(Follow-up telephone interview with Tucker Carlson)
Tucker Carlson hosts a talk show on FOX, and is willing to give crazies like Mike Isaacson, and Yvette Felarca a fair hearing.
However, Antifa (short for “Anti-Fascist”, or “Anti-First-Amendment” as detractors claim), have decided that stalking his family is way to get him to shut up. See the video at the top.
Antifa is a left leaning quasi-Communist group that claims to “oppose Fascism”. They claim that “limited violence” is necessary to prevent the rise of right wing extremism, and to prevent the eradication of certain marginalized groups.
But in practice, they commit acts of violence against people they disagree with: (1) white nationalists, even non-violent ones; (2) right wing public figures; and (3) moderates whom they disagree with. It also doesn’t stop them from assaulting innocent bystanders and at times journalists. A quick YouTube search will find countless examples of Antifa violence.
However, there are idiots, even in the media, such as CNN’s Chris Cuomo, who defend Antifa as “fighting hate”, and not the same “morally” as right wing bigots.
This is appalling, and cowardly. Threatening and harassing a person to silence their views, in particular a journalist is chilling. Worse still, is using their family as collateral damage. Here are a few items worth mentioning:
1st Amendment of U.S. Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How the F.B.I. Defines Domestic Terrorism. Domestic terrorism: Perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with primarily U.S.-based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.
–for example, the June 8, 2014 Las Vegas shooting, during which two police officers inside a restaurant were killed in an ambush-style attack, which was committed by a married couple who held anti-government views and who intended to use the shooting to start a revolution.
Efforts have been made to formally classify Antifa as a terrorist organization. While there are ongoing challenges, Antifa currently is designated as one.
But these fundamental rights are also enshrined elsewhere:
Section 2 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
How the Canadian Criminal Code Defines Terrorism In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed “in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause” with the intention of intimidating the public “…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act.” Activities recognized as criminal within this context include death and bodily harm with the use of violence; endangering a person’s life; risks posed to the health and safety of the public; significant property damage;
There are similar guarantees and rules in nations throughout the Western world.
Although with the expansion of “hate speech” regulations, free speech rights are being curtailed. But that is an article for another day.
As for the Tucker Carlson story, it sends chills at least in part because he is a fairly moderate voice in American television. While right leaning, he openly rejects racism, and arguments twisted as racism. He calls out guests for strawman arguments, and guests who do espouse openly racist views.
Tucker is both loved on the right, and despised on the left. This is for the same reason: he calls out divisive identity politics, and hypocrisy which comes from the SJW/NPC crowd.
Sadly, this obnoxious ”journalist” got far more attention than Tucker Carlson. Domestic terrorism is a much more serious matter.
Hopefully the masked cowards who stalked Carlson’s family are identified and arrested. Silencing media opinions they don’t agree with is ”fascism”, but the irony seems lost on Antifa.
(CBC aired a piece on October 12, from “Century Initiative”)
CBC, a.k.a The “Communist Broadbasting Corporation”, or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”, is a government funded “news” organization. It receives about $1.5 billion annually to spew out anti-Canadian stories. Taxpayers don’t get a say in the matter.
CLICK HERE, to reach the CBC Propaganda Masterlist. It is far from complete, but being added to regularly.
(A 9:37 long interview aired on the CBC)
On October 12, CBC aired this piece, promoting the boosting of Canada’s population to 100 million by the year 2100.
In fairness to CBC, it looks like they are just airing the opinion piece, rather than simply endorsing it. However, it appears that no scrutiny or fact checking has actually been done.
From the audio, it is clear what questions are NOT asked. Nothing about:
(a) Integration issues form vastly different cultures and backgrounds
(b) Proper identification and screening
(c) Any potential health issues, along with transmissible diseases
(d) Requirements to speak or learn the language
(e) No addressing the work shortages current Canadians face.
From the CBC Article
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.
.
Long term view and short term pain
.
According to Austin, if this goal isn’t met, Canada will struggle financially and governments won’t have enough to pay for the services we have come to expect in this country.
“We need to be prepared to put more money into certain things that will make sure our growth is successful,” she warned.
.
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.”
Century Initiative’s site is here, and it’s “team” is here. Here are a few quotes off of its website, which are chilling in how blunt they are.
WE BELIEVE A BIGGER CANADA BENEFITS US ALL
Our Purpose Ensure an influential and prosperous future for Canada
Our Vision A competitive global nation of 100 Million Canadians unified by diversity and prosperity
Our Mission Build a prosperous, bold, and dynamic future for Canada by driving national discourse on strategic population growth and stimulating change through coordinated action and thought leadership
Our Values Ambition, Pluralism, Prosperity
A brief history of the Century Initiative
The Century Initiative was started by a group of prominent Canadians concerned about the Canada we will leave to the next generation. After extensive issue mapping and discussion of the potential for positive impact, it was decided that the Century Initiative will focus on responsibly growing the population of Canada to 100 million by 2100. This will significantly impact our economic strength at home and our influence abroad.
The country we will leave to the next generation risks becoming far less prosperous and far less relevant on the world stage. Canada is on track for a 53% decline in annual real GDP growth. Canada’s population base is currently forecast to be 53 million in the year 2100. This places Canada outside of the top 45 countries, behind Madagascar and Burkina Faso. Interested in prosperity, growth and pluralism, and motivated to reverse these trends, the group established the Century Initiative.
The Century Initiative is focused on responsibly and thoughtfully growing the population of Canada to 100 million by 2100. Success for this project will be measured by Canadians in the year 2100 saying that the project has helped define the country and has had a transformational impact on Canada in the 21st Century.
Influencing Change
With your input, we aspire to define a vision for Canada in 2100 and offer insights on best practices, possible actions, and avenues for impact.
We will collaborate with members of the private and public sectors and consult with the public at large. We aspire to shine a light on challenges and opportunities, share best practices, motivate corporate employers to act, and convene conversations among interested parties. We will collect data, seek out the advice of experts, assess Canada’s position, set goals, and build a business case and strategy to achieve the goals for each pillar.
We seek to develop an inaugural initiative that builds upon this work. It will focus at least in part on unlocking Canada’s potential through bringing the best of what a new immigrant population can provide: above average engagement, health outcomes and new entrepreneurial activity.
There you have it: CBC published an article by this “Century Initiative”, which is calling for the boosting of Canada’s population to 100 million by the end of the century. Apparently the 51-53 million it is already projected to be isn’t enough.
Of course, each person is allowed to have their own opinion. However, it seems unsettling that CBC, which is funded by our taxes, would air such a piece. If it were just this website on its own, it would be just another globalist, open borders shill. But again, we are forced to fund coverage of this.
Century Initiative’s site is surprisingly limited when it comes to details. Here is an email I sent to them:
Hello,
I came across your site and am rather troubled by what I see. You advocate for boosting Canada’s population to 100 million, but many details are lacking:
(1) Who funds you exactly, and what is their political ideology?
(2) Does CBC endorse the article you did?
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-october-14-2018-1.4858401/canada-s-population-needs-to-be-100-million-by-2100-1.4860172
(3) Why should Canada be concerned with tripling its population?
(4) What would you say to critics who would argue that this is unnecessary, and just globalist propaganda?
(5) With this focus on mass immigration, why don’t you mention the many challenges that it has had, such as: (a) incompatible cultures; (b) language barriers; (c) difficulties doing proper screening — ISIS; (d) high unemployment, (e) stresses on the host nation; (f) medical and health issues and so on?
(6) Why focus on immigration when their are so many Canadian youth struggling to get meaningful work?
(7) Why focus on immigration to boost population when there are so many Canadians who would like to have more kids?
(8) Is your goal to change the nature and culture of Canada through mass immigration?
(9) Is your goal to dismantle or take away any of Canada’s sovereignty?
(10) Is your goal economic migration or “humanitarian” migration? And considering how many “refugees” become public charges, would that not be a drain on the public funds?
(11) Do you believe in open borders or globalism?
These questions have been sent via their contact page, and as of the writing of this article, unanswered. However, should a response come forward, it will be posted in full.
This is definitely worth looking into. CBC is allowing this sort of thing on tax-payer funded news without any question. Who are these people at Century Initiative?
(The issue of bank data being seized is raised in Parliament)
This article was released by Global News on October 26, 2018, and CanuckLaw covered it here on October 28. In short, Statistics Canada wants to seize the banking information of 500,000 Canadians (each year), and do it without the knowledge or consent of Canadians.
(at 1:40 in the video) Statistics Canada representative James Tabreke in a very blunt way claims that this is a ”new way of getting economic data to make government decisions”. He also claims that StatsCan is being open with the public, and that the Canadian Banks were aware of this.
(at 2:32 in the video) Claim that the Privacy Commissioner has okayed the project.
Prime Minister Trudeau, in his typically partisan manner, defended the data seizure. Of course blamed Stephen Harper for eliminating the long form census in 2010. He claimed StatsCan was working closely with the Privacy Commissioner.
Now the lies get exposed:
First, Trudeau is distorting the truth with reference to Harper gutting the long-form census. In the original video, Statistics Canada claimed bank seizure was a move done to replace the long form census. So Harper cancelling the LFC in 2010 was actually irrelevant, as StatsCan was going to pull this stunt anyway.
Second, StatsCan claims that they have been open with what they are doing. Yet, these talks have been going on for a year now without the public’s knowledge.
Third, the C.B.A. (Canadian Bankers Association) has publicly objected, claiming they thought StatsCan was just in an exploratory stage. C.B.A. says they didn’t know StatsCan was going ahead with this, and says they will oppose the measure. Here is their statement:
Statement from the Canadian Bankers Association
Protecting the information privacy of their valued customers is a top priority for banks in Canada. Banks believed this proposed data acquisition project was still in the exploratory stages and were not aware that Statistics Canada was moving to compel disclosure of this information. No customer transaction data or other personal information has been transferred to Statistics Canada under this request. The CBA is working with members to understand the nature of this request and next steps.
Fourth, the Privacy Commissioner, seen here appearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, refutes the claim that he ”okayed the move”. Instead, he stated that he does not have the authority to approve such a thing, and is only able to provide general advice on privacy laws.
Fifth, the Privacy Commissioner claims he was unaware until very recently that Statistics Canada that they wanted to do this to 500,000 Canadians. He says numbers were not discussed. In the hearing he states, ”Proportionality is very important.”
Sixth, the Privacy Commissioner states he was unaware or just how much information would be seized by such a move.
Seventh, the Privacy Commissioner admits that StatsCan was not nearly as transparent as it could have been.
Eighth, and this is a glaring omission: StatsCan doesn’t say how this massive intrusion would actually help. There are just vague references to ”economic information”.
Certainly, that 15 years of credit card data had recently been seized also doesn’t sit well with many Canadians.
Now that formal complaints against this measure have been filed with the Privacy Commissioner, there is no longer the option of just giving general legal information. At this point, an investigation is mandated by law.
The proposal appears to be dead in the water, as public outrage and the threats of legal action are forcing StatsCan to back off. But it will be interesting to see if the Federal Liberals continue to support this Orwellian measure.
Note:
Statistics Canada, Equifax, Transunion, the C.B.A., and the major banks have all been contacted by CanuckLaw for comment. Any responses will be posted here as updates.
Canadian Banker’s Association rep Aaron Boles Thanks, Alex.
The most important take-away from yesterday is that StatsCan is suspending any movement on its proposed project until the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has completed its report, which we understand will be January at the earliest. We were firm in our appearance before the Senate Committee that all options are on the table in terms of defending the privacy and security of bank customers’ personal information and transaction records. Until the OPC report is tabled and StatsCan responds about what it proposes to do thereafter, there’s little point in speculating on how information on spending habits would be collected, if at all.
Best,
AEB
From RBC
Hi Alex – please refer to the CBA for comment on this.
Best,
AJ
AJ Goodman I Director, External Communications, Personal & Commercial Banking I
From TD Canada
Hi Alex,
We refer your inquiry to the CBA, however can tell you that TD takes the trust our customers place in us extremely seriously and has not agreed to share customer data.
Thanks,
Alison
From Statistics Canada Hello,
“I can assure you that we will not proceed with this project until we have addressed the privacy concerns expressed by Canadians by working cooperatively with the Privacy Commissioner and with financial institutions.”
Anil Arora, Chief Statistician of Canada (Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, November 8, 2018)
Thank you,
Laurence Beaudoin-Corriveau
Manager (Acting), Media Relations, Communications
Statistics Canada, Government of Canada
In our database, Equifax Canada has information on ~27M Canadian consumers, which we maintain as a registered Canadian credit bureau in accordance with applicable credit reporting and privacy laws. Statistics Canada has never directed Equifax Canada to provide them with, and subsequently, Equifax Canada has not provided to Statistics Canada all of its data pursuant to its enabling legislation.
In any instance where a regulated body relying on legislative authority requests information from Equifax, our standard process is to conduct a review against our internal data governance and security processes, as well as to consider applicable law prior to disclosure.
We don’t have any information on the rumour you mentioned about credit data from 15 years ago.
Media Relations | Equifax Canada Co.
5700 Yonge St., Suite 1700, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2M 4K2
***********************************************************************
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.
Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
***********************************************************************
Need some extra cash? Don’t feel like working hard? Well, here at CanuckLaw, we have the solution for you.
Simply make some vague claim about: (a) being offended; (b) having hurt feelings; (c) loss of self confidence, and you will be well on your way to making your next year’s salary virtually overnight.
Need that new sports car? Or have a girlfriend with really expensive taste? Now you don’t have to feel like a cheapskate. Just file a human rights complaint, and that cash is as good as yours. Just appear before the tribunal and cry up a storm.
In court, you will be forced to ”prove damages” and likely ”hire a lawyer”. Not the case here. Just say you are offended, and the Province will pick up your tab. The slimy accused will still have to pay his bill though.
And if you want to come to Canada, but don’t qualify, then just claim to be oppressed and fearful of persecution. And since it’s all in your head, no proof necessary.
All joking aside, the Provincial Human Rights Tribunals are in fact a very lucrative way to cash in. We will explain here.
One interesting case, is Sanford v. Koop, 2005 HRTO 53 (CanLII) at paras. 34-38. CLICK HERE for a link to it. It sets out a disturbingly vague, yet extensive list which people can get extra money under. Although this is Ontario, other provinces have very similar guidelines. From paragraph 35:
[35] The Commission provided a number of cases which set out the criteria to be used in assessing the appropriate quantum of general damages. These factors include:
• Humiliation experienced by the complainant
• Hurt feelings experienced by the complainant
• A complainant’s loss of self-respect
• A complainant’s loss of dignity
• A complainant’s loss of self-esteem
• A complainant’s loss of confidence
• The experience of victimization
• Vulnerability of the complainant
• The seriousness, frequency and duration of the offensive treatment
See: Baylis-Flannery v. DeWilde (No.2) (2003), 48 C.H.R.R. D/197 (total general damages of $35,000); Arias v. Desai, (No.2) (2003) 45 C.H.H.R. D/308 (HRTO) (total general damages of $25,000); Curling v. Torimiro (No.4) (2000), 38 C.H.R.R. D/216 (Ont. Bd. Inq.) (total general damages of $21,000); Ketola v. Value Propane Inc. (No. 2), (2002), 44 C.H.H.R.R. D/37 (Ont. Bd. Inq.) (total award of $20,000 for general damages and mental anguish); deSouza v. Gauthier (2002), 43 C.H.R.R. D/128 (Ont. Bd. Inq.) (total award of $25,000 for general damages and mental anguish)
[36] The Tribunal accepts the submissions of the Commission. Considering the evidence in this matter, and the similarity of the facts in this case with the facts in the cases cited by the Commission, the Tribunal awards $25,000 in general damages.
Damages for Mental Anguish for the Reckless and Wilful Infringement of the Complainant’s Rights
[37] Pursuant to Section 41(1)(b) of the Code the Tribunal may award damages of up to $10,000 for mental anguish, injury to dignity, feelings and pride, where such infringement has been engaged in wilfully or recklessly.
[38] The Commission identified the factors used to assess mental anguish damages pursuant to Section 41(1)(b):
Yes, you are reading that correctly: having hurt feelings can get you lots of money, according to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. In fact, they even give a price range.
Prospective Canadians: now, if waiting years, spending money, and doing paperwork are not your thing, don’t worry. Just hop a place to the U.S. with a tourist visa,seen here, walk across the Canadian border, and get yourself detained. Free housing, food and medical care while you wait for your claim.
Immigration and Refugee Boards (IRB) and Human Rights Tribunals (HRT) are clogged with bogus cases. In fact, a quick search reveals thousands, and those are just the ones that are published. Here are some cases pulled at random.
(1) CLICK HERE for an attempt to silence speech critical of Islam.
(2) CLICK HERE for getting a job in a restaurant, then refusing to do it later based on religious grounds.
(3) CLICK HERE for a funny one, taking action against each other for discrimination.
(4) CLICK HERE for a member of the Islamic Salvation Front wanting refugee status.
(5) CLICK HERE for a claim that asking a prospective tenant for a 12 month lease is discrimination.
(6) CLICK HERE for a member of Hamas (a terrorist group), wanting to be declared a refugee.
(7) CLICK HERE for an unsubstantiated claim of fear of safety.
(8) CLICK HERE for a member of the Students Islamic Movement of India, with at least 6 arrests, wanting asylum based on persecution.
(9) CLICK HERE for a woman seeking asylum due to an interfaith marriage gone wrong (Islam and Hindu)
(10) CLICK HERE for a blind man being denied to bring his guide dog due to cab driver’s religion.
(11) CLICK HERE for a judicial review (and a well cited case) of an asylum decision.
(12) CLICK HERE for taking Rebel Media to he cleaners for offering commentary deemed offensive.
(13) CLICK HERE for a claim about saying mean words to someone.
http://canlii.org is a free site, available to anyone. You can do actual legal research from here, and research decisions from all over the country. Thing is, no lawyer is necessary.
(The U.S. leaving the UN Human Rights Council. The violators are part of the council)
(The Hungarian Foreign Minister defending “legal-only” migration)
CLICK HERE, for the main page of the United Nations (in English).
1. Previous Solutions Offered
A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.
2. Reasons To Dump The UN
The main argument here is that Canada would be MUCH better off as a country if we left the United Nations, permanently. No deals, no special arrangements, no reform, just leave forever.
For the political junkies, take this to heart: traditional arguments of “left v.s. right” are no longer relevant. The choice we must face is the “globalist v.s. nationalist” one. Is Canada a sovereign nation, one that determines its own future, or is it a U.N. colony or puppet state? If Canada is to be a free and independent nation, then the U.N. is the last thing we need. Here are several reasons, each to be explored.
(1) The U.N. Articles are incompatible with free and sovereign nations.
(2) The U.N. destroys borders through political means.
(3) The U.N. destroys borders through direct means.
(4) The U.N. destroys national sovereignty
(5) The U.N. erodes individual cultures and societies.
(6) The U.N. has become a money pit, with the climate change scam
(7) The U.N. funds do not go where they are supposed to
(8) The U.N. “councils” are beyond hypocritical.
(9) The U.N. would just be a bigger version of the E.U.
Of course, this list could be much, MUCH longer. However, the point is to demonstrate that the U.N. is a globalist institution, and that it has no respect for individual nations.
(1) The U.N. Articles are incompatible with free and sovereign nations.
Click here, for the full text, but here are some worth noting:
Article 8
The United Nations shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of men and women to participate in any capacity and under conditions of equality in its principal and subsidiary organs.
This is a bit amusing, since many of its members do not believe in women’s rights.
Article 19
A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a Member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the Member.
No money, no vote. Sort of a pay-to-play system.
Article 24
In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII.
The Security Council shall submit annual and, when necessary, special reports to the General Assembly for its consideration.
Article 25
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.
So, if 8 nations got together, they could override the nation’s sovereignty. Great idea.
Article 32
Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council or any state which is not a Member of the United Nations, if it is a party to a dispute under consideration by the Security Council, shall be invited to participate, without vote, in the discussion relating to the dispute. The Security Council shall lay down such conditions as it deems just for the participation of a state which is not a Member of the United Nations.
Yes, no joke, you won’t even get a vote if you are not on the council.
Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations
If this weren’t the United Nations doing this, it would seem an awful lot like the mafia. There are more clauses, but the point here has been made. Signing on with the U.N. means losing control of your country.
(2) The U.N. destroys borders through political means.
This was addressed in an earlier article. The U.N. does try to push mass immigration (a.k.a. “open borders”) on the rest of the world. The latest effort is the global compact for migration, which would effectively give the U.N. control over the host countries’ borders.
Interestingly, the U.N. site has both a: compact for migration and a compact on refugees. However, the U.N. seems hell bent on pushing migrants.
(3) The U.N. destroys borders through direct means.
It is not enough for the U.N. to destroy borders with political means. The agency also directly aids and abets others, such as the Honduran migrant caravan. The U.N. openly admits helping to help thousands of economic migrants “illegally” get into the U.S.
“IOM maintains its position that the human rights and basic needs of all migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status,” said Christopher Gascon, UN Migration’s Chief of Mission in Mexico.
In other words, we don’t care if they are illegal economic migrants. How is this not human smuggling? Further, the U.N. has been known to help flood Europe with more than 1 million “refugees” since 2015.
(4) The U.N. destroys national sovereignty
Too many examples to cite, but here are a few from the U.N. website.
(b) The U.N. is big on stopping terrorism, but its efforts are seriously called into question considering how much it pushes migration.
(c) The Human Rights Council has ruled that the French burka ban is a human rights violation. Interestingly, the Council doesn’t mention that being forced to wear it is a human right, or the security risk it poses is an issue.
(d) Of course, it wouldn’t be complete without gender quotas.
(5) The U.N. erodes individual cultures and societies.
The U.N pages make many references to respecting religion and culture, particularly on the migration pages. Funny, they never mention assimilation
Throughout its many sections on migration, the U.N. talks about how religions and cultures need to be respected, but notably absent is any expectation to respect the host country. Acceptance has to be a 2-way street.
(6) The U.N. has become a money pit, with the climate change scam
This was covered in a another article. The short story is that the U.N. is knowingly pushing a bogus climate change narrative, in order to extract large amounts of money, for “polluting” with carbon dioxide.
(7) The U.N. funds do not go where they are supposed to
There are many examples, but an infamous one was the oil for food program imposed on Iraq after the 1991 invasion of Kuwait. Under the scheme, Iraq could keep exporting oil, and the proceeds were supposed to help the citizenry. However, the program served largely to enrich Saddam Hussein and his family, while leaving the population in poor conditions.
(8) The U.N. “councils” are beyond hypocritical.
This was alluded to in the video at the start.
Members with the worst human rights records are part of the Human Rights Council. See here for the 2018 list. The list includes: Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, U.A.E., and others
The U.N. Status of Women Council is just as big a joke. Their membership, elected for 4 year terms, includes: Algeria, Congo, Kenya, Iraq, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and others.
The Human Rights Council is filled with member states who don’t believe in human rights. The Status of Women Council is filled with member states who don’t believe women should have equal right. Kind of flies in the face of the U.N.’s own declarations.
(9) The U.N. would just be a bigger version of the E.U.
Where to start here. The E.U. triggered Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty against both Hungary and Poland for rejecting “migrant quotas”, which would strip them of their voting rights. Yes, Poland and Hungary might lose voting rights for daring to say that “they” will choose who lives in their own countries.
Italy has had its budget blocked by the EU. Yes, the democratically elected government needs to get approval of their own budget. Brexit was a rejection of E.U. controls, and Nigel Farage addresses it well.
While there are too many examples to cite, the point with #9, is that the European Union effectively destroys the sovereignty of the European States. The U.N. would just be a global example of the same problem.
3. Does The UN Serve Any Purpose?
I would argue, yes, to a point. However, we need to be concerned with our borders, and the sovereignty of our national policies. Becoming a province of the U.N. will only destroy Canada, as will flooding our borders with migrants (the U.N. doesn’t pretend they are refugees at times).
As for worthwhile causes, it would be better to decide for ourselves on a case by case basis whether to add any funding, or to send any personnel.
The battle for Canada will not be Left v. Right, or of Liberal v. Conservative, or of Poor v. Rich. It will be of Globalism v. Nationalism. As such, Canada should get the heck out of the U.N.
Disclaimer: At the current time, I am affiliated with no party. These observations where made in (what seems like) a very different time.
Maxime Bernier makes policy arguments about why he left the CPC: (a) Equalization formula being unfair; (b) Supply management screwing over Canadians; (c) Free trade not supported by CPC members; (d) Trade war looming with U.S. over NAFTA and tariffs; (e) Corporate subsidies, to Ford, Bombardier, and others, which are a form of welfare; (f) Bloating bureaucracy with new ministers; (g) Vote buying in individual regions; (h) Refusing to discuss immigration and multiculturalism for fear of offending; (i) Pandering to ethnic groups and identity politics to buy votes; (j) Relying on polls and focus groups rather than having principles; (k) CPC has become morally bankrupt and stands for nothing; (l) Politics should be done differently
Andrew Scheer makes personal arguments about why Bernier left the party: (a) MB refusing to accept his 2017 loss; (b) MB is selfish; (c) MB needs to offer ideas and never did; (d) MB is putting personal ambition over party success.
At 0:20 (in the top video), Bernier states: ”My job is to offer solutions from a conservative perspective. Otherwise, what would be the point of getting involved in politics?”
Here is the main point of the article. Bernier started the PPC in order to advance conservative ideas, and to offer an alternative voice to millions of Canadians. However, there are some conservative policies that can benefit more left leaning voters as well, if the benefits are discussed honestly.
In order to attract Canadians from all areas on the political spectrum, it is necessary to offer ideas that benefit Canadians from all sides of the political spectrum. Not to pander to any particular group, but to offer common solutions.
Here are some ideas: (1) Lowering immigration; (2) Questioning identity politics; (3) Promoting unity; (4) Dismantling crown corporations; (5) Environmental Protection.
#1: Cutting Immigration Benefits Low Income Canadians
This is not to assert at all that there are not benefits to limited and controlled immigration. And to preempt any such claims, no, it is not a call to racial supremacy. However, there are a number of valid arguments to support this position:
(a) The employment rate is a supply/demand type of issue. When the number of job seekers (supply) rises, then the relative need (demand) falls. It means more people competing for fewer jobs, and that employers are in a position to pay less. That impacts lower earners the most. This is not racial claim in any way, just acknowledging a fact: more workers for less jobs drives down wages. Ann Coulter explains it very well.
(b) As social justice types like to point out, people usually don’t commit crime because they are bad, but often because of poverty, society, and lack of opportunities. To a degree, they are right. By that logic, wouldn’t it reduce some of the stressers that lead to crime?
(c) Housing prices, likewise, are also determined in a supply/demand fashion. See this article. More people competing for the same amount of housing drives prices up for both buying and renting.
(d) School learning may be drastically altered depending on the demographics and size of the immigration. For example, in California, Proposition 58 overturned the requirement that school be taught in English. Many parents were outraged that American born students were now having lessons taught in Spanish. This isn’t bigotry. The U.S. is an English country. And who attends public schools as opposed to private schools?
(e) Publicly funded health care is something the left claims is fundamental to being a Canadian. And to a degree, they are right. However, with higher immigration rates, it will put a burden on Canada’a public system, especially for those coming from countries where health care is relatively lacking. This results in longer wait times, and it won’t be the wealthy in those long waiting lines. It will be lower income people.
(f) If less money is spent on immigration programs, then there will be more money available to promotes Canadians to have more children. Which socio-economic group would benefit most from that?
(g) Regarding illegal immigration, the above still applies, but with the added downside that it is a slap in the face to those who come through legally. It rewards people for breaking the law, and punishes those who follow the law.
#2: Ending Identity Politics Benefits All Canadians?
This could have been added to #1, but after some thought, it deserves its own category.
That is explained here, here, here, and here. We do not need race hustlers like this, or like this.
While this sounds great in principle, how does one protect their identity otherwise? When hostile and incompatible cultures move to your country in large numbers, is it not your identity that is threatened? Does your way of life not risk being replaced by people who are cohesive, and who vote as a block?
In some sense this sounds lovely, but is unrealistic. The idea of ending identity politics only works when everyone is willing to do it, which of course is not the case.
That said, it still is baffling how people who support identity politics are offended by the idea of a national identity. A nation is reflected by its people. Rather than standing as one unit (albeit with some internal differences), those would support dividing the nation into small tribes that consider each other enemies.
#3: Unity is Our Strength, Regardless of Your Politics
The whole idea of multiculturalism is absurd. Having nothing in common with your neighbours does not make for a strong society. Tolerating everything, including this, becomes more important than defining what a nation is. To repeat, we can have differences between people, and different groups of people, but there has to be something that binds us together.
Civic nationalism is the concept that a nation and its people are held together by civic values, such as freedom and equality. The nation are bonded by abstract ideas, which are shared and promoted within. There certainly is a strong case to made that values and laws bind us.
However, what makes one civic nationalist country different than another? Don’t they all support freedom, tolerance and equality? And besides values, don’t people need something to bond them? If not values, then identity?
Tucker Carlson argued at PolitiCon that a common language is a strong unifier. Vladimir Putin argued that religion is such a unifier. Writer Steve Turley argues that religion and cultural traditions are what hold a society together. Candace Malcolm wrote that diversity is only one part of the picture. Maxime Bernier himself tweeted about focusing on traditions. All argue a form of ethno nationalism. (And no, it doesn’t have to be about race). There are many of these types of unifiers, but the underlying element is that the people have to have something in common. Values alone is insufficient.
Nations have been splitting up over the last century because they had nothing in common. They were balkanised. One exception is East and West Germany reuniting because they had a common language and culture.
It would be far more productive than what the status quo to have an honest discussion about what unites us as Canadians, and how we can make the society more cohesive. Unity is our strength.
#4: Dismantling Crown Corporations Makes Things Affordable
In short, a private business must operate efficiently in order to survive. If it delivers poor service, strikes frequently, or has huge cost overruns, then it goes out of business.
A government agency, for the most part, does not have to worry about such things. It is being supported by the public, and usually holds a monopoly. If it is run inefficiently, just raise taxes. If the workers strike every year, oh well. If the service and employees are truly awful, it doesn’t matter, as they are the only game in town.
2 such examples are ICBC, and Canada Post. Privatizing services where possible leads to more affordable products.
#5: Protecting the Environment Benefits Everyone
The UN global warming summits are a complete hoax. Polluting is okay as long as you pay a tax, or fly tens of thousands of people every year to summits to discuss cutting carbon emissions.
The environment should be of everyone’s concern regardless of whether you view it from: an individual point of view, or a societal point of view. Unfortunately, when money and politics gets involved, honesty is about the first thing to go.
Admission: I don’t know nearly enough to advocate for specific policies. However, this is an issue which we have a common interest.
These are just a few ideas to consider, but in order to run a society effectively, something has to be offered to everyone. That said, it is much easier if the society is more homogenous and intact. It prevents fracturing.
Unity is strength.
Diversity (of thought) is strength.
