Category: Canada

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #14: Let’s Replace The Canadian Population

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

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

1. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda Masterlist.

(CBC wants less Canadian children)
CLICK HERE, for “we’re only having 1 kids, and that’s okay”.
CLICK HERE, for beware of middle child syndrome.
CLICK HERE, for criticizing those with too many kids.
CLICK HERE, for why I only have 1 child.
CLICK HERE, for childless women changing culture.
CLICK HERE, for not teaching a daughter to be polite.
CLICK HERE, have less children to lower emissions.

(and in case you think CBC just wants less children in general)
CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism is critical to Canada.
CLICK HERE, for border walls are useless.
CLICK HERE, for nothing will stop migration.
CLICK HERE, for Europe should have open borders.
CLICK HERE, for Hungary’s Orban is a dictator for rejecting migration.
CLICK HERE, for bigot Orban wanting a Christian nation.
CLICK HERE, for Global Migration Compact is harmless.
CLICK HERE, for Canada having 100M people by year 2100.

(and to everyone’s favourite benevolent founder>
CLICK HERE, for Soros is misunderstood.
CLICK HERE, for Soros bullied out of Hungary.
CLICK HERE, for Canada joining UN, Soros, to sponsor refugees.

3. Why This Is Important


There are many, many more links on both subjects, but this should provide sufficient evidence for now. CBC, Canada’s government run “news” agency, consistently reports on both of these topics.

    CBC pushes both:

  1. Reducing Canadian birth rate; and
  2. Mass migration of foreigners

What are the consequences of these 2 initiatives? Well, when Canadians have less children, their birthrate falls, and the population declines. When you have mass migration, the declining population of Canadians is replaced by migrants and their descendants.

Think this is hyperbole? Consider these points:

  • Shame families with many children
  • Having 1 kid is okay
  • Childless is the new culture
  • Have fewer kids to save the planet

….. and on the other side:

  • Borders are immoral and pointless
  • Multiculturalism is part of Canada
  • Only bigots reject migration
  • Canada’s population needs to be much bigger

    • 4. Consider Both Narratives

    First, starting with the fearmongering piece that climate change is destructive and can only be mitigated by altering human behaviour:

    >What’s the single best decision you can make if you want to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) being released into the atmosphere?

    That’s the question UBC researcher Seth Wynes and his co-author Kimberly Nicholas set out to answer in a new paper published this week.

    Their answer? Have fewer children.

    The other three choices they identified were eating a plant-based diet, avoiding air travel and giving up personal vehicles. But by their reasoning, having one fewer child overwhelmingly outweighs all other choices, due to all of the GHGs that child would be responsible for emitting over the course of their life.

    “To put it simply, adding another person to the planet who uses more resources and produces more carbon dioxide is always going to make a large contribution to climate change,” Wynes said.

    And on the flip side of the “have fewer children” message, do you think that these people will recommend much, MUCH reduced immigration so as to reduce emissions? Nope, not a chance. From the “Century Initiative” promotion:

    If Canada sticks with current practices, our population will grow to between 51 to 53 million by the end of the century.

    A non-profit group called The Century Initiative advocates doubling that, to 100 million. That’s about triple our current population.

    “We recognize that it may be counterintuitive,” Shari Austin, CEO of the Century Initiative, told The Sunday Edition’s guest host Peter Armstrong.

    It’s the only way, she argued, that Canada can face the economic challenges ahead and strengthen its international influence.

    Currently, Canada accepts 310,000 immigrants per year. The Century Initiative suggests that number should be closer to 450,000.

    “It’s a big, audacious goal,” she conceded. But it has been done before. Since 1945 to the present day, Canada’s population has tripled.

    “A mix of people wanting to contribute to the economy and wanting to have children,” Austin explained.

    That doesn’t mean that refugees aren’t welcome.

    “We also have ethical obligations to make sure we do our fair share to help bring people to a better life,” she clarified.

    She also sees this as a way to create “a more diverse, more interesting, dynamic population.”

    “It’s an exciting opportunity to be proactive about what we want to look like in fifty years, in a hundred years. It’s also an opportunity to leave a better world for our kids and our grandkids.”

    It is interesting the contrast in the arguments.
    CBC uses ENVIRONMENTAL and HEALTH reasons to push for less Canadians to have less children. However,
    CBC uses ECONOMIC and MULTICULTURAL claims to push for more immigration (or migration)

    Nice bait-and-switch.

    To be fair, CBC does have many authors and contributors. However, the overall pattern is impossible to ignore. CBC regularly releases content pushing for Canadians to have less children. At the same time it sings the praises of open borders, mass migration and multiculturalism.

    5. George Soros Puff Piece

    The financier is also famously active as a philanthropist. Through his Open Society Foundations, he has given billions to NGOs in more than 100 countries to “build vibrant and tolerant democracies,” according to its website.

    Why is Soros controversial?

    Emily Tamkin, a staff writer for Foreign Policy magazine, compares Soros’s public image to a mirror in the Harry Potter novels. When a character looked in that fictional mirror, they would see what they desired most.

    “He’s like that, but with the thing that you revile most,” she told The Current’s Anna Maria Tremonti.

    CBC also has done many flattering puff pieces on Soros. They claim he is misunderstood, and that it is bigots projecting their own prejudices onto him. No real objectivity here.

    6. Is This Illegal?

    Under the letter of the law, probably not. But consider the following:

    Marginal note:
    Public incitement of hatred
    319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
    Marginal note:

    Wilful promotion of hatred
    (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    Does this promote hate and harm against Canadians? I would think so, but sadly no judge ever would. The CBC, which uses our tax dollars to advocate for our own replacement is just so wrong.

    7. StatsCan Aware Of Decline


    Here is a recent report:

    Fertility rates among Canadian women continue to decrease

    The total fertility rate (TFR) for 2015 was 1,563 births per 1,000 women. In 2016, the TFR was 1,543 births per 1,000 women. The TFR in Canada has shown a general decline since 2008, when it was 1,681 births per 1,000 women. The TFR is an estimate of the average number of live births that 1,000 women would have in their lifetime, based on the age-specific fertility rates of a given year.

    Taking mortality between birth and 15 years of age into consideration, developed countries such as Canada need an average of around 2,060 children per 1,000 females to renew their population based on natural increase and without taking immigration into account. The last year in which Canada attained fertility levels sufficient to replace its current population was 1971.

    While the TFR is a good indicator of fertility in Canada as a whole, this national average can hide major provincial and territorial differences. From 2000 to 2016, Nunavut was the only province or territory to consistently have fertility levels above the replacement rate, with a TFR of 2,986 live births per 1,000 women in 2016. With the exception of the Prairie provinces and the Northwest Territories, every other province and territory had TFRs during this period that rarely exceeded 1,700 births per 1,000 women.

    In 2016, for the 16th consecutive year, Saskatchewan had the highest TFR among the provinces, at 1,934 births per 1,000 women. It was followed by Manitoba (1,847), the Northwest Territories (1,793) and Alberta (1,694). British Columbia was the province with the lowest fertility rate at 1,404 births per 1,000 women, followed by Nova Scotia (1,422) and Newfoundland and Labrador (1,425).

    Sustainable Development Goals

    On January 1, 2016, the world officially began implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development — the United Nations’ transformative plan of action that addresses urgent global challenges over the next 15 years. The plan is based on 17 specific sustainable development goals.

    The Births release is an example of how Statistics Canada supports the reporting on the Global Goals for Sustainable Development. This release will be used in helping to measure the following goal:

    Forgot to mention, population control is part of Agenda 2030.

    Few Canadian Kids + Mass Migration = Demographic Replacement

    Final thought: Consider this policy idea, previously published.

    Posted on

    UN High Level Panel On Global Sustainability – Jordan Peterson Co-Authors

    Jordan Peterson contributed to the U.N. Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Sustainable Development. This certainly raises a lot of questions.

    1. Free Speech Hypocrisy

    2. Important Links

    (1) Peterson deplatforms Faith Goldy at free speech event
    (2) Peterson’s free speech cognitive dissonance
    (3) Peterson Threatens To Sue A Critic
    (4) Peterson files frivolous lawsuit against Laurier University
    (5) http://archive.ipu.org/splz-e/rio+20/rpt-panel.pdf
    (6) Sustainable Development Agenda Unformatted Final Text
    (7) https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/untaskteam_undf/HLP%20P2015%20Report.pdf
    (8) HLP P2015 Report Sustainable Development Agenda
    (9) https://www.un.org/sg/sites/www.un.org.sg/files/documents/management/PRpost2015.pdf
    (10) High Level Panel Rpost 2015
    (11) https://uscib.org/docs/GSPReportOverview_A4%20size.pdf
    (12) Resilient People Resilient Planet GSP Report Overview
    (13) https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/722600?ln=en#record-files-collapse-header
    (14) High Level Panel On Sustainable Development Peterson Named
    (15) https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/about/
    (16) Peterson Confirms UN Involvement (See 1:09)
    (17) Peterson Again Confirms UNSDA Involvement With Publication
    (18) https://nationalpost.com/news/world/jordan-petersons-popular-12-rules-book-banned-by-new-zealand-booksellers-because-of-christchurch-mosque-massacre
    (19) https://hlpf.un.org/

    Note: At the risk of this looking like a hit-piece, the right in Canada should be very wary about embracing this “free speech” warrior as one of their own.

    And what did this work ultimately contribute to?

    3. UN Agenda 2030

    Peterson’s Biography

    Raised and toughened in the frigid wastelands of Northern Alberta, Dr. Peterson has flown a hammer-head roll in a carbon-fiber stuntplane, piloted a mahogany racing sailboat around Alcatraz Island, explored an Arizona meteorite crater with a group of astronauts, built a Native American Long-House on the upper floor of his Toronto home, and been inducted into a Pacific Kwakwaka’wakw family (see charlesjoseph.ca). He’s been a dishwasher, gas jockey, bartender, short-order cook, beekeeper, oil derrick bit re-tipper, plywood mill laborer and railway line worker. He’s taught mythology to physicians, lawyers, and businessmen; worked with Jim Balsillie, former CEO of Blackberry’s Research in Motion, on Resilient People, Resilient Planet, the report of the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Global Sustainability; helped his clinical clients manage the triumphs and catastrophes of life; served as an advisor to senior partners of major Canadian law firms; penned the forward for the 50th anniversary edition of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago; lectured to more than 250,000 people across North America, Europe and Australia in one of the most-well attended book tours ever mounted; and, for The Founder Institute, identified thousands of promising entrepreneurs, in 60 different countries.

    So What’s In This Report?

    Disclaimer: The members of the panel endorse the report and generally agree with its findings. The members think that the message of this report is very important. The recommendations and the vision represent the consensus the panel members reached, but not every view expressed in this report reflects the views of all individual panel members. panel members naturally have different perspectives on some issues. if each panel member had individually attempted to write this report, she or he might have used different terms to express similar points. The panel members look forward to the report stimulating wide public dialogue and strengthening the common endeavour to promote global sustainable development.

    Let’s set this straight. The members, by and large, support the content of the report. Although there may be small discrepancies, on the whole they agree with the content.

    The panel also wishes to thank the civil society organizations that shared their valuable ideas and views during a series of consultations coordinated by the United Nations Non-Governmental liaison service. The full list of contributors from civil society is available from www.un-ngls.org/gsp. furthermore, the panel interacted at various meetings with senior representatives of the following organizations: civicUs: World alliance for citizen participation, eTc Group, the Global campaign for climate action, the huairou commission, oxfam international, stakeholder forum, sustainUs and the World resources institute.

    Interesting list of “organizations” that shared their views.

    Priority Areas For action Include:


    • delivering on the fundamentals of development: international commitments to eradicate poverty, promote human rights and human security and advance gender equality
    • advancing education for sustainable development, including secondary and vocational education, and building of skills to help ensure that all of society can contribute to solutions that address today’s challenges and capitalize on opportunities
    • creating employment opportunities, especially for women and youth, to drive green and sustainable growth
    • enabling consumers to make sustainable choices and advance responsible behaviour individually and collectively
    • Managing resources and enabling a twenty-first-century green revolution: agriculture, oceans and coastal systems, energy and technology, international cooperation
    • building resilience through sound safety nets, disaster risk reduction and adaptation planning

    1/ As with all UN causes, a virtue signal towards human rights and gender equality.

    2/ Advancing education? Propaganda in the classrooms?

    3/ Make work projects with age and gender quotas. Okay.

    4/ Advance responsible behaviour? Will there be some sort of “social credit system”?

    5/ Environmental systems to be managed globally

    6/ Disaster reduction, as in climate change I assume

    Policy Action Needed On

    • incorporating social and environmental costs in regulating and pricing of goods and services, as well as addressing market failures
    • creating an incentive road map that increasingly values long-term sustainable development in investment and financial transactions
    • increasing finance for sustainable development, including public and private funding and partnerships to mobilize large volumes of new financing
    • expanding how we measure progress in sustainable development by creating a sustainable development index or set of indicators

    This is going to be a globalist money pit, with cash flooding from all over the world to achieve some vague goals. And regulating the costs of goods and services? How very Communistic of you.

    (Page 50, Box 13): The Growing Use of Emissions Trading
    “cap and trade” emissions trading systems allow environmental damage to be reflected in market prices. by capping emissions, they guarantee that the desired level of emission reduction is achieved; and by allowing trading, they give business the flexibility to find the cheapest solutions, while rewarding investment in low-carbon technologies and innovation.

    This is the climate change scam on steroids. Carbon dioxide is not pollution, despite what the UN says. Under this scheme, “pollution” can be offset by buying credits, which of course does nothing to actually reduce emissions.

    (Page 64): Institutionalised Governance
    The present section examines aspects of governance and coherence for sustainable development at the national and global levels. it also pays special attention to holding all actors accountable for achieving sustainable development, and many of the recommendations put forward are designed to strengthen accountability at all decision making levels

    This is taking the actual decision making ability away from the people who are elected by and accountable to their citizens.

    (Page 30) Education
    67. investing in education and training provides a direct channel to advancing the sustainable development agenda. it is widely recognized as a tremendously efficient means to promote individual empowerment and lift generations out of poverty, and it yields important development benefits for young people, particularly women.
    .
    68. primary education for all, in particular, is a precondition for sustainable development. despite real progress, we are still not on track to achieving Millennium development Goal 2 by ensuring that all children, boys and girls alike, achieve a full course of primary schooling by 2015. instead, 67 million children of primary school age remain out of school and are still not receiving a primary education. The gap is especially critical for girls, who as of 2008 still made up more than 53 per cent of the out-of-school population. basic education is essential to overcoming barriers to their future employment and political participation, as women presently constitute roughly two thirds of the 793 million adult illiterates worldwide.
    .
    69. The Millennium development Goal on universal primary education has not yet been met, owing in part to insufficient funds, although other barriers exist. international means to supplement funds and support local and national efforts could help to overcome challenges such as teacher shortages and lack of infrastructure. The World bank’s Global partnership for education provides one model to help countries develop and implement sound education strategies.
    .
    70. While primary education is the foundation of development, post-primary and secondary education and vocational training are as crucial in building a sustainable future. every added year of education in developing countries increases an individual’s income by 10 per cent or more on average. studies also show that women in developing countries who complete secondary school have on average one child fewer than women who complete only primary school, leading to more economic wealth within families and decreased intergenerational poverty. Moreover, post-primary education based on a curriculum designed to develop key competencies for a twenty-first-century economy — such as ecosystem management, science, technology and engineering — can encourage innovation and accelerate technology transfer, as well as provide skills vital for new green jobs. yet today it is estimated that fewer than a quarter of children complete secondary school.

    I can’t be the only one thinking that this “global” education push will just lead to propaganda to be used against children. Rather than teaching the basics, kids will be indoctrinated about how to be good global citizens.

    Also worth noting, wherever this education takes root, it leads to young children being exposed to highly sexual content.

    4. (Page 54) Innovative Sources of Financing
    158. other innovative sources of financing can be used at the global, regional or national level as a way of pricing externalities, as well as of generating revenue that can be used to finance other aspects of sustainability. The reform of tax systems to shift taxation away from employment and towards consumption and resource use can help incentivize greener, more resource-efficient growth. Tax deductions to incentivize sustainable behaviour can also be highly effective.
    .
    159. While the political acceptability of innovative sources of finance and new fiscal measures will vary by country, as past efforts have shown, recent years have seen particular attention paid to the potential for this kind of approach to be used at the global level. The panel discussed and agreed on the need to further explore new areas of innovative sources of finance. This could build on, for instance, the work of the high-level advisory Group of the secretary-General on climate change financing. in terms of sources, a number of categories were identified by the advisory Group (see box 16).
    .
    160. a number of important sectors of the global economy are currently untaxed, despite the externalities they generate; these include emissions from fossil fuel combustion in the international maritime and aviation sectors. a tax on the most important energy-related greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, would be another economically efficient means of addressing externalities.

    recommendation 27
    161. governments should establish price signals that value sustainability to guide the consumption and investment decisions of households, businesses and the public sector. in particular, governments could:
    .
    a. establish natural resource and externality pricing instruments, including carbon pricing, through mechanisms such as taxation, regulation or emissions trading systems, by 2020;
    .
    b. ensure that policy development reflects the positive benefits of the inclusion of women, youth and the poor through their full participation in and contribution to the economy, and also account for the economic, environmental and social costs;
    .
    c. reform national fiscal and credit systems to provide long-term incentives for sustainable practices, as well as disincentives for unsustainable behaviour;
    .
    d. Develop and expand national and international schemes for payments for ecosystem services in such areas as water use, farming, fisheries and forestry systems;
    .
    e. Address price signals that distort the consumption and investment decisions of households, businesses and the public sector and undermine sustainability values. governments should move towards the transparent disclosure of all subsidies, and should identify and remove those subsidies which cause the greatest detriment to natural, environmental and social resources;
    .
    f. Phase out fossil fuel subsidies and reduce other perverse or trade-distorting subsidies by 2020. The reduction of subsidies must be accomplished in a manner that protects the poor and eases the transition for affected groups when the products or services concerned are essential.

    4. Some Reflection

    This is all about finding new ways to tax people, and regulate their behaviour. Absolutely leads to complete government control. Worst of all, it wouldn’t even be our government doing the regulating.

    The review will stop here, but please read through the document in its entirety. Anyone who supports it is no friend of freedom, or of sovereignty.

    Posted on

    CBC Propaganda #13: Political Charities Not Worth Auditing

    CLICK HERE, for a link to the CBC article.
    CLICK HERE, for the propaganda masterlist.

    Political activity audits of charities suspended by Liberals

    Panel report says charities should be free to engage in politics, minister suspends infamous audit program

    While this “looks” like a victory for free speech and political engagement, one has to ask how tainted charities will become when their income is influenced by who gets into power.

    The Liberal government is suspending the few remaining political activity audits of charities after an expert panel report recommended removing a political gag order imposed on them by the Conservatives five years ago.

    As an immediate first step to respond to the panel’s recommendations, National Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier “has asked the CRA to suspend all action in relation to the remaining audits and objections that were part of the Political Activities Audit Program, initiated in 2012,” a release Thursday said.

    The panel report, also released Thursday, and the suspension together appear to end a long chill for charities that began in 2012, when the Conservative government launched 60 political activity audits, starting with environmental groups that had criticized federal energy and pipeline policies.

    This actually makes sense. When political advocacy groups cloak themselves as charities, the lines get blurred and its dangerous.

    The program cost environmental, anti-poverty, human-rights and religious charities significant staff resources and legal fees, and brought an “advocacy chill” to the sector, with many groups self-censoring lest they be caught in the Canada Revenue Agency’s net or annoy their auditors.

    The Liberal Party campaigned in the 2015 election to end the “political harassment” of charities, but once elected did not quite end the program. Instead, the new government cancelled six of the political activity audits that were yet to be launched, but allowed audits already underway to continue.

    That left groups such as Environmental Defence and Canada Without Poverty, which were deemed too political by CRA, still under immediate threat of losing their charitable status. Thursday’s announcement lifts that threat, at least until the government responds to the panel recommendations.

    The five-member panel, chaired by Marlene Deboisbriand on the board of Imagine Canada, says Canada’s charity law and regulations are too restrictive and vague. It calls for changes to the Income Tax Act to delete any reference to “political activities” with regard to charities.

    For what it’s worth, it is still worthwhile to know if the charity in question is a charity, and to what degree it engages in political activities. Of course, the same could be said for religious groups.

    The panel report, based on wide consultations last fall, also said there was broad consensus in the charity sector that partisan activities — endorsing particular candidates or parties — should remain forbidden.

    The proposed changes would eliminate current rules that restrict a charity’s political activities to 10 per cent of their resources. Critics have argued the rules are unclear on definitions of what constitutes a political act.

    No kidding, charities shouldn’t be endorsing political candidates or parties. And 10% is actually a lot. If a “charity” spends a good chunk of their money lobbying for government, shouldn’t they register as such?

    The revenue minister’s decision to suspend political activity audits, as recommended by the panel report Thursday, amounts to an abrupt about-face. Last year, Lebouthillier refused to intervene, saying the “independence of the charity directorate’s oversight role is a fundamental principle that must be protected.”

    To be clear, I have no issue with people getting involved in politics. However, there are considerable financial and tax advantages to being classified as a “charity”. If the groups in questions really are lobbying politically, then it puts them on an unlevel playing field.

    Posted on

    CBC Propaganda #12: Judy Sgro Shrugs Off Ethics Problems

    CLICK HERE, for link to the CBC article.
    CLICK HERE, for the CBC propaganda masterlist.
    CLICK HERE, for Judy Sgro’s “questionable” past, which involved getting a visa fast tracked for a stripper.

    Liberal MP Judy Sgro openly puts party unity and re-election prospects over ethics and transparency. CBC, at least in the article, doesn’t seem to press her on it.

    Long-time Liberal MP Judy Sgro is calling out fellow caucus members Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott, accusing them of targeting their anger and frustration directly at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over the SNC-Lavalin scandal.
    .
    In an explosive interview with Maclean’s — her first media interview since she resigned from the Liberal cabinet on March 4 — Philpott said there is “much more” to the SNC-Lavalin affair and Canadians have concerns about the government’s attempts to “shut down” the story.
    .
    On Friday, Wilson-Raybould said she will provide a written statement and copies of text messages and emails to the Commons justice committee that shut down its probe of the SNC-Lavalin affair.

    From the opening, Sgro seems to show no concern for the allegations, which are not only unethical but most likely criminal. Instead, she complains that is harming the party itself, despite the continuing story.

    Both the interview and the letter landed in the midst of a parliamentary uproar over the Liberals’ move to end the Commons justice committee’s probe of Wilson-Raybould’s claim that she was pressured by senior government officials to allow SNC-Lavalin to avoid a criminal trial on bribery charges.
    .
    Philpott, who resigned from cabinet over the government’s handling of the file, said she believes Canadians need answers to maintain their confidence in the independence of the justice system.
    .
    But Sgro said she thinks Wilson-Raybould and Philpott are providing fodder to the opposition and challenged them to use their parliamentary privilege to air whatever they have to say on the SNC-Lavalin affair.
    .
    “It’s either put up or shut up,” Sgro told Chris Hall, host of CBC Radio’s The House, in an interview airing Saturday.

    The Liberals use their majority to shut down the committee. Sgro glosses over that and suggests that this is being used by opposition members against them. Again, no concern for ethics here.

    Sgro was one of the MPs attending a meeting of the Liberals’ Ontario caucus on Wednesday — a meeting described by people in the room as “rough” and “uncomfortable.”
    .
    CBC News reported this week that Philpott faced tough questions from her colleagues at the closed-door meeting. Sources inside the room told CBC News Philpott began by defending her decision to resign from cabinet, saying she was acting on principle and for the good of the country. Some MPs reminded her that the caucus had supported her on sensitive issues, including her handling of medical assistance in dying legislation, and had backed her when she ran into controversy over limo costs in 2016.

    Some at the meeting also told CBC News that Philpott appeared to be taking notes and was asked to stop.

    I bet it was awkward.
    Is Philpott supposed to give Trudeau a free pass because some of here agenda (assisted suicide), and since her ethics stains had been shrugged off?
    Don’t take notes… Why? Harder to create a paper trail perhaps.

    Sgro said she thinks the ongoing affair is hurting the Liberal government’s chance of re-election this year and some of her fellow MPs are worried.

    Exactly, this is all about being re-elected.

    It affects all of us when one of our members of the team decides to go out and speak against the rest of us, or unnerve the rest of us,” she said. “You can’t keep dropping innuendo every day and expect that all of us from the prime minister down are hopeless to stand back and do anything about this.”
    .
    Trudeau’s brand as a feminist has taken hits since the SNC-Lavalin affair began, including Opposition House Leader Candice Bergen accusing him of being a “fake feminist”. Sgro fiercely defended Trudeau, saying that of the five prime ministers she’s served with, she’s never had a prime minister as caring and compassionate as him.

    No care for ethics breaches, just how it impacts MPs. And interesting that Sgro shifts from “ethics” to “compassion”. Guess she thinks that if people see Trudeau as compassionate, he can’t be unethical.

    Despite her challenge to her caucus colleagues, Sgro said she thinks the justice committee probe shouldn’t be reopened and that any further probe should be handled by the ethics commissioner.
    .
    “Let the commissioner do his job. He’ll come back with a recommendation to the House of Commons, with a report, and then whatever action … if any action needs to be done, it’ll be done then,” she said.
    .
    “Let’s let things get investigated by the proper people and not politicians who are out to knock each other.”

    Shouldn’t be reopened. Nothing to see here. And if committees are so useless, why have them in the first place?

    Posted on

    Morgane Oger Foundation Wants To Be Another Doxxing Site


    (Morgane Oger Foundation seems to be another Social Autopsy).

    (A concise, but accurate review of “Social Autopsy”)

    CLICK HERE, for the Morgane Oger Foundation.
    CLICK HERE, for MOF information on hate crimes.
    CLICK HERE, for the GlobalNews article on MOF’s agenda
    CLICK HERE, for Federal Liberals contemplating censorship under the guise of “removing extremist content”.
    CLICK HERE, for Proud Boys lawsuit against SPLC.
    CLICK HERE, for SPLC’s so called “hate-map”

    What is the Morgane Oger Foundation?

    Our Work…

    The Morgane Oger Foundation is a small volunteer-driven organization entirely run and funded by people who care about justice and inclusion, like you. We focus on opportunities to reduce prejudice-driven inequality in Canada a few projects at a time and pride ourselves with a 100% success rate to date. We are working on several initiatives where we feel we can best help change things for the better..

    Sounds harmless and well meaning enough. Let’s see some details.

    “An advocacy organization says it wants to map hatred and discrimination across Canada in a move that is prompting warnings of caution from one civil liberties group.

    The Vancouver-based Morgane Oger Foundation has issued a call for volunteers to help build the Canadian Atlas of Populist Extremism, to be known as CAPE.

    Founder Morgane Oger said the mapping tool would tie together extremist groups and people regularly associated with them, and also map incidents involving hate across Canada.

    The idea is to shed light on how hatred is propagated, she said, while being mindful that allegations can’t be tossed out willy-nilly.

    “We can’t say someone is a murderer unless they are in fact a murderer, but maybe it would be interesting to see it’s always the same dozen people who are doing anti-trans advocacy in the (B.C.) Interior or the white supremacy groups are working with each other,” said Oger, a former provincial NDP candidate and a member of the party’s executive.

    1/ Okay, nice to know they won’t make false accusations of being a murderer unless the person actually is one. However, that is where the reasonableness seems to end.

    2/ The examples cited are vague at best.
    (a) So called trans activists seem to think “everything” is transphobia. Express any doubt about transgender children, or the never ending demands for accommodation, and you’re a bigot.
    (b) Also what white supremacist groups? To left wing activists, anyone opposing open borders or forced multiculturalism is a white supremacist apparently.

    3/Serious question: will create this “hate network” lead to innocent people being doxed for no other reason than you have different opinions? Seem very intolerant.

    4/ A call for volunteers? What screening will be put in place to ensure that these people don’t have malintent and are actually capable of distinguishing what is hate?

    Some Canadian Laws

    Criminal harassment
    264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
    Marginal note:
    Prohibited conduct
    (2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of
    (a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;
    (b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
    (c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
    (d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

    Definition
    298 (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
    Marginal note:
    Mode of expression
    (2) A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or irony
    (a) in words legibly marked on any substance; or
    (b) by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words.

    Just a few laws this group might want to know if they are serious about starting up this “database”.

    Here are 2 prior examples of doxxing gone wrong

    (1) Southern Poverty Law Center

    The Southern Poverty Law Center in the United States has a “hate map,” which lists 1,020 groups. They include 51 Ku Klux Klan chapters, 49 anti-LGBT groups, 11 radical traditional Catholic groups and a combined 412 black and white nationalist groups.
    The centre doesn’t list individuals, only organizations, and uses a similar definition to the FBI for them. The law centre defines a hate group as “an organization that – based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities – has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”

    (2) Candice Owens and “Social Autopsy”

    Prior to getting a media makeover and coming out as a conservative, Candice Owens launched a website called “social autopsy”. This was billed as an anti-bullying database. But it relied on people making personal complaints and sending personal information on others. See above videos.

    Does Morgane Oger Foundation Want To Be Like That?

    The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and Social Autopsy are just 2 of the more well known examples of attempts to dox people they disagree with.

    Bad ideas should be countered with good ideas. They shouldn’t be doxxed, threatened, or otherwise bullied.

    Posted on

    Sovereignty Is Canada’s #1 Issue?

    (Article originally published on rightdecision.ca. It’s a recently started website with some different ideas and opinions.

    The landscape has been changing even more in recent years. Who governs your country, and what agenda they have matters. But that divide is not what we have been led to believe.

    It is not Left v.s. Right.
    Rather,
    It is Globalist v.s. Nationalist

    A NATONALIST believes that their country should remain sovereign, and that the citizens should be responsible for determining its destiny. There will be differences of opinions, yes, but the belief is still that citizens should be in charge of their future. The culture, language, heritage and traditions should remain intact. Control should lie with elected representatives of a Federal Parliament/Congress.

    A GLOBALIST believes that national sovereignty should be eroded or stopped altogether in the name of “the greater good”. This ideology rejects any sort of distinctive national identity, and promotes world government/1-world vision ideals. The needs and interests of host nations are obstacles to be overcome, and a global body should determine what is best for everyone.
    If you think your Federal representatives don’t look after your interests, do you think Global reps would do any better?

    There is not a single administration in Canada that is responsible for this. Successive governments have implemented UN and Globalists ideas for over 50 years now. It is death by a thousand cuts.

    Across the Western World, so called “Conservative” parties implement much the same policies as Liberals. They just aren’t as gung ho when selling them to the people.

    To name a few:
    -UN Global Migration Compact-UN Agenda 21/2030
    -UN Digitial Cooperation (Internet Regulation)
    -UN Religious Defamation (Blasphemy Ban)
    -UN Paris Accord (Carbon Taxes)
    -UN Global Citizenship Initiative
    -UN Gender Agenda

    Much of the work on my site, Canuck Law, has been to draw attention to what is happening. Globalist forces are piece by piece taking away our freedoms and autonomy.

    In addition to writing about this topic, I took action in a different way: going to court (3 times now).
    Challenge to the UN Global Migration Compact:

    As was reported, I went to Calgary on December 6, 2018 in an attempt to file a legal challenge to it being implemented.
    The short version of events is this, after some back and forth, the Federal Court Judge threw out the case (and awarded $500 in court costs). Although numerous grounds were cited in the reasons, one important thing stands out.

    THE FEDERAL COURT RULED THAT THE United Nations Global Migration Compact WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A BINDING LEGAL CONTRACT.

    Many of us were worried that signing this agreement would become a sort of “soft law”, which legally binding future decisions could then be based off of. In a sense, leaving the Compact unchallenged would the worst . But now that a Court has ruled it’s not binding, that “should” put a stop to it.

    There are 2 other matters pending:
    1/ Attempting to close the loophole in the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement. Canada and the US recognize each other as safe countries. Therefore, people attempting asylum claims should not be able to “shop” around, but claim asylum in the first country they reach. However, due to poor wording, it seems to not apply if they cross anywhere other than an official port.

    2/ Although still in the proposal stages, hundreds of high ranking officials within UN supporting countries are floating the ideal of a UN Parliamentary Assembly, or Global Government. Obviously, Canada will have no control over its own interests if we joined such a group. Canada would be just 1 of 193 nations (and hold 0.5% of voting rights).

    It will be interesting to see how those turn out.

    Regardless, Canadians do need to wake up to what is happening around them. We don’t have a country, if we cannot control our borders, immigration, laws, or domestic policies.

    I openly advocate leaving the UN (see https://canucklaw.ca/canada-should-leave-the-un-the-masterlist/). As more and more Canadians become aware, this opinion will certainly grow.

    UN and Globalism Links
    (1) UN International Court of Justice
    (2) UN Global Migration Compact
    (2a) Cities Compact for Global Migration (2017)
    (3) Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement, and see HERE
    (4) Proposed UN Parliament/World Gov’t
    (4a) Mein Kampf 2.0 (in German)
    (5) Paris Accord
    (5a) UN Climate Change Agenda
    (6) The Multiculturalism Act
    (7) Can. Citizenship Act (birth tourism)
    (8) Bill C-6 (citizenship for terrorists)
    (8a) UN Supports Repatriation For Terrorists
    (9) M-103 (Iqra’s Blasphemy Motion)
    (9a) 2008 UN Vote to ban blasphemy (worldwide)
    (10) $595M bribery of journalists, Pg40
    (11) UN Agenda 21 (June 1992)
    (12) UN Agenda 2030 (September 2015)
    (13) UN Global Citizenship Education
    (14) UN Internet Governance
    (15) UN Forum on Forests
    (16) UN Urban Development Agenda
    (17) UN Decl. On Rights Of Indigenous People
    (18) UN Right to Life, Article 6, Right To Life
    (18a) UN Comment 36, Right to Abortion Para 9
    (19) UN Gender & Language Agenda
    (20) UN Democratic Agenda
    (21) UN & MasterCard SDA Partnership
    (22) UN consulting firm Lawyers Without Borders
    (23) UN & Sexual Abuse/Exploitation
    (24) ICLEI – Local Gov’t For Sustainability
    (25) UN Promotes Replacement Migration Throughout 1st World
    (26) World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland
    (27) UN SDG (Agenda 21/2030) Data Hub
    (28) Agenda 21 Book (Cut Freedoms, Very Honest)
    (29) Ocasio-Cortez H-Res 109, Green New Deal
    (29a) Green New Deal FAQ

    Without sovereignty, and control over our own affairs, the nation dies.