, under the parameters established under the international human rights obligations pertaining to the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
(iv) Creating monitoring, support and complaint mechanisms so that victims of practices of “conversion therapy” have access to all forms of reparations, including the right to rehabilitation, as well as legal assistance;

un.conversion.therapy.risks

The report does list several forms of “conversion therapy” that are absolutely horrific, such as forced gang rape. These are inexcusable under any circumstances.

That being said, the UN findings take the position that SOGI should be normalized and accepted by everyone. It implies that even very young children should be able to engage in this sort of behaviour. It isn’t normal for very young children (or anyone for that matter), to want to change their gender, yet the UN report makes no mention of it. Instead, people should be accepted as they are.

The UN report leaves out many important details and topics which should be addressed. However, the report is clearly motivated by ideology, not compassion or truth.

7. Canada’s Bill C-8, Conversion Therapy Ban

Bill.c8.ban.on.conversion.therapy

Interestingly, Bill C-8 would list materials promoting conversion therapy to be materials corruption public morals in the Canadian Criminal Code.

As this Federal bill is just one example of this nonsense being pushed, consider the mental gymnastics needed for any of this to make sense. A father can’t stop his 11 year old child from starting a sex change, because it would be in the interests of the child. Yet, the Federal Government in 2018 watered down the criminal penalties for sex crimes against children. The also lowered the age of consent for anal sex, because that was supposedly a priority.

Various bills and laws are being considered across the world to ban conversion therapy. Now, some methods in the 3rd world are pretty savage, efforts should be made to determine if the person (especially a child) really wants to do this. The person should also be made fully aware of the consequences they are facing.

In 2019, the CBC wrote about the proposed ban, mentioning health risks depending on the type of conversion, but provided little concrete detail. Omitted was the harm that transitioning young children can cause.

8. Long Term “Aging Out” Research

A 2009 study of adolescents with gender dysphoria found that for the majority, this did not persist into adulthood. To be fair, a large part of the original sample group wasn’t available.

Steensma-2013_desistance-rates
A 2013 study found that 84% of adolescents who had gender dysphoria had their symptoms stop in adulthood.

An article was written in 2016 by Jesse Singal about what was missing from the discussion from trans-activists: regrets, and people wishing to change back.

James Cantor has a dozen studies listed in this article which followed on teens/adolescents with gender dysphoria

  • Lebovitz, P. S. (1972). Feminine behavior in boys: Aspects of its outcome. American Journal of Psychiatry, 128, 1283–1289
  • Zuger, B. (1978). Effeminate behavior present in boys from childhood: Ten additional years of follow-up. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 19, 363–369
  • Money, J., & Russo, A. J. (1979). Homosexual outcome of discordant gender identity/role: Longitudinal follow-up. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 4, 29–41
  • Zuger, B. (1984). Early effeminate behavior in boys: Outcome and significance for homosexuality. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 172, 90–97.
  • Davenport, C. W. (1986). A follow-up study of 10 feminine boys. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 511–517.
  • Green, R. (1987). The “sissy boy syndrome” and the development of homosexuality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Kosky, R. J. (1987). Gender-disordered children: Does inpatient treatment help? Medical Journal of Australia, 146, 565–569
  • Wallien, M. S. C., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2008). Psychosexual outcome of gender-dysphoric children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1413–1423.
  • Drummond, K. D., Bradley, S. J., Badali-Peterson, M., & Zucker, K. J. (2008). A follow-up study of girls with gender identity disorder. Developmental Psychology, 44, 34–45.
  • Singh, D. (2012). A follow-up study of boys with gender identity disorder. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
    Steensma, T. D., McGuire, J. K., Kreukels, B. P. C., Beekman, A. J., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2013). Factors associated with desistence
  • and persistence of childhood gender dysphoria: A quantitative follow-up study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 52, 582–590.

Plenty of available research suggests the overwhelming majority of youth with gender dysphoria eventually get past it. So why exactly the push to have younger and younger children participating and messing up their lives?

Does banning conversion therapy mean that this type of research will become banned? Will it be considered hate speech to talk about it? How does hiding the plentiful amount of study done help people suffering from this condition? Of course this doesn’t even get into the tons of comorbid conditions and the suicide rates.

Don’t Liberals routinely claim that they are the “party of science”? Or does that only matter when the science fits their preshaped agenda?

9. Gender Dysphoria/Autism Link?

While it may be too early to say definitively, research has been done into gender dysphoria and other conditions such as Autism and Aspberger’s. If there is any truth to it, giving hormone blockers to autistic people (especially autistic children) amounts to medical malpractice and child abuse.

10. Bill C-16 Already Silenced Debate

To a large degree, Bill C-16 has already cut off a large part of the debate at least regarding the trans issue. Both the Canadian Criminal Code, and the Canadian Human Rights Code were amended to make “gender identity or expression” a protected ground.

To start out: “gender identity or expression” is so vague that it could be applied to a lot of different things. It doesn’t just refer to people who are transgender. Nor does it prevent someone from demanding made up pronouns, or repeatedly changing their pronouns.

What most likely started off with good intentions is a disaster waiting to happen.

11. Society Shouldn’t Normalize This

Instead of condemning conversion therapy as horrible, realize that trying to make people content in their bodies should at least be considered. Rather than making mutilation the first option, it should be the last thing (the very last thing), considered by doctors and others in the field.

In contrast to the instinct to make the child happy, responsible parents should make every effort to find out what is wrong with the child and find a way to deal with it.

If someone has a legitimate condition and needs to find a way to deal it, fine. But society shouldn’t be making this sort of thing mainstream, or encourage others to do it.

The incessant, never-ending demands of activists make even many tolerant people stop caring, or become outright resentful.

Posted on

IMM #1(B): CANZUK Expansion, The Open Borders Bait-And-Switch

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. There is so much information that politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” are withholding.

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

2. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

The other posts on outsourcing/offshoring are available here. It focuses on the hidden costs and trade offs society as a whole has to make. Contrary to what many politicians and figures in the media claim, there are always costs to these kinds of agreement. These include: (a) job losses; (b) wages being driven down; (c) undercutting of local companies; (d) legal action by foreign entities; (e) industries being outsourced; and (f) losses to communities when major employers leave. Don’t believe the lies that these agreements are overwhelmingly beneficial to all.

3. Important Links

(1) https://www.canzukinternational.com/2018/07/which-countries.html
(2) http://archive.is/vH7wu
(3) Which Countries Could Eventually Join CANZUK_ – CANZUK International
(4) https://extranewsfeed.com/how-canzuk-could-change-the-shape-of-the-modern-world-64caf3756933
(5) http://archive.is/7ckF7
(6) https://www.canzuk.org/canzuk_a_bold_idea_for_a_new_kind_of_trade_bloc.php
(7) http://archive.is/TAcAU
(8) https://www.canzuk.co.uk/single-post/2017/03/10/Lilico-What-other-countries-might-eventually-join-CANZUK
(9) http://archive.is/Il7Br

4. CANZUK’s Luke Fortmann On Expansion

As proponents of a new and exciting geopolitical union between the four CANZUK nations (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK), we’re very often met with one particular question: looking ahead, who else might be able to join the partnership?

It should be said that a new Commonwealth union would be welcoming of any potential members – with each being considered on a case-by-case basis – and that the CANZUK project is very much a work in progress; always receptive of fresh ideas and potential avenues to explore.

A useful way to begin is by taking a look at the CANZUK countries’ dependent territories, such as Christmas Island, the Cook Islands and Anguilla, for example, which are dependencies of Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, respectively, as well as the UK’s Crown dependencies (Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man).

Each area would naturally become full members of the new group along with the nations to which they are related. Some advocates claim that these small islands, and their generally sparse populations, are currently under-utilised, and that a CANZUK alliance would offer a tremendous opportunity for their communities to acquire a far more extensive set of rights by becoming equal partners in a union, while shaking off their somewhat colonial tint.

Widening our scope, we arrive at the Commonwealth realms. These realms are sovereign states who are members of the Commonwealth and who currently share Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch, of which, there are 16 including the CANZUK countries.

A further concern, and no doubt the most pressing, is that a union involving most or all of the current Commonwealth would be a political impossibility, with almost every country having broken off colonial ties with the British in order to achieve their independence, which says nothing for the relationships between some of the nations (India and Pakistan or Bangladesh and Pakistan, for example). Of course, it would be entirely possible for individual Commonwealth countries to make a solo membership claim.

When weighing up the potential barriers to entry that many of these Commonwealth countries have, we’re often confronted with the challenge that this new alliance is concerned only with nations that are populated by white folk. Such criticism is fairly lazy and can be easily dealt with. Firstly, as we’ve just seen, there’s absolutely no reason why these countries couldn’t join in the future, so long as efforts were directed at bringing them up to par in the ways just discussed.

The original article was deleted, but thankfully it is archived. CANZUK researcher Luke Fortmann writes about the possible expansion and states that options are “always being considered”. To be blunt, this 4 nation alliance could swell.

Also, he does acknowledge that expansion would lead to mass migration to the original 4 nations, and to their demographic replacement. But he doesn’t seem to care as long as it’s done in an orderly fashion.

4. Erin O’Toole Supports Expanding CANZUK

Listen to Erin O’Toole at 2:00 in the video

We can take it to the next level, to show that multi-later organizations can be aspirational. Where you have the rule of law, GDP, respect for rights, the Common Law system, the ability to support a free market, that you’ll work more together. Then we let more and more countries in, and revolutionize opportunities with CANZUK. Please support it. Thank you.

5. Australian Senator Paterson Supports It

Senator Paterson has also let it slip that he sees expanding the CANZUK zone as quite possible as soon as it is operational. The initial 4 are just the starting point. Interestingly, he points out that CANZUK is effectively an expansion of the 1973 Trans-Tasmanian Agreement.

(3:50) Rather than drafting a new agreement entirely from scratch, Australia should advocate adding Canada and the U.K. to the [Closer Economic Relations] Agreement, with only a few major changes if required…. Like the CER, CANZUK would include the freedom of movement between the 4 Commonwealth countries.

It could act as a strong voice in favour of the rules-based liberal order, that is under attack from populist movements on both sides of the political aisle around the world. Over time, this is a group which could grow. In the past week, I’ve had many good suggestions of countries that would make logical additions to CANZUK. Getting the core building block in place, though, I think makes sense.

Again, a bait-and-switch. Promoting it as just a 4 nation pact is the selling feature. Goal is to expand it once it’s fully operational.

6. Free Movement Is Primary Goal

Steve Paiken points out that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the U.K. happen to be majority white “for now”. Great emphasis. Knowing that it will change pretty soon. The people in the video make it clear they don’t care about demographic change.

7. ExtraNewsFeed Article On CANZUK

That leads into the benefit for the group in terms of geopolitics. Forming a close economic alliance with the EU would be easier for the bloc, and the two unions combined would have a population of 600 million people, around an eleventh of the world’s population. The combined economies of the two blocs would represent over a quarter of world GDP, at around $23 trillion.

Throw the US in as a partner, and this Western/Anglophone bloc is now worth half of the world’s economy and hosts an eighth of its people.

Some have mooted that the US or some African Anglophone countries might also join such a union, although this would certainly complicate trade matters and the idea of free movement. Perhaps a second “outer ring” union, with a pathway to full membership contingent on democratisation and economic development, could be created for other Anglophone countries.

That’s right. The article promoting CANZUK suggests creating a “secondary” level of nations, with a pathway to eventual full partnership.

8. CANZUK.org On Expanding The Zone

So, each of the CANZUK nations have focused on their local geographic regions with their trade deals, for reasons of proximity and ease of transport. But there would seem to be a huge opportunity here – for collaboration in free trade deals with each other’s home regions. For example, Australia and New Zealand already have free trade deals with China – Canada and the UK could hitch a ride onto these existing channels. And all four nations are interested in a trade deal with India – why not combine efforts?

These would have small effects to start with; but when combined over three regions – Asia-Pacific, North America and Europe, the effects would accumulate. Essentially, trade deals which would be too marginal to be worth pursuing on an individual national basis (for example, Australia-Norway) could be wrapped into a CANZUK framework. In this case, the UK would be the lead partner, opening their region to the other CANZUK partners.

Exactly how this would work remains to be seen. You could have a single CANZUK trade delegation, working together to land bigger deals, or a piecemeal approach, where the region lead partner(s) initiates the approach, bringing the others along for the ride as negotiations proceed.

While the talk of expansion appears to be in the context of trade, it would lead to economic harm, given how places like India and China can simply underbid local companies and put them out of work. And who’s to say it “won’t” lead to free movement at some point?

9. UK CANZUK On Expanding The Zone

I’m an advocate of creating a new geopolitical partnership between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK (CANZUK). This would begin with a free trade agreement, an agreement for free movement to live and work, and a defence and security partnership. If that were seen to function well, we might move on to establish an ever closer union principle, and create some formal mechanisms for caucusing our views in global debates and enhancing mutual recognition of regulation and coordinating in other relevant ways. The aim would not be to create a new integrated superstate (certainly not at first, and probably not for many decades or centuries, if at all) but, rather, a geopolitical partnership, akin to the European Economic Community or Warsaw Pact partnerships of the 1970s.

However, a more natural way to proceed would surely be to get CANZUK established and if those initial countries worked well together for a few decades, we could then consider adding the Bahamas, Barbados, Antigua and St Kitts, perhaps after some providing some assistance to raise their GDPs per capita a little closer to ours.

Overall, then, it would be best to begin with the narrower set of countries that are most compatible. That will be challenge enough to start with. That does not mean that in some decades time we should not consider adding countries with similar constitutions, such as The Bahamas or Barbados, if they can raise their GDP per capita and reduce their murder rates. But decisions on that question are, at this stage, many decades away.

Yet another piece reiterating that the current list (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom), are not the end result. Many more countries could be added at some point.

10. CANZUK Report Addresses Expansion

CANZUK-International-The-Future-of-Post-Brexit-Britain-2019

From a socio-economic standpoint, it is clear that integrating other Commonwealth nations within a facilitated migration initiative at this time would not work. At present, additional countries (such as South Africa, India, Jamaica and Pakistan, to name a few) do not meet the economic criteria that is essential for facilitated migration to succeed, as the benefits of reciprocal migration can only be guaranteed by Commonwealth countries that are very similar in terms of socio-economic characteristics.

There is no reason why additional countries within the Commonwealth would not be able to eventually join a facilitated migration initiative, but for the foreseeable future, the CANZUK countries are so similar in terms of social, economic, cultural and historical factors, it would be folly not to promote reciprocal migration, free trade and foreign policy among these countries and observe the benefits that such arrangements would bring

Read between the lines (page 9 of the report). Expanding CANZUK beyond the original 4 members doesn’t seem feasible, but doesn’t mean that it can’t or won’t happen at some point.

11. CANZUK Bait-And-Switch

It is sold to the public as a free trade and free movement (visa free) pact between 4 very similar countries. While this may not sound too bad in principle, fact is that expanding it to other countries is also being talked about. What people are being sold on is not the entire story.

Of course, there are other references available to CANZUK expansion, but hopefully the point has already been made here.

Posted on

Controlled Opposition Politicians On Debt & Loans

(Political parties registered with Elections Canada)

Yeah…. this needs to be addressed.

The public is lied to constantly about the national debt in Canada. While media figures and politicians whine about “borrowing and overspending”, they intentionally leave a key piece out of the puzzle: the corruption of the monetary system.

In 1974, then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (without a mandate), stopped using the Bank of Canada to issue money and started using private banking loans. Money is still artificially created, but at least using the Bank of Canada meant that ownership of the debt remained in Canadian hands. There was no legitimate reason for doing so, yet it is rarely questioned in the media.

Instead of continually drawing attention to this change, politicians and media puppets focus on borrowing itself, not the usurious private loans. They focus on a much lesser issue.

This particularly true among “conservatives” and their parties. While many how about excessive borrowing and debt, few (if any), will discuss the changes to the banking system since 1974. By diverting attention away from the main issue, politicians distract the public, and act as a form of controlled opposition.

This is the current list of registered political parties, according to the Elections Canada website:

  • Animal Protection Party of Canada
  • Bloc Québécois
  • Canada’s Fourth Front
  • Canadian Nationalist Party
  • Christian Heritage Party of Canada
  • Communist Party of Canada
  • Conservative Party of Canada
  • Green Party of Canada
  • Liberal Party of Canada
  • Libertarian Party of Canada
  • Marijuana Party
  • Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada
  • National Citizens Alliance of Canada
  • New Democratic Party
  • Parti pour l’Indépendance du Québec
  • Parti Rhinocéros Party
  • People’s Party of Canada
  • Stop Climate Change
  • The United Party of Canada
  • Veterans Coalition Party of Canada

Note: this is not to endorse any one particular candidate or party. This research is just to see who is willing to address the topic of the Banking Cartel in an open and sincere manner.

1. Some Parties “Do” Address Banking Cartel

Before writing off all politicians and political parties as corrupt, it’s worth noting that some of them do address the corruption of the money system in their platforms. Let’s give credit where credit is due.

National Economic Plan
–Restore the Bank of Canada to its purpose as outlined in the Bank Act of 1938.
-Review and potentially repudiate debt incurred by our public institutions.
-Revise the Investment Canada Act so that foreign investment is prohibited in Class A Banks.
–Withdraw ourselves from organizations such as the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) and International Monetary Fund (IMF).
-Increase the reserve ratio of our banking sector from 0%.
-Establish state-owned trusts or funds (GLCs) in major sectors of the economy under a policy of corporatization.

Platform of the Canadian Nationalist Party.

BANK OF CANADA
(a) Canada currently borrows operating and investment capital from other nations and from international bankers and pays interest on the debt incurred—around $70 million every single day!
(b) The CHP would restore the Bank of Canada to its proper function. It would create and provide Canada’s money supply and provide low-interest or interest-free loans to Provinces, crown corporations and municipalities for urgently needed infrastructure.
(c) Current governments, through incorrect use of the Bank of Canada, have created a blight over the futures of our children as they will be forced to repay the debt plus interest.

Platform of the Christian Heritage Party.

Central Banking
Central banking is essentially legal counterfeiting that enriches a few at the expense of the many, increases wealth inequality, erodes buying power, constitutes a tax on the unborn, incentivizes consumption over production, leads to a harmful business cycle of booms and busts, creates market distortions and creates inefficient resource allocation. The Libertarian Party seeks to end the central banks monopoly on money supply and monetary policy and move back to a system of free banking.

Platform of the Libertarian Party of Canada.

Restore the 1934 Bank of Canada Act along with the 1938 Amendment and our own amendments, and thereby re-institute the true Bank of Canada, people’s bank, which fully belongs to the Canadian people, and thereby end the usury, inflation, and control of Canadians’ wealth by central banks.

Platform of National Citizens Alliance.

There may be other parties that have adopted similar policies. However, there are other parties who are clearly aware of the banking system, even if isn’t reflected in their current platforms.

2. Green Party BoC Motion in 2012

Party Commentary
If adopted, this motion will dramatically change the party’s fiscal policies by introducing the requirement that the federal government borrow from the Bank of Canada.

Preamble
-WHEREAS government debt is reaching such critical proportions that many countries are currently facing financial collapse because of the interest on the debts they owe to banks;
-WHEREAS Section 91 of Canada’s Constitution (classes 1A, 4, 14, 15, 18, 19 & 20) on the Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada stipulates that Parliament has full control of the public debt and interest, as well as the right to issue money;
-WHEREAS the interest on money borrowed by the government through the issue of treasury bills and bonds purchased by banks and foreign governments now accounts for about 90% of the total market debt of $596.8 billion (31 March 2011) owed by the people of Canada, and repaying that interest is advantageous to banks but deleterious to the welfare of the country;
-WHEREAS the Bank of Canada issues interest-free currency into circulation for the benefit of the nation, though this is currently only about 5% of the country’s money supply, under the authority of the Bank of Canada Act it is authorized to make interest-free loans to the Government of Canada to make up budget deficits and is currently doing so, by holding approximately $60 billion in Government of Canada bonds and treasury bills;
-WHEREAS the Bank of Canada currently lends the Government of Canada money interest-free through the purchase of government bonds and treasury bills;

Background
The Canadian government has been running deficits since the Trudeau years, except for a few years under Paul Martin when it was finally, painfully, able to move back into a surplus. But even when running a surplus, the government is still paying down the debt accumulated over those decades – debt which is composed of principal, interest, and interest on interest. And interest on interest is by far the largest portion of that debt. A 1993 Auditor General report said that of the accumulated net debt of $423 billion, only $37 billion was principal – the rest was due to the ‘magic’ of compound interest. Thus, a very large portion of all of the painful cutbacks, program cuts, etc. needed to ‘pay down the debt’ are to pay interest on debts owed to bankers. In 2009 (the last year for which data is available on Statcan), Canada paid $28.882 billion in interest charges. Since then, with a return to deficit budgets under the Conservatives, that figure has been rising.
It doesn’t have to be this way. This system of government borrowing is rarely questioned because the people running our banks and central banks have a vested interest to keep the system as it is because it works very well for them – they receive billions in interest payments for the ‘risk’ of lending governments money.

The GPC Shadow Cabinet believes that this is not a fiscally responsible policy. The Bank of Canada already lends at no interest to the government but when it determines that such lending would be inflationary, it requires the government to borrow on private markets. This resolution would undermine the ability of the Bank of Canada to carry out its mandate to control inflation. This approach to government borrowing is essentially the same as was used in Argentina, leading to chronic hyper inflation at great social cost.

It doesn’t appear that this motion was ever adopted into Green Party policy. Nonetheless, it does show that high ranking people in the Green Party (even in 2012), were aware of the scam that is the International Banking Cartel.

Elizabeth May and Jack Layton (then NDP leader), both knew full well about how the banking system worked in Canada. Yet neither would make it a major issue to be decided by Canadians. One really has to wonder how sincere they were, to intentionally leave this out.

3. NDP Socialist Caucus In 2018

28. Reforming the Bank of Canada Act
Whereas Canada’s national debt, owed primarily to wealthy bond holders, is the primary motivator behind austerity and the resistance to public spending to grow the Canadian economy,

And whereas well over 90% of Canada’s public/government debt is attributable to accumulated interest payments on Government issued bonds, interest on which no goods or services were ever consumed by the Canadian public;

And whereas it is both possible and preferable for the Government to use, as it has in the past, the Bank of Canada, to hold its public debt;

Therefore Be It Resolved that a Federal NDP Government, in its very first year, amend the Bank of Canada Act and proceed as follows, nullifying any international agreements that stand in the way:

Use the Bank of Canada as the buyer of all future Government of Canada Bonds and hold them interest free,
Expand the Bank of Canada as a full service Commercial and Industrial Bank that would serve Canadians on the same terms as the existing private banks. And host in its public service buildings Bank of Canada operations, including in, but not limited to Canada Post Offices, federally regulated airports, and any hospitals under provincial jurisdiction that accept federal monies through the Canada Health Act and corollary agreements.

The Socialist Caucus of the NDP, in 2018, passed a resolution to have the party revert back to using the Bank of Canada as a source of money creation, instead of the private banks.

In the 2019 election platform, the topic of the Bank of Canada was not mentioned anywhere. Pretty bizarre when the Socialist Caucus is the voice of reason on this issue.
NDP.2019.federal.campaign.platform

4. Canada’s Major LibCon Parties

This was addressed in Part 2 of the series, the COMER case. In 2011, COMER (and its lawyer Rocco Galati) filed a lawsuit against the Bank of Canada. Beyond the private loans themselves, COMER challenged the idea that meetings with the Bank for International Settlements could be kept secret — despite the BIS effectively setting monetary policy in Canada.

In 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear an appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal, effectively ending the case. In short, they gave political deference to the government in allowing it to do such a thing.

The Liberal Government of Pierre Trudeau started in process in 1974. Successive administrations (both Liberal and Conservative), have kept the system intact.

Also worth a mention, the People’s party of Canada (while not a real party), is headed by Maxime Bernier. Bernier was in cabinet during the early part of the lawsuit. It’s therefore extremely unlikely that he isn’t aware of the lawsuit. With his nearly 20 years in finance and banking, it’s not credible that he isn’t aware of how the monetary system works. While Bernier goes on and on about the DAIRY cartel, he never mentions the BANKING cartel. A nice way to deflect.

5. Parties Are Aware Of Banking Cartel

From the information compiled above, let’s ask who is fully aware of the scam that is private bank loans? At a minimum, it includes these parties listed below.

  • Canadian Nationalist Party
  • Christian Heritage Party of Canada
  • Conservative Party of Canada
  • Green Party of Canada
  • Liberal Party of Canada
  • Libertarian Party of Canada
  • National Citizens Alliance of Canada
  • New Democratic Party
  • People’s Party of Canada

Of course, it’s likely that most — if not all — of the other parties know about this as well. However, these are the ones where admissions can be directly proven.

While some on this list do openly campaign against the international Banking Cartel, others choose to ignore it. However, the topic isn’t addressed by the media. Politicians talk about a symptom (the debt), while ignoring the disease (the banking cartel).

It’s a sleight-of-hand that goes on all the time. Focus on the debt, without looking at WHO the money is being borrowed from.

9. True Scale Of Borrowing

(1) Debt.Management.Report.1996.1997
(2) Debt.Management.Report.1997.1998
(3) Debt.Management.Report.1998.1999
(4) Debt.Management.Report.1999.2000
(6) Debt.Management.Report.2001.2002
(7) Debt.Management.Report.2002.2003
(8) Debt.Management.Report.2003.2004
(9) Debt.Management.Report.2004.2005
(11) Debt.Management.Report.2006.2007
(12) Debt.Management.Report.2007.2008
(15) Debt.Management.Report.2010.2011
(16) Debt.Management.Report.2011.2012
(17) Debt.Management.Report.2012.2013
(18) Debt.Management.Report.2013.2014
http://archive.is/fp6MW
(19) Debt.Management.Report.2013.2014
http://archive.is/kkGL3
(20) Debt.Management.Report.2015.2016
http://archive.is/rrEEW
(21) Debt.Management.Report.2016.2017
http://archive.is/xy8Vt
(22) Debt.Management.Report.2017.2018
http://archive.is/SACp4
(23) Debt.Management.Report.2018.2019

Fiscal Year Amount Payable Amount Raised
2012-2013 $283B $246B
2013-2014 $271B $251B
2014-2015 $242B $243B
2015-2016 $238B $220B
2016-2017 $276B $252B
2018-2019 $241B $226B

Note: a few of the online debt reports have broken links and are not accessible.

The reality is that the Federal Government borrows over $200 billion per year, and the bulk of it is to pay off old debts. If we still used the Bank of Canada as a source of money creation this would not be a problem. However, the money is coming from private sources.

Rather than going through this cycle every year, one has to ask why not just pay off the existing debt (with a Bank of Canada loan), and then cancel the debt. Instead, successive governments seem content to just let the interest grow.

Taxation is only one source of revenue raising. The other big one is a form of “Ponzi borrowing”. It’s where the government issues more and more bonds in order to cover the costs from other bonds which are now due. Obviously this is an unsustainable system.

Instead of constantly shifting the focus with “overspending” or with “excessive borrowing”, politicians and the media should focus on the privatization of money creation (starting in 1974). Almost everything else becomes irrelevant when you realize this change was done in order to create unending debt. However, they won’t focus on the head of the snake.

(1) https://elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=par&document=index&lang=e
(2) http://archive.is/Keu60
(3) https://nationalist.ca/program/
(4) http://archive.is/3fBrE
(5) https://www.chp.ca/about/2019platform/
(6) http://archive.is/vGqlD
(7) https://www.libertarian.ca/platform_2019
(8) http://archive.is/wFyp8
(9) https://www.nationalcitizensalliance.ca/about-our-policies/
(10) http://archive.is/jSEGy
(11) https://www.greenparty.ca/en/convention-2012/voting/motions/g12-p13
(12) http://archive.is/KmP7N
(13) http://ndpsocialists.ca/socialist-caucus-resolutions-2018-federal-ndp-convention/
(14) http://archive.is/HzBkn

Posted on

Making More Informed Voting Choices

Justin Trudeau’s election in 2015 was due to a few things: nepotism, foreign money, a cooing media, and decent looks. By any objective measure, he has been a disaster.

To be fair, having a “conservative” in office would have led to most of the same harmful and destructive policies. Trudeau, to his credit, is openly a globalist, while conservatives are more stealthy about it. Nonetheless, we need people asking the right questions before they vote.

1. Previous Solutions Offered

A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.

2. Views/Bias Of The Author

Everyone has their own political slant. To get this out of the way: the views of the author more generally reflect the views and content that are addressed on the site. The site is nationalist leaning, and rejects conservatism and libertarianism, which are really just globalism.

Modern “leftism” (if that if even a proper term) is a globalist ideology. Although not a complete list, here are some of the things they support

  • Population replacement of Europeans
  • Erasure of traditional culture and heritage
  • Languages other than English and French
  • Identity politics for certain groups
  • Foreigners in the government
  • Foreigners in the military
  • Forced multiculturalism
  • Replacement of Christianity in the West
  • Globohomo agenda world wide
  • Mutilation of trans-children
  • Abortion becoming normalised and mainstream
  • Destruction of families
  • Pro climate change scam, carbon tax
  • UN and other “multilateral” institutions
  • Islamification of the West
  • Foreign aid handed out everywhere
  • Foreign interventions (but somehow not war)
  • Won’t discuss cause of foreign debt (Banking Cartel)
  • Government control over all major aspects of business
  • Limiting ability to send jobs overseas
  • Restricting free speech rights
  • Strong gun control, seizures

Modern conservatism (or “Conservative Inc.”) supports many of the same globalist ideologies and principles as the left, or liberals. Although the tone and rhetoric vary, a lot of the content is the same.

  • LEGAL population replacement of Europeans
  • LEGAL erasure of traditional culture and heritage
  • Languages other than English and French
  • Identity politics for certain groups
  • Foreigners in the government
  • Foreigners in the military
  • Globohomo agenda world wide
  • Mutilation of trans-ADULTS
  • LEGAL forced multiculturalism
  • Abortion becoming normalised and mainstream
  • Destruction of families
  • Pro climate change scam, but against carbon tax
  • UN, while claiming it won’t erode sovereignty
  • Islamification of the West (just not radicals)
  • Foreign aid for some places (like Israel)
  • Foreign wars that aren’t in Canadians’ interests
  • Won’t discuss cause of foreign debt (Banking Cartel)
  • Business interests topping interests of people
  • Offshoring/Outsourcing jobs overseas
  • “Monitoring” the situation of free speech violations
  • Sometimes stand on the side of gun owners

From the listings, it doesn’t seem like Liberalism or Conservative Inc. are all that different. Now that the views and biases are disclosed, let’s look at ways you can help make informed choices about who to vote for

3. Candidates Asking The Right Questions?

To be an effective representative, candidates must be addressing the right topics, and asking the right questions. However, far too many deflect. Here are some examples of topics that serious candidates should discuss if they really represent the interests of Canadians.

(a) Illegal border crossings into Canada: This should be a no-brainer to be against illegal aliens entering the country, but it’s not for many. Even those who call for closing the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement are in favour of work permits for illegals. There is tepid opposition to using taxpayer funded social services. If a candidate is serious about stopping illegal crossings, why wouldn’t they support stripping away the financial benefits for doing so? And why aren’t they talking about the people fighting in court to rewrite laws, and those facilitating the illegal entries into Canada?

(b) True scale of immigration into Canada: Politicians typically mislead about the true scale of people entering the country LEGALLY. They mention the number of permanent residencies handed out (if that is even accurate), but deflect from the true scale of people entering. They don’t discuss the problems that multiculturalism and population replacement bring, nor the balkanization of communities.

(c) Outsourcing/offshoring Canadian industries: There is a lot of talk about the benefits of free trade (also called globalization or offshoring), but little about the harmful effects. Who cares about corporate profits when entire communities are gutted, when it becomes cheaper to ship their jobs and industries overseas? Sure, it lowers prices at Walmart, but there are larger social costs. These costs involve: trade deficits; job losses; outsourcing; wage stagnation; wage depression; increased foreign competition; higher unemployment; loss of control for critical industries, and more. Immigration and free trade (think CANZUK), are linked, in that it creates an INCREASED demand for work, but with a REDUCED supply of jobs available. Candidates who care about their people should address this openly and honestly

(d) International Banking Cartel: Politicians often play a sleight-of-hand with deficit/debt. They will talk about “eliminating the deficit”, without mentioning that it still doesn’t deal with the already accumulated debt. Even worse, if that they won’t address the banking cartel, which Canada has been part of since 1974. Yes, money is artificially created, but instead of borrowing from the Bank of Canada (borrowing from ourselves), subsequent governments borrow artificially created money from private banks, meaning we have to pay for it. Even left-wing politicians act as controlled opposition in avoiding the topic.

(e) Corruption behind corporate welfare: While some politicians lament the fact that Provincially and Federally, we still hand out tax-payer subsidies (corporate welfare), few will address the fraud, corruption, and cronyism that is essential to these handouts. The focus is on a symptom, not the disease. Theft is a crime, and it shouldn’t be considered less of one just because one of the thieves is an elected official.

(f) Climate Change Scam: Talk among major politicians seems to be over whether a carbon tax is needed, or what type or pricing is needed. What’s missing from the discussion is that the Paris Accord is a total hoax, a fraud meant to enrich a few. Talk about controlled opposition. No one mentions the climate bonds industry, or the predatory loans which carbon taxes finance. In relation to point “D”, we are going into debt — to private companies — to borrow money which we then give away, yet this isn’t addressed. And how does paying taxes improve the weather anyway?

This is by no means a complete list, just a few major points that potential voters need to think about when asking their candidates for information.

4. Arguing Over Trivial Matters

People running for various offices will disagree on many things. Often they will argue over DIFFERENT POLICIES. However, when one argues over different ways to implement the SAME POLICIES, it becomes a fair question as to how different they really are. Fierce debate over essentially the same positions is a dog-and-pony show, which doesn’t offer a real alternative to voters.

5. Opposition By Scandal

Don’t get the wrong idea. Governments in power do often have scandals, such as corruption, gross incompetence. While holding a government to account is important, it should not be the MAIN SOURCE of opposition. If someone seeks office, and their main points all have to do with pointing out current administration incompetence, then they likely have little to offer as a platform.

6. Check Who Really Funds Candidates

There are several ways to do this. Check them out to see if they have rich relatives. Check work history to see if there is a particular company or industry they will be pushing. See who lobbies them or donates to their campaign accounts. Effectively, do a background check on your candidates. At times, the candidate will shove it in your face. Take note.

To be fair however, Canadian politicians are influenced by a variety of foreign interests. The Prime Minister is (allegedly) the bastard son of the late Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro. The Deputy Prime Minister is the granddaughter of a Nazi collaborator. The Defence Minister is an Indian National, so is our Industry Minister. The former Immigration Minister is a Somali refugee who funnels tax payer money there. The Status-Of-Women Minister is a fake refugee and illegal alien from Iran. M103 was passed by a Pakistani Muslim who hates free speech. The Conservative Leader and (just departed) Green Party Leader are both Americans. The Bloc is a party that opposes Canada, and the People’s Party is headed by a former Quebec separatist. The NDP leader is a Khalistani separatist banned from entering India. There are plenty more.

Beyond national and ethnic loyalties, it’s also worth inquiring who finances their campaigns, and who is donating gifts. It will tell you far more than any brochure of platform.

7. Deflect With Personal Attacks

A person serious about running for office should be able to defend their ideas from criticism. However, when the person resorts to name calling, or continuously brings up the record of others — instead of answering direct questions — ask yourself if the person really believes in what they say. Also be aware of strawman arguments

8. Take The Time To Self-Educate

Unfortunately, it is true that the bulk of successful politicians are working for someone other than their constituents. It’s not fair, and it’s not something to be condoned. It’s quite understandable, the sentiment that voting is a waste.

There are a host of serious issues that either get downplayed, or ignored altogether. The media is complicit in helping this happen, and the public gets screwed.

However, this is (for now) the system of government we have. Learning more about the people who want to rule over you gives power. It creates awareness.

Protect yourself.