Category: Canada

Posted on

CV #2: Coronavirus Research At USask: Gates Foundation, UNDP Funded IVI, Douglas Richardson

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

(A) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-0-corona-plandemic-lobbying-deleted-resources-cl-listings-theresa-tam-canadas-hoaxer-zero
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-1-coronavirus-patent-by-pirbright-institute-funded-by-gates-foundation-climate-change-scam-15/

2. Important Links

(1) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=3653&regId=895048
(2) https://archive.is/iRv5L
(3) https://www.mckercher.ca/
(4) https://archive.is/VtpqF
(5) https://twitter.com/VIDOInterVac
(6) https://news.usask.ca/articles/research/2020/usask-vido-intervac-and-international-vaccine-institute-collaborate-on-covid-19-work.php
(7) http://archive.is/Fcplz
(8) https://news.usask.ca/articles/research/2019/usasks-vido-intervac-and-south-koreans-international-vaccine-institute-to-undertake-scientific-exchanges.php
(9) http://archive.is/jgKDU
(10) http://www.un-rok.org/about-un/offices/ivi/
(11) http://archive.is/FIdw8
(12) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Vaccine_Institute
(13) http://archive.is/S7ZkF
(14) https://www.vido.org/news/maternal-immunization-may-protect-newborns-from-whooping-cough-u-of-s-vido-study
(15) http://archive.is/ABYl3

3. Context For This Piece

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.

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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)

7. VIDO-InterVac On Twitter

For some of its announcements, check out InterVac’s Twitter account, and see what it has been up to.

8. 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.

9. 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?

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Vaccine Research Is Here In Canada

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.

Posted on

Ontario’s Bill 168: Doug Ford To Ban Criticism Of Jews Under Guise Of “Anti-Semitism”

1. Important Links

(1) bill.168.antisemitism
(2) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-4.html
(3) https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-1/bill-168
(4) http://archive.is/PPk8V
(5) https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/
(6) http://archive.is/FMY3i
(7) https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
(8) http://archive.is/In7MJ

2. Context For This Article

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.

Posted on

B’nai Brith Canada Is Anti-Free Speech, Ontario’s Bill 168

1. Important Links

(1) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?V_SEARCH.command=refineCategory&V_TOKEN=1234567890&V_SEARCH.scopeCategory=solr.facetName.subjectMatters%3D5
(2) http://archive.is/3hU27
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=12176&regId=496692
(4) http://archive.is/jcNOM
(5) https://www.bnaibrith.ca/our_appeal_to_the_prime_minister_confronting_antisemitism_will_strengthen_national_unity
(6) http://archive.is/diKdj
(7) https://www.bnaibrith.ca/our_letter_to_the_prime_minister
(8) http://archive.is/rBhiF
(9) https://www.bnaibrith.ca/b_nai_brith_canada_welcomes_government_s_acceptance_of_ihra_definition_of_antisemitism
(10) http://archive.is/mXEUO
(11) https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism
(12) http://archive.is/4tjCw
(13) https://www.robinmartinmpp.ca/bill168
(14) http://archive.is/IuWAY
(15) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/campaigns/anti-racism-engagement/anti-racism-strategy.html
(16) http://archive.is/nUEwE
(17) https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-1/bill-168
(18) http://archive.is/PPk8V

2. Corporate Documents

B’nai Brith League For Human Rights
bblhr.01.bylaws
bblhr.02.change.registered.office
bblhr.03.amendments
bblhr.04.certificate.of.incorporation
bblhr.05.director.changes

B’nai Brith National Organization
bbno.01.director.changes
bbno.02.certificate.of.incorporation
bbno.03.change.registered.office
bbno.04.notice.of.financials

3. B’nai Brith & The Lobbying Commission

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.

7. Other Media On A-S Definition Acceptance

From the Jerusalum Post:

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.

From the Jewish News Syndicate

“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.”

8. B’nai Brith’s 8-Pt Plan On Antisemitism

bnaibrith.8.point.plan

[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.

bill.168.antisemitism

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.

Posted on

TSCE #8(F): Bit Of History, NGOs Trying To Open Canada’s Borders For Decades

1. 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.

2. Why Canadians Should Care

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.

3. 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

(b) 2017, CJ Crampton transfers cases to J. Diner
Crampton Transfers Consolidated Cases

(c) 2017, Justice Diner grants public interest standing
Citation: 2017 FC 1131
Amnesty Int’l, CDN Councils of Churches, Refugees

(d) 2018, Justice Diner grants consolidation of 3 cases
Citation: 2018 FC 396
Cases to be consolidated

(e) 2018, Justice Diner allows more witnesses
Citation: 2018 FC 829
2018.Diner.Calling.More.Witnesses

(f) 2019, Justice McDonald says no more witnesses
Citation: 2019 FC 418
2019.McDonald.No.More.Intervenors

4. 1992: SCC Rules No Standing

1992.SCC.Rules.No.Standing
The CanLII link is here.

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.

5. 2008: S3CA, Parts Of IRPA Struck Out

S3CA, Parts of IRPA Struck

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.

6. 2009: Previous Ruling Overturned

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.

7. 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.

The case is still pending.

8. So Who Are These NGOs?

Amnesty International
ai.01.certificate.of.continuance
ai.02.bylaws
ai.03.changes.in.directors
ai.04.notice.of.financials

B’nai Brith League For Human Rights
bblhr.01.bylaws
bblhr.02.change.registered.office
bblhr.03.amendments
bblhr.04.certificate.of.incorporation
bblhr.05.director.changes

B’nai Brith National Organization
bbno.01.director.changes
bbno.02.certificate.of.incorporation
bbno.03.change.registered.office
bbno.04.notice.of.financials

Bridges, Not Borders
Bridges Not Borders, Mainpage
Bridges Not Borders, About
Bridges Not Borders, Why They Cross
Bridges Not Borders, Media Page
Bridges Not Borders, Pro Asylum Shopping

Canadian Association Of Refugee Lawyers
carl.01.directors
carl.02.change.of.office
carl.03.bylaws.2015
carl.04.notice.of.return
carl.05.certificate.of.continuance

Canadian Council For Refugees
ccr.01.2019.director.changes
ccr.02.bylaws
ccr.03.bylaws.from.2014
ccr.04.certificate.of.continuance
ccr.05.annual.return

Plattsburgh Cares
Plattsburgh Cares Main Page
Plattsburgh Cares, Humanitarian Support

Solidarity Across Borders
Solidarity Across Borders’ Homepage
SAB Supports Illegal Migrant Caravans
SAB Supports Sanctuary Cities For Illegals
SAB Calls To Open Up The Borders

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.

Posted on

TSCE #8(C): Canadian Council For Refugees, Lobbying To Open Our Borders

1. 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.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for CCR lobbying efforts since 1997.
http://archive.is/pHoQN
CLICK HERE, for CCR Communications Reports filed.
http://archive.is/xSrFC

CLICK HERE, for 2018/2019 tax information.
http://archive.is/FanEL

CLICK HERE, for CNN on DNA testing at US/Mex border.
http://archive.is/Ob6BT

CLICK HERE, for CCR supports Bill C-6, citizenship for terrorists.
http://archive.is/q1Kih

3. Context For This Article

Canadians should have control over their own laws. They should be drafted by and for Canadians. This should not be a difficult or controversial topic.

However, one organization, the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR), is attempting to lobby Canada’s politicians to create more “refugee” friendly laws. This has been going on for over a decade, and seems to have been a long term effort.

Yes, the CCR is one of the groups trying to strike down the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement in the Toronto Federal Court. However, this article will focus more on the political efforts that CCR has undertaken. Indeed, CCR has been busy trying change our laws.

4. CCR Lobbying The Federal Government

Here is an alphabetical list of those who have been lobbied by the Canadian Council for Refugees since 2008.

Gary Anandasangaree, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Sacha Atherly, Policy Advisor | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Matthieu Bélanger, Chief of Staff | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Bill Blair, Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction | Public Safety Canada (PS)
Jacques Cloutier, Vice-President | Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)
Claudette Deschênes, Assistant Deputy Minister | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Dawn Edlund, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Steve Foster, Senior Policy Advisor (specializing in social justice issues) | House of Commons
Ralph Goodale, Minister | Public Safety Canada (PS)
Sadia Groguhé, MP, Deputy Critic Immigration, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism | House of Commons
Alyx Holland, Office of the Minister of Public Safety Canada | Public Safety Canada (PS)
David Hurl, Director of Policy and Parliamentary Affairs | Public Safety Canada (PS)
Ahmed Hussen, Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Jenny Kwan, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Les Linklater, Assistant Deputy Minister | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
David Manicom, Assistant Deputy Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
John McCallum, Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Marta Morgan, Deputy Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Kyle Nicholson, Director of Policy | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Kim Pate, Senator | Senate of Canada
Olga Radchenko, Director of Parliamentary Affairs | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Murray Rankin, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Ali Salam, Chief of Staff | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Oline Twiss, Policy and Stakeholders Relations Officer | House of Commons
Richard Wex, Associate Deputy Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)

Now, let’s take a look at some specific proposals that CCR is advocating for. Sections 4-10 cover the most important ones. But those are by no means all of them.

5. CCR Challenges Canada/US S3CA

US-Canada safe third country agreement – oppose denial of access to refugee determination in Canada on the basis of the Safe Third Country Agreement

The Canadian Council for Refugees is one of the groups aiding a challenge in Toronto to strike down the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement. If this were to be successful, it would mean that (even at official border ports), so called “refugees” from the US could simply stroll in and be legally entitled to a hearing.

6. CCR Opposes DNA Testing

Interestingly, they also oppose DNA testing. (see the last section for the screenshot). Now why would any responsible organization be doing this? Wouldn’t they want to ensure that children are being reunited with their true, biological relatives?

Washington (CNN)The Department of Homeland Security will start a DNA testing pilot program next week to help identify and prosecute individuals posing as families in an effort to target human smuggling, two department officials confirmed to CNN.

The Rapid DNA testing, as it’s known, involves a cheek swab and can, on average, provide results in about 90 minutes, a senior Immigration and Customs Enforcement official said.

The pilot program will run for two to three days in two border locations.

It’s the latest move by the Trump administration to address the swell of migrants, predominantly families and children from Central American countries, at the border using a wide variety of technology and increased resources to fight illegal immigration.

That was an American article, but it also raises an interesting question here. If there is a risk of child smuggling or child trafficking, why WOULDN’T the Canadian Council for Refugees want to ensure that true families are being reunited? Do they want to aid and abet smuggling and trafficking?

7. CCR Against Custody Req’t For Illegals

Immigration detention policies – advocating for the end to the immigration detention of children and families and for reduction in immigration detention, including through the introduction of fair and effective alternatives to detention.

Why should people in the country illegally, or accused of other crimes while not a citizen be locked up for any reason? Perhaps self deportation would be in everyone’s best interests….

8. CCR Challenges Removing Criminally Inadmissible PR

Removals of permanent residents on the basis of criminal inadmissibility, particularly in the wake of amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act made in 2013. CCR’s concern relates to lack of due consideration of humanitarian and compassionate factors in making removals, particularly of long-term residents.

9. CCR Challenges Deportations To Certain Countries

Removals to situations of risk – calling for suspension of removals to countries of generalized risk and policies ensuring individuals at risk have removal deferred.

10. CCR Promotes Amnesty For Illegals

Regularization of persons without status – promoting measures to allow persons in Canada without status to obtain permanent residence, including advocating for regularization of “legacy” claimants, ie. those who made a refugee claim before 15 December 2012.

This is exactly what it sounds like. The Canadian Council for Refugees is lobbying for amnesty-for-illegals, which will create a path to permanent residence, and presumably citizenship at some point.

11. CCR Wants Canadians To Foot The Bill

Availability of legal aid to refugee claimants and other vulnerable migrants, including the role of the federal government in providing adequate funding to provinces to cover the costs of legal aid.

It wouldn’t really be complete without ensuring that Canadians were on the hook paying for these people’s legal costs, now would it?

12. Some Government Funding CCR Gets

  • City of Montreal
  • Canadian Heritage
  • City of Victoria
  • Government of Quebec
  • Federal Government (IRCC)

While CCR undoubtedly has some private donors, it is a recipient of Government aid. Or to be more precise, it receives taxpayer aid.

13. Info From Canada Revenue Tax Filings

Receipted donations $94,255.00 (22.94%)
Non-receipted donations $17,110.00 (4.16%)
Gifts from other registered charities $117,291.00 (28.55%)
Government funding $5,000.00 (1.22%)
All other revenue $177,168.00 (43.13%)
Total revenue: $410,824.00

Receipted donations $80,885.00 (9.85%)
Non-receipted donations $221,686.00 (27.01%)
Gifts from other registered charities $208,696.00 (25.42%)
Government funding $38,086.00 (4.64%)
All other revenue $271,506.00 (33.08%)
Total revenue: $820,859.00

Receipted donations $85,242.00 (12.44%)
Non-receipted donations $47,860.00 (6.99%)
Gifts from other registered charities $103,198.00 (15.06%)
Government funding $142,513.00 (20.80%)
All other revenue $306,250.00 (44.70%)
Total revenue: $685,063.00

Receipted donations $93,961.00 (12.99%)
Non-receipted donations $49,488.00 (6.84%)
Gifts from other registered charities $119,054.00 (16.45%)
Government funding $109,905.00 (15.19%)
All other revenue $351,132.00 (48.53%)
Total revenue: $723,540.00

More detailed information

14. Corporate Documents

ccr.01.2019.director.changes
ccr.02.bylaws
ccr.03.bylaws.from.2014
ccr.04.certificate.of.continuance
ccr.05.annual.return

15. CCR’s Previous Attempt On S3CA

In 2007, the CCR (along with Amnesty International, and the Canadian Council of Churches) were successful in getting the Safe 3rd Country Agreement struck down.
2007.safe.3rd.country.struck.down

However, in 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned that ruling, stating that these groups didn’t have standing to bring it themselves.
2009.fca.appeal.overturns.ruling

Now, the trio (Amnesty International, Canadian Council for Refugees, and Canadian Council of Churches) are at it again. They’ve taken up the cases of “refugees” from the US who want this law struck down.

16. CCR Supported Bill C-6 (Citizenship for Terrorists)

CCR calls for further amendments to Citizenship Act to reduce barriers and make all citizens equal
The Canadian Council for Refugees published today its submission on Bill C-6, welcoming the introduction of amendments to the Citizenship Act and calling for further changes to provide equal access to citizenship and fair process.
.
“We need to bring down barriers to citizenship, especially for already disadvantaged groups such as refugees, the elderly, and women,” said Loly Rico, CCR President. “In line with Canada’s international obligations, we encourage the government to craft a new citizenship regime to which all applicants will have equal access without discrimination.”
.
Bill C-6 mostly reverses changes made under the previous Bill C-24, which took effect in 2015. The CCR welcomes the changes that will give refugees and other newcomers earlier access to citizenship, which will lead to better integration.
.
Bill C-6 also rightly re-affirms the equality of all citizens by eliminating provisions allowing for dual citizens to lose their citizenship in cases of “treason” or “terrorism” and requiring applicants for citizen to have an “intent to reside in Canada”.
.
While Bill C-6 contains many good measures to strengthen citizenship, other changes are also needed to remove barriers and end second class citizenship. The CCR is calling on Parliament to amend the bill to:
Create a right to apply for citizenship for youth under 18 who do not have a parent or legal guardian in Canada.
Create a system to exempt people from citizenship fees if they can’t afford them.
Provide better accommodation for applicants with disabilities.
Prevent long wait times by requiring the government to process applications within a reasonable time.
Stop the use of citizenship applications to launch a process to strip status from former refugees (through cessation).
Provide better procedural rights for loss of citizenship based on fraud or misrepresentation.
Restore Canadian citizenship to second generation born abroad to Canadian citizens. In the alternative, at least give citizenship for those who would be otherwise be stateless.

Yes, the CCR supported Trudeau’s Bill C-6, which would have stripped Canadian citizenship away from dual citizens convicted of terrorism or treason. Way tp pick a winning issue.

17. CCR Is A Political Organization

Despite the presumption that charities or NGOs simply act for a god cause that they represent, this is not really the case here. The Canadian Council for Refugees has a political branch to it, which is trying to change Canadian laws. Let’s summarize a few:

  • Trying to strike down Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement
  • Opposing DNA testing for refugees
  • Removing immigration detention
  • Permanent residence for criminal inadmissibles
  • No deportation to various countries
  • Amnesty/PR for illegals
  • Taxpayer funded court services
  • Citizenship for terrorists

Those are just a few of the things that CCR lobbies for. It is a political organization deliberately lobbying to weaken our borders even more. It’s time to call a spade a spade.

Posted on

The Zionist Roots Of Amnesty International

1. 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.

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/safe-third-country-agreement/final-text.html
(2) https://nationalpost.com/news/court-to-hear-case-on-whether-asylum-agreement-with-u-s-violates-charter
(3) http://archive.is/R7JvO
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=3766&regId=536906
(5) http://archive.is/6Aaj2
(6) http://pinnaclepublicaffairs.com/experience.htm
(7) http://archive.is/1B3oJ

(8) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Benenson
(9) http://archive.is/0Vzub
(10) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flora_Solomon
(11) http://archive.is/mLYW8
(12) https://www.benensonsociety.org/
(13) http://archive.is/XfPd
(14) https://www.benensonsociety.org/campaign-archives
(15) http://archive.is/lpVwc
(16) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/peter-benenson-13233.html
(17) http://archive.is/w8KjQ
(18) https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/04/my-hero-flora-solomon-ben-macintyre
(19) http://archive.is/plnqO
(20) https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/name/peter-benenson-obituary?pid=3219284
(21) http://archive.is/Z7uql
(22) https://www.nytimes.com/1939/04/06/archives/grigori-benenson-noted-financier-former-owner-of-building-at-165.html
(23) http://archive.is/0FpCR
(24) https://www.jewishpress.com/news/israel/boycott/exposed-amnesty-internationals-obsessive-anti-semitic-anti-israel-hatred/2019/12/22/
(25) http://archive.is/WfdT4

3. Why Should Canadians Care?

Amnesty International operates in countries across the world, including Canada. It is one of the groups attempting to further open Canada’s borders, by getting the Safe Third Country Agreement struck down in Federal Court.

2018.Diner.Cases.To.Be.Consolidated
2018.calling.more.witnesses
do.we.need.more.intervenors
2019.McDonald.No.More.Intervenors

Hypocrisy from Prothonotary Milczynski and Chief Justice Crampton
Milczynski.Consolidates.Cases
Crampton.Transfers.Consolidated.Cases

While that is obviously a very serious case, let’s look at some other instances of Amnesty International trying to weaponize the Canadian Courts. While striking down the S3CA (and effectively allowing open borders) is a huge issues, it is not at all the only things Amnesty does.

4. AI Lawfare In Canadian Courts

Amnesty International Canada v. Canada (Chief of the Defence Staff), 2008 FC 336 (CanLII), [2008] 4 FCR 546

Amnesty International Canada v. Canada (Chief of the Defence Staff), 2008 FCA 401 (CanLII)

Amnesty International Canada v. Canadian Forces, 2007 FC 1147 (CanLII)

Amnesty International Canada v. Canadian Forces, 2008 FC 162 (CanLII)

Canada (Attorney General) v. Amnesty International Canada, 2009 FC 426 (CanLII)

Canada (Attorney General) v. Amnesty International Canada, 2009 FC 918 (CanLII), [2010] 4 FCR 182

Gitxaala Nation v. Canada, 2015 FCA 73 (CanLII)
Choc v. Hudbay Minerals Inc. et al., 2013 ONSC 998 (CanLII)

Choc v Hudbay Minerals Inc., 2013 ONSC 1414 (CanLII)

Garrick v. Amnesty International Canada, 2011 FC 1099 (CanLII), [2013] 3 FCR 146

Isakhani v. Al-Saggaf, 2006 CanLII 42605 (ON SC)

Jacobson v. Atlas Copco Canada Inc., 2015 ONSC 4 (CanLII)

Mohammad v. Tarraf, 2019 ONSC 1701 (CanLII)

Prophet River First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 120 (CanLII)

Tanudjaja v. Attorney General (Canada), 2013 ONSC 1878 (CanLII)

Tanudjaja v. Attorney General (Canada) (Application), 2013 ONSC 5410 (CanLII)

This is of course no where near the entire list, but Amnesty International has been quite busy using Canada’s courts for its own political goals.

Strange that they are granted “public interest standing” to do these things, but ordinary citizens are not. This of course refers to not allowing Canadian citizens standing to close the loophole in the Safe 3rd Country Agreement.

5. Amnesty International Lobbying Efforts

Although it’s record in the Federal lobbying registry is brief, it is there. Amnesty International has been lobbying the Government with respects to the International Convention on Human Rights.

A more interesting story is on the lobbyist Titch Dharamsi:

Titch Dharamsi, Principal
Titch Dharamsi brings over 15 years of senior public sector and government relations experience to your cause. He has served as lead consultant to a number of major national and international organizations in areas as diverse as tax policy, mining, and international trade. He has an established an impressive record of success in meeting client objectives.
.
While in national government, Titch served as the Senior Policy Advisor and Executive Assistant to a senior federal Cabinet Minister. Prior to that he was a consultant in the corporate finance division of an international consulting company, where he advised on public-private partnerships. Titch also served in the Ontario government as an aide to various Ministers and the Premier, and as an Executive Council Member of a provincial agency.
.
Titch concluded his post-graduate studies at Cornell University, where he was appointed a Fellow of the Institute for Public Affairs and where he founded and edited a prominent public policy journal.
Titch has also contributed to numerous community activities. He has served as Chair of Medical Education for South African Blacks (MESAB – Canada), Secretary of the Ontario Liberal Party, and President of the Madope Development Corporation, which established agricultural and human development projects in rural Tanzania.
.
Associates
In delivering the results crucial to your organization, Pinnacle engages senior associates from numerous sectors, including leading economists, international trade consultants, and former senior public officials.

He was an influential member of both the Federal and Ontario Liberal parties. Good to know he is “really” independent from the people he lobbies.

6. Canadian Chapter Corporate Documents

2017 Director Changes
Notice Of Financials
Organization By-Laws
Certificate Of Continuance

Amnesty International does have a legitimate branch registered in Canada. Problem is, Amnesty International Canada isn’t Canadian. Instead, it is part of a globalist organization to help open the borders of other nations.

7. Peter Benenson Founded Amnesty Int’l

The Benenson Society is named after the now deceased man, and claims to be carrying out more humanitarian work. The archives of the society list many causes around the world. And indeed, many of them sound great.

Problem is: Amnesty International (Benenson’s legacy) still is devoted to helping masses of people around the world cross borders, often without much concern as to whether it is legally or illegally.

For some perspective, A foundation started by a Russian Zionist Jew is helping FOREIGNERS enter other nations, and seems to care little about the legality of it.

8. Benenson’s Obituary (UK Independent)

Peter Solomon (Peter Benenson), barrister and human-rights campaigner: born London 31 July 1921; married first Margaret Anderson (two daughters; marriage dissolved 1972), second 1973 Susan Booth (one son, one daughter); died Oxford 25 February 2005.

Peter Benenson founded Amnesty (later Amnesty International) in 1961 and thereby became the creator of a human-rights movement which now counts more than a million members in 150 countries. His warmth and generosity of spirit gained him friends round the globe. His modesty was such that decades later many, even at Amnesty, did not realise he was the founder of the organisation.

The Benensons were a Russian Jewish family and Peter Benenson’s maternal grandfather, Grigori Benenson, earned a fortune in Tsarist times from banking and oil. The family left Russia at the time of the Revolution. In London Grigori’s daughter Flora met and married Harold Solomon, a member of a City stockbroking family who had risen to Brigadier-General in the First World War. Their only child, Peter Solomon, was born in London in 1921.

Despite the family riches, his was not a happy childhood. In 1920 Harold was attached to the staff of Sir Herbert Samuel, High Commissioner in Palestine, and they went to live in Jerusalem, an entrancing development for the passionately Zionist and untiringly party-mad Flora.

Awaiting the demobilisation which eventually came in 1947 Benenson studied law, preparing himself for a career as a barrister. He joined the Labour Party and the Society of Labour Lawyers. Without success, he tried three times to win a seat in the Commons despite the help given by such as Clement Attlee, Roy Jenkins and Anthony Wedgwood Benn.

According to the obituary, Peter Benenson, from his mother’s side, was wealthy due to successes in banking and oil. His mother, Flora, was a proud and unabashed Zionist. The family was made up of Russian Jews.

Interestingly, Peter goes by his mother’s maiden name (Benenson), and not his birth name, Solomon. One has to wonder why that is.

9. Guardian Article On Flora Solomon

The Guardian also pushed a piece, on Flora Solomon, mother of Peter Benenson (Solomon). She was very proud of her Russian roots, and Jewish ancestry.

A legacy.com publication outlines the family heritage and comments that:

Born July 31, 1921, Benenson was the grandson of Grigori Benenson, a Russian-Jewish banker, and the son of Flora Solomon, who raised him alone after the death of her husband, British army Col. John Solomon.

In fact, there are several mainstream outlets and blogs outlining who Peter Benenson’s family really was, and his Russian/Jewish heritage. And several claim that Flora has long been a proud Zionist.

10. Grigori Benenson, Peter’s Maternal Grandfather

Russian-Jewish banker who made his fortune in oil. The family left Russia at the time of the Revolution.
.
«BENENSON. On April 4, 1939, at Quenn’s Gate, London, W.1, Grigori Benenson, beloved father of Flora, Fira and Manya, and much-loved grandfather of Mira.” (The Times (London, England), Thursday, Apr 06, 1939; pg. 1; Issue 48273.)

Source: Find A Grave

The New York Times, of all places has information on Grigori Benenson and his wealth. Unfortunately, all of it is behind a paywall. But Grigori Benenson was a Russian Jew who made a fortune in oil and banking. Hence, Peter Benenson was set to go from the start.

Ancestry confirms that Peter Benenson (or Solomon) is the maternal grandson of Grigori Benenson, and that Flora is Peter’s Mother.

Some of the blogs have written that Grigori Benenson was actually related to the Rothschild Family. While that is possible, and quite likely, I haven’t independently verified it. If true, it would certainly explain at least in part how he initially became wealthy.

11. Amnesty Int’l Blurs The Line: Legal/Illegal

Who is a migrant?
.
There is no internationally accepted legal definition of a migrant. Like most agencies and organizations, we at Amnesty International understand migrants to be people staying outside their country of origin, who are not asylum-seekers or refugees.
.
Some migrants leave their country because they want to work, study or join family, for example. Others feel they must leave because of poverty, political unrest, gang violence, natural disasters or other serious circumstances that exist there.
.
Lots of people don’t fit the legal definition of a refugee but could nevertheless be in danger if they went home. It is important to understand that, just because migrants do not flee persecution, they are still entitled to have all their human rights protected and respected, regardless of the status they have in the country they moved to. Governments must protect all migrants from racist and xenophobic violence, exploitation and forced labour. Migrants should never be detained or forced to return to their countries without a legitimate reason.

Although not explicitly stated, it is implied that Amnesty International sees international migration as a human right. Again, little to no concern over the legality of these measures.

12. Jews Accuse AI Of Anti-Semitism

Talk about “eating your own”. In this submission from JewishPress.com, Amnesty International is accused of anti-Semitism for criticizing Israel’s expansion into Palestine.

However, according to the report titled “Amnesty International – From Bias to Obsession,” Amnesty has employed people with “open pro-terrorist sympathies, crucially relying on them to provide information upstream that shapes opinion.”

One Amnesty consultant was found to be tweeting support for a terrorist group and sharing advice about hiding the truth to protect what he termed as the “resistance,” a euphemism for terrorist organizations. Another was found advising “factions,” another term for terrorist groups, not to publicly identify “martyrs,” terrorists killed in action, as belonging to terrorist groups.

Amnesty Consultant Hind Khoudary referred to two Islamic Jihad terrorists as “heroes”.

Nadine Moawad, MENA Communications Manager for Amnesty International, referred to Israel as the “Zionist entity” and called for a “full disbanding” of the Jewish state.

“Amnesty’s arsenal is turned towards Israel. All of its departments appear to allocate disproportionate resources to attack Israel. The cumulative effect results in what can only be termed as a never-ending obsession,” Collier wrote.

He also notes “the alignment between Amnesty’s anti-Israel campaigns and the aims of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment & Sanction) movement, which leave little room for doubt that it is coordinated rather than coincidental.
The report said that Amnesty “displays a symbiotic relationship with BDS” and thus concludes that “elements within Amnesty International actively seek to promote the destruction of the Jewish state.”

Because there is a religious aspect to some of the Amnesty content detailed in the report, the report concludes that “the cumulative effect of the organization’s unnatural hostility towards Israel is anti-Semitic.”

Perhaps they never got the message who actually founded Amnesty International. But then again, an awful lot of Jews will cry “anti-Semitism” whenever their BEHAVIOUR is criticized. Still, enjoyable to watch. And there are many such articles on this subject.

13. Nothing Grassroots About A.I.

Amnesty International was founded by Peter Benenson, grandson of Grigori Benenson. Grigori was a Russian tycoon due to his successes in oil and banking. Peter’s mother, Flora, was a proud Zionist.

Despite attempts to portray Amnesty as some sort of grassroots campaign funded on very little money, the truth about its founder speaks volumes.

Amnesty is an NGO, whose purpose (among others) is getting “migrants and refugees” from Country A to Country B. From its own website, it appears to blur the line between people entering legally v.s. illegally.

In an amusing twist, Israelis accuse Amnesty of anti-Semitism for its repeated criticism of what goes on in the West Bank. Interestingly, many of the people at AI don’t give Israel a pass for their behaviour.

Amnesty has also been trying for many years to weaponize the Canadian Courts, and is one of the players currently involved in attempting to have the Safe 3rd Country Agreement struck down. It’s yet another example of trying to open OTHER countries’ borders.