Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat than illegal aliens, 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. There are also social, economic, environmental and voting changes to consider. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. Politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” have no interest in coming clean on this.
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.
Note: If there are errors in calculating the totals, please speak up. Information is of no use to the public if it isn’t accurate.
This table was complied using data from 2004 to 2019 Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament. As “Shadow Minister” for Immigration, Rempel would presumably have read these reports.
5. Temporary Workers Getting PR
That is from page 15 of the most recent (2019) Annual Immigration Report to Parliament, which covers the year 2018. It does quite clearly state that temporary workers are transitioning to permanent residents.
The same information is also available from Statistics Canada, although they only seem to estimate the overall rates for students and also temporary workers.
6. Official CPC Policy Is TFW ==> PR
Article 139 of the CPC Policy Declaration is to convert temporary workers to permanent residents where possible. Rempel, as Immigration “Shadow Minister” or “Critic” presumably would have known that.
7. Rempel Supports Cheap Foreign Labour
Consider this for a moment: Michelle Rempel nearly became Immigration Minister. She supports putting Canadians to work in agriculture ONLY if it’s not possible to import a foreign work force. Nice to see a conservative finally being honest about this though.
It’s nice (in some sense) to see Rempel come out and admit that these “temporary” workers are in fact driving wages down, but she seems to support the idea.
8. Rempel Indifferent To Remittances Sent Off
Yes, temporary workers in Canada (and other Western nations) will often send money back home? But it’s no big deal, right? It won’t have any harmful effect? Perhaps not.
Year
Total ($B)
To 1st World
To 3rd World
Diff.
2013
$581B
$177B
$404B
$227B
2014
$592B
$162B
$430B
$268B
2015
$582B
$142B
$440B
$298B
2016
$573B
$144B
$429B
$285B
2017
$613B
$147B
$466B
$319B
2018
$689B
$161B
$528B
$367B
Sources For The Chart CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2013. CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2015. CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2016. CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2017. CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2018.
Another interesting article on the subject of remittances came from the Vancouver Sun. It echoed the World Bank’s estimate of $24 billion leaving Canada in 2012, but covered other relevant points as well.
ABUSE AND DUBIOUS MOTIVATIONS
Since the migration of one person to another country is often a family decision, many migrants feel guilty and pressured to send money to people, some of whom they fear may misuse it.
.
Most migrants remit in the belief the money will go to food, housing, health care and education. But reports frequently arise about how hard-earned remittance money is misspent, going to big-screen TVs or even drinking binges.
.
In addition, Canadian economist John Hoddinot says many migrants send remittances to their parents, uncles and aunts to “ensure hereditary rights,” meaning they have to do so for the long haul and have no guarantees their goal will be realized.
Conservatives claim that these “temporary” workers will boost the local economy. But how exactly is that the case when billions are sent away annually as remittances? It’s not like Rempel doesn’t know this is happening.
9. Real Effects Of CANZUK
In keeping with conservative mentality that we only need to conserve economic growth, let’s look at CANZUK. It is official CPC policy, addressed in article 152 of the policy declaration. See a previous review of it.
Think about it: CANZUK essentially comprises two elements (a) free trade; and (b) open movement. It also has the potential to expand to include India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and other Commonwealth nations.
(a) In a free trade system, jobs get sent overseas to where things can be made cheaper, which will DECREASE the supply of jobs in Canada.
(b) With open immigration, people can come to Canada freely, which will INCREASE the demand for what jobs remain.
In a situation where you have many more people competing for far fewer jobs, what happens to the wages? They are driven down, and this is a policy conservative politicians in general support.
10. Thoughts On Rempel Tweets
It is absurd that such a high ranking official seems to know nothing about the temp-to-PR pipeline in Canada. Either that, or she knows and just pretends it doesn’t exist.
While it was nice to see the effect on wages addressed, it’s frustrating that Rempel supports the very policies that drive them down in the first place. One would think that ensuring your own citizens have work and livelihoods is more important than importing foreign scabs who will work for less.
The concept of remittances destroys the narrative that economic immigration is beneficial to the local economy. Sending billions out of the country each year does nothing to help.
But this is the difference between conservatives and nationalists. CONSERVATIVES seem to think only in terms of economic growth, stock markets and low prices. NATIONALISTS, on the other hand, care about the well being and stability of their own people. Different priorities.
Recently, PM Trudeau has echoed Bill Gates’ sentiments that mass vaccination of people is necessary for any sense of normalcy to return. While there has been speculation about this link, there has so far been no proof of collusion between Gates and Trudeau.
It’s true that there has been collusion. However, Gates did not (directly) lobby the Canadian Government. The used proxies to do this. Specifically, here are the connections:
(a) The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation helped found GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance in 1999. The foundation donated $750 million at the time, and continues to fund it regularly.
(b) GAVI sought the services of a lobbying firm called Crestview Strategy. Crestview used 2 of their employees, Jason Clark, and Zakery Blais, for the assignment.
(c) Clark and Blais have lobbied the Canadian Government on at least 19 occasions since 2018 on various “health” matters, on behalf of GAVI. One more was conducted by Jennifer Babcock, who appears to have left the firm. All of this can be immediately verified by looking up the records in the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner.
(d) Clark and Blais have connections to the Liberal Party of Canada. Clark volunteered in 2015 for Ottawa area Liberal candidates, and Blais is a former assistant to the (now) Attorney General David Lametti.
2. GAVI Funded By Gates Foundation
This is probably the most well known link in the chain. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation helped found GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance in 1999, and has made regular contributions to it. The foundation essentially runs the show.
The Global Vaccine Alliance, as the name suggests, is an organization devoted to pushing vaccinations on the public all across the world. Bill Gates has long been a proponent of mass vaccinations.
3. GAVI Lobbying CDN Gov’t Since 2018
If you go onto the Lobby Canada website, you can see what lobbyists have been talking to which government officials, who they work for, when they spoke, and what the business was. This is laid out “communications reports”
Dates of Communications Reports
(1) 2018 March 8
(2) 2018 March 9
(3) 2018 March 9
(4) 2018 October 9
(5) 2018 October 9
(6) 2018 October 9
(7) 2018 October 10
(8) 2018 October 10
(9) 2018 October 10
(10) 2019 June 11
(11) 2019 June 11
(12) 2019 June 11
(13) 2019 June 12
(14) 2019 June 12
(15) 2019 June 12
(16) 2020 January 28
(17) 2020 January 29
(18) 2020 January 29
(19) 2020 January 29
(20) 2020 January 30
No, these aren’t duplications. The registry indicates multiple reports on these dates.
These are just the 20 reports that are on file with the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner. It’s fair to assume that there have been many, many more talks that aren’t documented.
Crestview Strategy effectively represents the interests of corporations, not-for-profits and industry associations to achieve results with governments around the world.
Across Canada and around the world, the rules that govern the government relations industry are changing. The new higher standard that regulates access to information and political contributions have fundamentally changed the public policy dialogue and improved how citizens, companies and associations advocate their interests to elected representatives.
No longer is a winning outcome based on ‘who you know’ or the ‘magic meeting’. It is about contributing to the policy process, presenting a case that is supported by authentic community voices, verified impact and compelling insight. And getting in front of the right decision makers and opinion leaders to make that case.
This is in the government relations page of Crestview Strategy. At least they are open about trying to influence governments and public policy.
5. Crestview Lobbyist Zakery Blais
Zakery Blais is a Consultant with Crestview Strategy. With a focus on Canada-U.S. relations and international development, Zakery services clients globally.
His experience spans both the public and private sectors. He previously worked as a Legislative Assistant to a Canadian Member of Parliament, providing strategic political and communications advice. Prior to joining Crestview Strategy, Zakery also worked in various capacities in public affairs, including as an analyst focused on the energy and natural resources sectors.
That is from his profile on the Crestview Strategy webpage.
Fun fact: Blais was an assistant for David Lametti, a former Parliamentary Secretary, and currently the Attorney General of Canada. While Crestview CLAIMS it doesn’t operate on a who-you-know basis, the current lobbyist pushing this is the Attorney General’s former assistant. Not exactly arms length, is it?
6. Crestview Lobbyist Jason Clark
Prior to joining the Crestview Team, Jason has worked in public policy development and advocacy and engagement campaigns, most recently for Engineers Without Borders Canada. Since arriving in Ottawa he has worked work a wide range of Canadian Non-profit organizations on international development and trade issues. Previously, Jason managed one of the largest public engagement campaigns on climate change, energy and sustainability in Great Britain, working in partnership with all levels of government, business, industry and trade associations, the public sector and civil society. Jason has also worked with female entrepreneurs and social enterprises in Lesotho, Africa.
[Jason Clark] volunteered for several Ottawa-area Liberal Party of Canada candidates during the 2015 election campaign.
That is from his profile page with Crestview Strategy.
7. Rob Silver, Katie Telford’s Husband
Liberal strategist and former pundit Rob Silver said Monday he has left the government relations firm he helped create, citing his wife’s position as Justin Trudeau’s chief of staff.
“Effective Dec. 31, 2015 I am no longer a shareholder or employee of Crestview Strategy,” Silver said in an email Monday afternoon.
Silver was a partner in the Toronto- and Ottawa-based public affairs agency that, among other things, lobbies the federal government on behalf of clients.
Rob Silver, husband of Katie Telford, Trudeau’s Chief-of-Staff, helped start up Crestview Strategy, the lobbying firm that GAVI hired to push the vaccine agenda. Also, see this $800 million grant from the Canadian taxpayers, instigated by Crestview.
8. Lobbying Has Netted Results
Canada is pledging $600 million to the third replenishment of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and committing $47.5 million annually over four years to support the Global Polio Eradication Initiative’s end-game strategy.
Quick facts
Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, is a global health partnership representing stakeholders in immunization from both private and public sectors. Since 2000, Gavi has supported the immunization of 760 million children and saved more than 13 million lives.
Since 2002, Canada has provided more than $1 billion in funding to Gavi, including $500 million for the current period from 2016 to 2020.
The Global Polio Eradication Initiative was established in 1988; since then, 2.5 billion children have been vaccinated as a result. The world has never been closer to eradicating polio, but the job is not done. With continued transmission in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we cannot afford to be complacent.
The funding announced today is part of Canada’s renewed commitment to global health as announced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the Women Deliver Conference in June 2019. The Government of Canada committed to raise its funding to $1.4 billion annually by 2023 to support women’s and girls’ health around the world.
Let’s keep that pharma money coming, shall we? Canada makes another announcement to keep those pharma dollars rolling in.
9. Gates Foundation Lobbying Canadian Gov’t
Neither Bill Gates personally, nor his Foundation may have their name on the efforts to lobby the Canadian Government, but they are behind it. GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance, is funded by the Gates Foundation, and they have the same ideological goals.
GAVI is using Crestview Strategy to lobby on their behalf, and both main lobbyists, Jason Clark and Zakery Blais, have ties to the Liberal Party of Canada. Clark volunteered in 2015 for Ottawa region candidates, and Blais worked for the (current) Attorney General, David Lametti.
Gates is using GAVI (and LPC operatives-turned-lobbyists) to push the vaccine agenda.
With the (alleged) coronavirus pandemic and the public panic, one has to ask if vaccines will become mandatory in Canada. After all, powerful people have floated the idea of doing just that. But now would be a good time to follow the money and see where it goes.
Bill Gates, the vaccine fetishist, has his hands in vax development in Canada as well. In fact, he has been financing the University of Saskatchewan for many years. InterVac, which is part of USask, has been partnered with the International Vaccine Institute in South Korea (IVI) for quite some time. IVI is funded by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
Gates pushes for vaccines across the world, but refuses to vaccinate his own children. That should tell you everything you need to know about him.
An interesting connection is a longtime Liberal donor and lobbyist, Douglas Richardson. He has been trying to get funding for InterVac. That’s right: he is lobbying to have more of your tax dollars given to InterVac (and USask) to partner with IVI and the Gates Foundation.
1. Richardson A Longtime Liberal Donor
Date Of Donation
Amount $
Recipient
Jan 26, 2005
545.00
LPC
May 20, 2005
1000.00
LPC
Jul 17, 2006
1000.00
LPC
Jul 17, 2006
1000.00
Michael Ignatieff
Sep 22, 2006
250.00
LPC
Sep 22, 2006
250.00
Hedy Fry
Nov 15, 2006
995.00
LPC
May 27, 2010
1100.00
LPC
Dec 29, 2011
59.52
LPC
Dec 31, 2011
970.00
LPC
Aug 14, 2012
1178.70
LPC
Mar 8, 2013
90.00
Justin Trudeau
Sep 27, 2013
1186.88
LPC
Oct 16, 2014
1178.38
LPC
Apr 25, 2016
1,470.52
LPC
Nov 27, 2017
1,468.42
LPC
Nov 27, 2018
1,459.55
LPC
Nov 27, 2019
1000.00
LPC
2. Richardson’s Public Offices Held
Check out the PUBLIC OFFICES HELD for more information on Douglas Richardson. This is what was disclosed to the Lobbying Commissioner’s Office.
Policy Advisor to the Hon. Otto Lang
Minister Responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Agriculture Canada
June 1971 to August 1971
Policy Advisor to the Minister of Justice
Department of Justice, Justice Canada
June 1972 to August 1972
Chief of Staff to the Minister of Finance
Finance Canada, Department of Finance
February 1982 to August 1983
Chief of Staff and Principal Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition
House of Commons, Leader’s Office
March 1985 to September 1987
Vice Chairman and Trustee of the Canadiana Fund
Heritage Canada, Cultural properties
April 2003
3. Richardson’s Lobbying Efforts
And for the University of Saskatchewan more broadly:
Who does Douglas Richardson lobby?
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
Canadian Grain Commission (CGC)
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT)
Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)
Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev)
Finance Canada (FIN)
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)
Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Health Canada (HC)
House of Commons
Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC)
Infrastructure Canada (INFC)
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
National Research Council (NRC)
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)
Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Privy Council Office (PCO)
Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC)
Public Safety Canada (PS)
Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC)
Senate of Canada
Western Economic Diversification Canada (WD)
4. VIDO-InterVac On Twitter
For some of its announcements, check out InterVac’s Twitter account, and see what it has been up to.
5. International Vaccine Institute
The International Vaccine Institute (IVI) is an independent, nonprofit, international organization that was founded on the belief that the health of children in developing countries can be dramatically improved by the use of new and improved vaccines. Working in collaboration with the international scientific community, public health organizations, governments, and industry, IVI is involved in all areas of the vaccine spectrum – from new vaccine design in the laboratory to vaccine development and evaluation in the field to facilitating sustainable introduction of vaccines in countries where they are most needed.
Created initially as an initiative of the UN Development Programme (UNDP), IVI began formal operations as an independent international organization in 1997 in Seoul, Republic of Korea. Currently, IVI has 35 countries and the World Health Organization (WHO) as signatories to its Establishment Agreement. The Institute has a unique mandate to work exclusively on vaccine development and introduction specifically for people in developing countries, with a focus on neglected diseases affecting these regions.
While not the most reliable source, Wikipedia can provide background information into an organization that’s already nicely laid out.
6. InterVac Partners W/UN Funded IVI
The International Vaccine Institute (IVI) is a not-for-profit International Organization established in 1997 as an initiative by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). It is among the few organizations in the world dedicated to vaccines and vaccination for global health.
IVI is involved in all aspects of bringing a vaccine to reality: discover new technologies to make new vaccines or improve existing ones; develop promising vaccine candidates for licensure and World Health Organization (WHO) prequalification by transferring the technology to manufacturers and partnering with them on clinical development; deliver licensed vaccines in low-income countries by generating scientific data on the need for vaccines and the impact of vaccination for decision makers; building capacity in vaccinology in developing countries through technical assistance and training to promote self-sufficiency and sustainability in vaccines and vaccination; and building partnerships in Asia and globally for vaccines and global health.
This has long been a partner with InterVac (University of Saskatchewan). It is funded by the United Nations. However, it does get some hefty grants, from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
The International Vaccine Institute (IVI) of South Korea, a world-renowned international organization founded by the United Nations Development Programme, is collaborating with VIDO-InterVac at the University of Saskatchewan (USask) to better understand the virus causing the COVID-19 pandemic and to develop vaccines and potential treatments.
“The worldwide importance of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic seems to naturally align our two vaccine institutes and provides the opportunity to build on this partnership,” said Jerome Kim, director general of the IVI based in Seoul.
The two research centres are partnering on a $180,000 project that will look at virus replication, immune responses, and the effect of antivirals and other medicines to combat COVID-19.
The USask funding for the initiative comes from the USask International Blueprint’s Global Innovation Fund and VIDO-InterVac.
South Korea has been one of the countries hardest hit by this virus. IVI has formed a number of partnerships with companies and governments to advance vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.
The funding collaboration builds on a long-standing relationship between the two institutes, as well as on a recent memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed between USask President Peter Stoicheff and Director-General Kim in South Korea in October of 2019. Read more about the MOU here: https://news.usask.ca/articles/research/2019/usasks-vido-intervac-and-south-koreans-international-vaccine-institute-to-undertake-scientific-exchanges.php
University of Saskatchewan VIDO-InterVac is partnered with the International Vaccine Institute, a United Nations funded group that operates out of South Korea. An interesting partnership indeed. But what is this “memorandum of understanding” that is referenced here?
7. More On InterVac/IVI Partnership
Located on the Seoul National University campus, IVI is a world-renowned organization of the United Nations Development Programme dedicated to vaccines and vaccination for global health. USask’s VIDO-InterVac is a global leader in infectious disease research and vaccine development and has commercialized eight vaccine technologies, six of which are world firsts.
The MOU, signed this week in Seoul by USask President Peter Stoicheff, VIDO-InterVac associate director Paul Hodgson, and IVI director general Jerome Kim, establishes a formal scientific exchange program between the two organizations in infectious disease research and vaccine development, and enables students, post-doctoral fellows and scientists to complete training and learning exchanges. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe was on hand to witness the signing ceremony.
“Infectious diseases are one of the top causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and along with vaccine hesitancy (reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated or to have one’s children vaccinated), comprise six of the World Health Organization’s top 10 threats to global health in 2019,” said Hodgson.
The two organizations have worked together for more than a decade. Multi-million dollar joint research funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation under one of the foundation’s original 43 grand challenges in global health program resulted in the discovery and patenting of a novel adjuvant (an immune response booster) for vaccines.
Very interesting. The University of Saskatchewan and the International Vaccine Institute, (which is funded by the UN), have worked together for over a decade, and the Gates Foundation has provided multi-million dollars to further finance vaccine research.
Also, consider the date: October 15, 2019. What else was going on around that time?
Right. It was Event 201, the pandemic “simulation” held on October 18, 2019, just 3 days later. But sure that is just a strange coincidence. Nothing to see here people.
8. InterVac Research Funded By Gates Fdn
For some more chilling information on InterVan and Bill Gates, a search here will net more disturbing details.
In 2006 there was Maternal Immunization May Protect Newborns from Whooping Cough U of S VIDO Study.
In 2009 there was VIDO-InterVac Major Partner in HIV/AIDS Vaccine Pilot Plant Bid.
In 2018, Gerds was named Director. There was the Grand Challenges in Global Health projects funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. As part of this research, the group developed a novel vaccine platform for neonates that is being used to develop vaccines for pertussis and respiratory syncytial virus.
Vaccine research for this and other “pandemics” isn’t something that is happening off in some distant world. It’s here now, and has been operating in Canada for many years. People need to know who the players are, and who is connected to who.
Free speech is under attack again, and this time it comes from the Zionists, trying to push their version of anti-Semitism laws. Iqra Khalid was heavily criticized for pushing her Islamophobia motion, M103 a few years ago, but this gets a pass from the media and from public scrutiny. Both are horrible pieces of legislation,
3. Criminal Law Exclusively Federal
Under Section 91(27) of the Constitution, criminal law is exclusively the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. This means that the Ford Government couldn’t actually criminalize criticism of Jews, even if they wanted to. Still, it’s pretty chilling to put this on the books in Ontario, even if it is meant to be symbolic.
This is address the elephant in the room: jurisdiction in the event of potential criminal law changes.
4. Text Of Bill 168
Will Bouma and Robin Martin, the sponsors for Bill 168, which was actually a private member’s bill.
Bill 168 2019 An Act to combat antisemitism
Preamble Antisemitism is a multi-faceted problem that requires a multi-faceted strategy, encompassing a range of ministries and agencies. For that reason, it is desirable to require the Government of Ontario to implement a whole-of-government approach in combating antisemitism. As part of that approach, it is desirable to apply a consistent interpretation of Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism. Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:
.
Interpretation
1 In interpreting Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism, the Government of Ontario shall be guided by the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016. Legislation Act, 2006 amendment
.
2 Section 87 of the Legislation Act, 2006 is amended by adding the following definition: “antisemitism” has the meaning set out in the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016; (antisémitisme”) Commencement
.
3 This Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent. Short title
.
4 The short title of this Act is the Combating Antisemitism Act, 2019.
.
______________
.
EXPLANATORY NOTE The Bill requires the Government of Ontario to be guided by the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it, adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016, when it interprets Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism. The Bill also amends the Legislation Act, 2006 to adopt that working definition.
The text is pretty clear. Ontario (if this law passes) is to be guided by the working definition of anti-Semitism as provided by the IHRA. Interestingly, the bill doesn’t say what that definition is. So let’s take a look for ourselves.
What is it exactly that Ontario will be signing up for?
5. IHRA Definition Of Anti-Semitism
On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:
.
Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
.
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
Don’t worry. While this sounds pretty vague, it is about to get much, MUCH more detailed in what exactly counts as anti-Semitism.
To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
.
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
.
Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.
Just reading the definition provided, it has to be asked: what DOESN’T make the list? What ISN’T anti-Semitism according to these people?
When it refers to anti-Semitic acts as criminal, is that in indication that criminalization of “anti-Semitism” is where they intend to go with this?
6. Status Of Bill 168
It’s already had its second reading. Not too far to go. Considering Ford has a majority government, he should encounter little resistance in getting Bill 168 passed and signed into law.
7. CIJA Lobbied For Bill 168
CIJA, the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (the Israeli lobby), is found in the Ontario Lobbyist Registry as attempting to influence the Ford Government to pass Bill 168.
8. Double Standard For Islamophobia Motion
A few years back, there was a huge public stink when Iqra Khalid, a Pakistani Muslim and “paper Canadian”, got M-103 passed at the Federal level. This was a (supposedly non binding) motion to combat Islamophobia, but without defining what it actually was.
Why no media outrage over this? Is it because of the Jewish influence and power in the media that the story is buried? I guess that’s anti-Semitism to ask that.
Should this ever come to pass, what’s to stop the Feds (or any court) from using it as a precedent to push binding anti-Semitism laws? This is a scary step to take.
A very disturbing sight: broadcasting. Want to take a bet that B’nai Brith is (among other things) pushing for more speech restrictions?
B. Lobbyists Employed by the Organization
Name: LISA ARMONY
Position title: INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, NAT’L DIRECTR
Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.
Name: JOYCE ASTER
Position title: ONTARIO REGIONAL OFFICE, DIRECTOR
Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.
Name: DAVID COOPER
Position title: LEAGUE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, RESEARCH & COMMUNICATIONS
Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.
Name: FRANK DIMANT
Position title: Executive Vice President
Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.
Name: RUBIN FRIEDMAN
Position title: GOVERNMENT RELATIONS OFFICE, DIRECTOR
Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.
Name: PEARL GLADMAN
Position title: NATIONAL FIELD SERVICES, NATIONAL DIRECTOR
Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.
Name: ANAT LEWIN
Position title: INSTITUTE FOR INT’L AFFAIRS, RESEARCH & POLICY
Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.
Name: ROBERT LIBMAN
Position title: QUEBEC REGIONAL OFFICE, DIRECTOR
Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.
Name: KAREN MOCK
Position title: LEAGUE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, NATIONAL DIRECTOR
Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.
Although the lobbying reports found are from around 20 years ago, they show B’nai Brith had a persistent interest in lobbying Parliament on a variety of topics.
4. B’nai Brith’s Anti-Free Speech Agenda
Also included is the letter to the Prime Minister.
Quote: Among the main priorities also raised with the Prime Minister are:
Ensuring that Canada’s new Anti-Racism Strategy will address concerns of and threats to religious minorities, including the Jewish community.
Pursuing standardized and mandatory education curricula on antisemitism and the Holocaust, in collaboration with the provinces and territories.
Creating a federal position to coordinate domestic action on antisemitism, working with a special envoy to combat antisemitism globally.
Fully implementing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism, as adopted by the federal government in June, and launching a program to educate Canadians about it.
Adopting the recommendations made in November by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief and its landmark report on antisemitism.
“Antisemitism must be addressed through a national effort that strengthens our society and promotes unity,” said Michael Mostyn, Chief Executive Officer of B’nai Brith Canada. “Given the importance of federal leadership, and the beginning of a brand new Parliament, raising the concerns of our community at this time is essential. [End quote]
In a practical sense, how is this different than Iqra Khalid wanting to make “Islamophobia” illegal? The Islamists and the Zionists are using essentially the same tactics.
5. Gov’t Adopts IHRA Def’n Of Anitsemitism
Antisemitism
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
Footnote 2
Of course, footnote #2 comes from:
International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance “Working Definition of Antisemitism”. For further information, visit: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism.
But don’t worry kids, it’s not binding.
6. What Is IHRA Definition Of Anitsemitism?
Does it sound scary? Well, here is the definition of anti-Semitism IHRA provides:
To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
-Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
-Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
-Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
-Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
-Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
-Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
-Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
-Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
-Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
-Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.
What a lot of projection here. And what an attempt to criminalise things that are in fact true:
(a) A lot of Jews “are” more loyal to Israel than where they live
(b) Why can’t the Holocaust be questioned? Every other event in human history is allowed to be questioned, but not this apparently.
(c) Nothing wrong with Jews having their own place. The problem arises in the double standard hypocrisy, where Jews try to open borders of OTHER nations.
(d) Making dehumanizing or stereotypical comments? Sure that won’t ever be abused.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Pablo Rodríguez, announced on Tuesday that the Canadian government intends to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism as part of its anti-racism strategy.
“Canada adopting IHRA’s definition of antisemitism is an important symbolic and declaratory move,” said NGO Monitor founder and president Gerald Steinberg. “We hope that the next steps will pertain to its implementation within Canadian policy, including regarding Canadian international aid and support of NGOs.”
B’nai Brith Canada labeled the IHRA standard “the most universally accepted and expertly driven definition of anti-Semitism available today,” and one that “enjoys unprecedented consensus.”
[1] INSTITUTE DEDICATED HATE CRIME UNITS IN EVERY MAJOR CITY The lack of investment in hate crime-specifi c units contributes to both a perceived sense of impunity for the purveyors of hate crimes and generates frustration on the part of affected communities. Dedicated hate crimes units could produce more substantive results in the field.
[2] PROVIDE ENHANCED TRAINING FOR HATE CRIMES OFFICERS What often appears to be a clear-cut case of a hate crime can be interpreted differently among police services. A standard understanding of what constitutes a hate crime is critical, as well as proper liaison functions between police services and civil society organizations representing affected communities, such as the League for Human Rights.
[3] PUBLISH THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S GUIDELINES FOR SECTIONS 318 AND 319 The Attorney-General’s decision-making process on hate propaganda prosecutions is not public and therefore open to charges of political bias. B’nai Brith believes revealing the internal guidelines elucidating this process will help the public know when to submit complaints to law enforcement, and clarify what is and is not legal.
[4] DECLARE A ZERO-TOLERANCE APPROACH TO GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF ANTISEMITISM Government funding has again found its way to organizations that have promoted antisemitism in the past. Government must be vigilant when dispensing public funds to such organizations, and take swift action when such instances come to its attention, including an immediate withdrawal of all publicly-provided funds.
[5] INTRODUCE ANTI-SLAPP LEGISLATION IN ALL PROVINCES AND TERRITORIES Only B.C., Ontario and Quebec have enacted legislation against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or “anti-SLAPP” legislation, which is meant to prevent frivolous libel lawsuits designed to dissuade groups engaging in issues of public interest by using lawsuits to intimidate and deter critique or inquiry. B’nai Brith encourages all provinces and territories to enact this legislation so this protection can be extended to the benefit of all Canadians
[6] HOLD UNIVERSITIES ACCOUNTABLE FOR CAMPUS ANTISEMITISM Universities recently surfaced as significant breeding grounds for antisemitism in Canada, including through an increase in far-left activism against Israel. Universities must do more to combat antisemitism, as do provincial ministries of education, including enforcing existing antidiscrimination policies and ensuring that appropriate disciplinary measures are employed.
[7] ADOPT A NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR ANTISEMITISM Canada must adopt a National Action Plan to Combat Antisemitism, as have France and Norway, in recognition that adequate resources must be offered to strategically combat anti-Jewish rhetoric. Such a plan would involve all levels of government, which could help law enforcement, communities, and schools prevent and respond to antisemitism.
[8] DEVELOP AN ACTION PLAN TO COUNTER ONLINE HATE B’nai Brith believes that the federal government, along with social media platforms and other stakeholders, can work in tandem to establish a viable strategic plan to counter online hate. Government must examine how to strengthen laws against perpetrators of online hate and improve law enforcement training in how to respond.
9. Ontario And Bill 186
EXPLANATORY NOTE
The Bill requires the Government of Ontario to be guided by the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it, adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016, when it interprets Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism.
The Bill also amends the Legislation Act, 2006 to adopt that working definition.
Bill 168 2019
An Act to combat antisemitism
Preamble
.
Antisemitism is a multi-faceted problem that requires a multi-faceted strategy, encompassing a range of ministries and agencies. For that reason, it is desirable to require the Government of Ontario to implement a whole-of-government approach in combating antisemitism. As part of that approach, it is desirable to apply a consistent interpretation of Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism.
.
Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:
.
Interpretation
1 In interpreting Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism, the Government of Ontario shall be guided by the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016.
Legislation Act, 2006 amendment
.
2 Section 87 of the Legislation Act, 2006 is amended by adding the following definition:
“antisemitism” has the meaning set out in the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016; (antisémitisme”)
Commencement
.
3 This Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent.
Short title
4 The short title of this Act is the Combating Antisemitism Act, 2019.
Of course, the Ontario Government is a “Conservative” majority, headed by “populist” Doug Ford. Wasn’t aware that passing anti-free speech laws was a conservative value.
B’nai Brith was a main player in getting this legislation pushed.
10. B’nai Brith Is Anti-Free Speech
The above is just a sample of what the group is up to.
And yes, B’nai Brith is a huge supporter of aiding mass migration to the West, and using our countries as dumping grounds. Israel is off limits of course – More migrants for thee, but none for me.
However, that will be a post all on its own.
As for all of the players trying to undermine Canadian sovereignty, let’s name them.
11. Who Are These Open Borders NGOs?
(1) AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
(2) B’NAI BRITH
(3) BRIDGES NOT BORDERS
(4) CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF REFUGEE LAWYERS
(5) CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES
(6) CANADIAN COUNCIL OF CHURCHES
(7) CENTER FOR ISRAEL AND JEWISH AFFAIRS
(8) JEWISH REFUGEE ACTION NETWORK
(9) PLATTSBURGH CARES
(10) SOLIDARITY ACROSS BORDERS
Honourable mention: ex-Israeli Ambassador David Berger
This is by no means a complete list, but a starting point. One will immediately notice a common thread that runs between most of these groups. However, not everyone is willing to address that.
Anthony Furey (see above tweet) writes for the Toronto Sun, and has contributed to True North Canada, Candice Malcolm’s “charity”.
While Furey clearly knows that the efforts are coordinated to smuggle these people into Canada, Furey (and other outfits like Rebel Media) refrain from exposing WHO is behind these efforts. They focus on a symptom, and not the disease.
This is probably because these groups are mainly Jewish, and Furey has a self-preservation instinct. He doesn’t want to hit too close to home, and end his media career.
It should worry Canadians greatly when there is a sustained effort to undermine and erode our borders. The overwhelming majority of people don’t know how far back this goes. Although efforts predate these cases, this is where we will start.
On the first attempt, the Canadian Council of Churches went to court to try to get certain new legislation thrown out. This legislation would have made it harder for people to enter Canada from the U.S. and claim asylum. It went to the Supreme Court, but ultimately, it was ruled the group did not have public interest standing.
Court History Over The Years
Again, many more attempts have been made in recent decades to erase borders, but this article will only focus on a few of them.
FIRST ATTEMPT: KILL “SAFE COUNTRY” DESIGNATION
(a) Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3
(b) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada,
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534
(c) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236 1992.SCC.Rules.No.Standing
SECOND ATTEMPT: KILL CANADA/US S3CA
(a) 2008 ruling S3CA has no effect
Docket: IMM-7818-05 S3CA Provisions Struck Down
(b) The 2008 ruling is overturned on appeal
Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada, 2008 FCA 229 Appeal granted, S3CA restored
THIRD ATTEMPT: TORONTO CASES TO STRIKE S3CA
(a) 2017, Prothonotary Milczynski considers consolidation
IMM-2229-17, IMM-2977-17, IMM-775-17 Milczynski Considers Consolidation
Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3
.
Rouleau J. dismissed the application. His judgment reflects his concern that there might be no other reasonable, effective or practical manner to bring the constitutional question before the Court. He was particularly disturbed that refugee claimants might be faced with a 72-hour removal order. In his view, such an order would not leave sufficient time for an applicant to attempt either to stay the proceedings or to obtain an injunction restraining the implementation removal order.
.
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534
.
MacGuigan J.A. speaking for a unanimous Court allowed the appeal and set aside all but four aspects of the statement of claim.
.
In his view the real issue was whether or not there was another reasonably effective or practical manner in which the issue could be brought before the Court. He thought there was. He observed that the statute was regulatory in nature and individuals subject to its scheme had, by means of judicial review, already challenged the same provisions impugned by the Council. Thus there was a reasonable and effective alternative manner in which the issue could properly be brought before the Court.
.
He went on to consider in detail the allegations contained in the statement of the claim. He concluded that some were purely hypothetical, had no merit and failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action. He rejected other claims on the grounds that they did not raise a constitutional challenge and others on the basis that they raised issues that had already been resolved by recent decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal.
.
He granted the Council standing on the following matters raised on the statement of claim
Without getting too much into the technical details, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the Canadian Council of Churches, an organization, should be granted public interest standing to strike down all or part of the immigration laws. Ultimately, the ruling was no.
Disposition of the Result
.
In the result I would dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal on the basis that the plaintiff does not satisfy the test for public interest standing. Both the dismissal of the appeal and the allowance of the cross-appeal are to be without costs.
Appeal dismissed and cross-appeal allowed.
.
Solicitors for the appellant: Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto.
.
Solicitor for the respondents: John C. Tait, Ottawa.
. Solicitors for the interveners The Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped and The Quebec Multi Ethnic Association for the Integration of Handicapped People: Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, Toronto.
.
Solicitors for the intervener League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith Canada: David Matas, Winnipeg, and Dale Streiman and Kurz, Brampton.
.
Solicitors for the interveners Women’s Legal Education and Action (LEAF) and Canadian Disability Rights Council (CDRC): Tory, Tory, DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto and Dulcie McCallum, Victoria.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court thought that a refugee, someone with actual standing (or something at stake) should be the one making the case.
Also worth noting, consider who some of the intervenors are in this case. A lot of people who want to make it easier to get into Canada.
2008: Safe Third Country Agreement, Parts Of IRPA Struck Out
IT IS ORDERED THAT this application for judicial review is granted and the designation
of the United States of America as a “safe third country” is quashed.
Yes, the Canada/U.S Safe Third Country Agreement was actually declared to have no legal effect. However, this is not the end of it, as we will soon see.
IT IS DECLARED THAT:
.
1. Paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United
States of America are ultra vires and of no legal force and effect.
2. The Governor-in-Council acted unreasonably in concluding that the United States of
America complied with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the
Convention Against Torture.
3. The Governor-in-Council failed to ensure the continuing review of the designation
of the United States of America as a “safe third country” as required by
paragraph 102(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
4. Paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations and the operation of the Safe Third Country Agreement between
Canada and the United States of America violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are not justified under section 1 thereof.
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS are certified as serious questions of general
importance:
.
1. Are paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and
the United States of America ultra vires and of no legal force and effect?
2. What is the appropriate standard of review in respect of the Governor-in-Council’s
decision to designate the United States of America as a “safe third country” pursuant
to s. 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?
3. Does the designation of the United States of America as a “safe third country” alone
or in combination with the ineligibility provision of clause 101(1)(e) of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is such violation justified under section 1?
If the United States is not a safe country, then why do tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people try to apply for asylum there every year?
The Safe Third Country Agreement was meant to prevent “asylum shopping” from taking place, but that is exactly what this ruling would have allowed.
Court Of Appeal Overturns Previous Ruling
The impugned Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement are not ultra vires the IRPA. Subsection 102(1) of the IRPA gives the GIC the power to promulgate regulations governing the treatment of refugee claims which may include provisions designating countries that comply with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. This is a broad grant of authority intended to give effect to Parliament’s expressed intent that responsibility for the consideration of refugee claims be shared with countries that are respectful of their Convention obligations and human rights. The factors to be considered before designating a country are expressly set out in subsection 102(2) of the IRPA. The applications Judge’s misapprehended concern that the GIC would have the discretion to designate a country that does not comply with the Conventions led him to transform the statutory objective of designating countries “that comply” into a condition precedent.
The applications Judge adopted a hypothetical approach to the respondent organizations’ Charter challenge, i.e. that a class of refugees would be treated a certain way if they were to present themselves at a Canadian land border port of entry. This approach went against the well-established principle that a Charter challenge cannot be mounted in the abstract. There was no evidence that a refugee would have to bring a challenge from outside Canada. The respondent organizations’ ability to bring the Charter challenge depended on John Doe. As the latter never presented himself at the border and therefore never requested a determination regarding his eligibility, there was no factual basis upon which to assess the alleged Charter breaches. The applications Judge thus erred in entertaining the Charter challenge.
[14] On December 29, 2005, the respondents launched an application for leave and judicial review seeking a declaration that the designation of the U.S. under section 102 of the IRPA was ultra vires, that the GIC erred in concluding that the U.S. complied with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and further, that the designation breached sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. For purposes of clarity, it is useful to set out in full the issues set out in the judicial review application filed before the Court:
[130] In short, a declaration of invalidity of the STCA Regulations is not required in order to ensure that they are not applied to claimants for protection at the land border in breach of either Canada’s international obligations not to refoule, or the Charter.
.
D. CONCLUSIONS
.
[131] For these reasons I would allow the appeal
The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Lower Court considered a hypothetical scenario, and wrongly applied it to a Charter challenge. Put simply, Charter challenges are supposed to be ground in fact, and not “what if” situations. The ruling was overturned, and the Safe Third Country Agreement was restored.
2017-Present: Toronto Challenge
Chief Justice Paul Crampton transferred 3 related cases to Justice Diner for case management. This is the same CJ Crampton who ruled that private citizens wishing to oppose the destruction of the S3CA don’t have standing.
Justice Diner granted public interest standing to 3 NGOs: Amnesty International, Canadian Council for Refugees, and Canadian Council of Churches.
Justice Diner order the 3 cases to be consolidated and tried together because of the overlapping issues.
Note: also see here, for decisions from the Federal Court in the matter above.
These are of course not the only NGOs working to open up our borders (and other nations’ borders as well), but it does at least provide some insight.
Also, see the above links in Section #1 for other articles published on these NGOs.
9. Look At The Bigger Picture
Last fall, the story made the news that a challenge would be coming to Toronto to the Safe Third Country Agreement.
However, the Canadian media left out important information. Shocking.
First, it didn’t go into any detail on the groups lobbying for this. It wasn’t just some helpless “asylum claimants”, but an organized effort to help erase Canada’s border with the U.S.
Second, the full extent of the NGO meddling is not mentioned. True, some media DO reference the 2007 case, but not further. It doesn’t provide a complete picture of what is going on. Nor does it mention how these groups are pushing similar initiatives elsewhere. Amnesty International, for example, claims to have 7 million members pushing to bring more migrants (primarily) to the West. The Canadian Council for Refugees, as another example, spends considerable time and effort lobbying our Parliament for more refugee friendly laws.
Third, there seems little concern for the Canadian who would have their safety and sovereignty eroded should this pass. Instead, the focus is always on people coming to Canada and what their needs are.
This is lawfare: using our courts and legal system to open our borders.
