Category: Dysgenics

Posted on

New York Declaration (September 2016), Prelude to The Global Migration Compact

1. Important Links

(1) https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/migration-compact
(2) https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/declaration
(3) https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/71/1
(4) https://www.un.org/pga/72/wp-content/uploads/sites/51/2018/07/migration.pdf

2. The Timeline

  • September, 2016, New York Declaration agreed to.
  • July 2018, Text of Global Migration Compact agreed to
  • December 2018, formal siging ceremony for Global Migration Compact

To give some context, this conference in New York happened TWO YEARS before the signing. And comparing the NY Declaration to the Compact text, it seems that the opinions didn’t change much along the way.

3. Summary Of NY Declaration

Note: for ease of comparison, the points are numbered, although not done so in the actual text.

What are the commitments?
The New York Declaration contains bold commitments both to address the issues we face now and to prepare the world for future challenges. These include commitments to:

  1. Protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants, regardless of status. This includes the rights of women and girls and promoting their full, equal and meaningful participation in finding solutions.
  2. Ensure that all refugee and migrant children are receiving education within a few months of arrival.
  3. Prevent and respond to sexual and gender-based violence.
  4. Support those countries rescuing, receiving and hosting large numbers of refugees and migrants.
  5. Work towards ending the practice of detaining children for the purposes of determining their migration status.
  6. Strongly condemn xenophobia against refugees and migrants and support a global campaign to counter it.
  7. Strengthen the positive contributions made by migrants to economic and social development in their host countries.
  8. Improve the delivery of humanitarian and development assistance to those countries most affected, including through innovative multilateral financial solutions, with the goal of closing all funding gaps.
  9. Implement a comprehensive refugee response, based on a new framework that sets out the responsibility of Member States, civil society partners and the UN system, whenever there is a large movement of refugees or a protracted refugee situation.
  10. Find new homes for all refugees identified by UNHCR as needing resettlement; and expand the opportunities for refugees to relocate to other countries through, for example, labour mobility or education schemes.
  11. Strengthen the global governance of migration by bringing the International Organization for Migration into the UN system.

What will happen next?
The New York Declaration also contains concrete plans for how to build on these commitments:
Start negotiations leading to an international conference and the adoption of a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration in 2018. The agreement to move toward this comprehensive framework is a momentous one. It means that migration, like other areas of international relations, will be guided by a set of common principles and approaches.

Develop guidelines on the treatment of migrants in vulnerable situations. These guidelines will be particularly important for the increasing number of unaccompanied children on the move.

Achieve a more equitable sharing of the burden and responsibility for hosting and supporting the world’s refugees by adopting a global compact on refugees in 2018.

4. Contrast NY Declaration, UNGMC

The Global Migration Compact consists of 23 “non-binding” objectives, which align almost perfectly with the original declaration

Point #1

Protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants, regardless of status. This includes the rights of women and girls and promoting their full, equal and meaningful participation in finding solutions.

Gender will be mentioned throughout the document.

Point #2, Objective 15(f)

Ensure that all refugee and migrant children are receiving education within a few months of arrival.
.
(Objective, 15(f)) Provide inclusive and equitable quality education to migrant children and youth, as well as facilitate access to lifelong learning opportunities , including by strengthening the capacities of education systems and by facilitating non-discriminatory access to early childhood development, formal schooling, non-formal education programmes for children for whom the formal system is inaccessible, on-the-job and vocational training, technical education, and language training, as well as by fostering partnerships with all stakeholders that can support this endeavour

Point #3

Prevent and respond to sexual and gender-based violence.

Of course, there is the “elephant in the room”. If sexual and gender based violence is anticipated to be such a big problem, “why” are we letting large numbers of these people into our countries?

Point #4, Objective 8

Support those countries rescuing, receiving and hosting large numbers of refugees and migrants.
.
We commit to cooperate internationally to save lives and prevent migrant deaths and injuries through individual or joint search and rescue operations, standardized collection and exchange of relevant information, assuming collective responsibility to preserve the lives of all migrants, in accordance with international law. We further commit to identify those who have died or gone missing, and to facilitate communication with affected families.

Notice, they blur the line between:
(a) Migrant and refugee, and
(b) Legal and illegal

Point #5, Objective 13

Work towards ending the practice of detaining children for the purposes of determining their migration status.
.
(Objective 13) We commit to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality and individual assessments, is carried out by authorized officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective of whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. We further commit to prioritize noncustodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.

That’s right. Avoid detention of illegals if at all possible. Release them into the community wherever possible. Just because they are in the country illegally, that doesn’t mean they are breaking the law apparently.

Point #6, Objective 17

Strongly condemn xenophobia against refugees and migrants and support a global campaign to counter it.
.
(Objective 17) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media

17(c) is the infamous propaganda clause that promotes “sensitizing and educating” media, and shutting down media critical of mass migration.

Point #7, Objective 2

Strengthen the positive contributions made by migrants to economic and social development in their host countries.
.
We commit to create conducive political, economic, social and environmental conditions for people to lead peaceful, productive and sustainable lives in their own country and to fulfil their personal aspirations, while ensuring that desperation and deteriorating environments do not compel them to seek a livelihood elsewhere through irregular migration. We further commit to ensure timely and full implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as well as to build upon and invest in the implementation of other existing frameworks, in order to enhance the overall impact of the Global Compact to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration.

As convoluted as the wording is, the parties will be shelling out “BOTH” money for host countries, and to enhance mass migration to the West.

Point #8

Improve the delivery of humanitarian and development assistance to those countries most affected, including through innovative multilateral financial solutions, with the goal of closing all funding gaps.
.
We commit to promote faster, safer and cheaper remittances by further developing existing conducive policy and regulatory environments that enable competition, regulation and innovation on the remittance market and by providing gender-responsive programmes and instruments that enhance the financial inclusion of migrants and their families. We further commit to optimize the transformative impact of remittances on the well-being of migrant workers and their families, as well as on sustainable development of countries, while respecting that remittances constitute an important source of private capital, and cannot be equated to other international financial flows, such as foreign direct investment, official development assistance, or other public sources of financing for development.

Interesting side note: “financial flow” is what the Paris Accord calls the Carbon tax. But this is another massive wealth transfer scheme.

Point #9, Objective 23

Implement a comprehensive refugee response, based on a new framework that sets out the responsibility of Member States, civil society partners and the UN system, whenever there is a large movement of refugees or a protracted refugee situation.
.
Conclude bilateral, regional or multilateral mutually beneficial, tailored and transparent partnerships, in line with international law, that develop targeted solutions to migration policy issues of common interest and address opportunities and challenges of migration in accordance with the Global Compact

Point #10

Find new homes for all refugees identified by UNHCR as needing resettlement; and expand the opportunities for refugees to relocate to other countries through, for example, labour mobility or education schemes.

Even though nations have their own homeless, we are going to provide housing for foreigners. Great.

(Point #11, Objective 11, 23)

Strengthen the global governance of migration by bringing the International Organization for Migration into the UN system.
.
(Objective 11) We commit to manage our national borders in a coordinated manner, promoting bilateral and regional cooperation, ensuring security for States, communities and migrants, and facilitating safe and regular cross-border movements of people while preventing irregular migration. We further commit to implement border management policies that respect national sovereignty, the rule of law, obligations under international law, human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status, and are non-discriminatory, gender-responsive and child-sensitive.
.
(Objective 23) We commit to support each other in the realization of the objectives and commitments laid out in this Global Compact through enhanced international cooperation, a revitalized global partnership, and in the spirit of solidarity, reaffirming the centrality of a comprehensive and integrated approach to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration, and recognizing that we are all countries of origin, transit and destination. We further commit to take joint action in addressing the challenges faced by each country to implement this Global Compact, underscoring the specific challenges faced in particular by African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, small island developing States, and middle-income countries. We also commit to promote the mutually reinforcing nature between the Global Compact and existing international legal and policy frameworks, by aligning the implementation of this Global Compact with such frameworks, particularly the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as well as the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, and their recognition that migration and sustainable development are multidimensional and interdependent.

5. Final Thoughts

  • This scheme was outlined in 2016, a full 2 years before the signing of the “treaty”.
  • The documents routinely blur the line between “refugee” and “migrant”.
  • All this talk of rights for “migrants and refugees”, but no consideration given for the host populations which are forced to deal with them
  • They go on and on about Agenda 2030. Guess this is the next step.
  • Media is to be “sensitized” about migration.
  • Looks like Calgary adventure was well worth it.
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 Conferences On Replacement Migration (Since 1974)

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for Gov’t views & policies.
    CLICK HERE, for participant contact info.
    CLICK HERE, for Russian replacement migration.
    CLICK HERE, for European replacement migration.
    CLICK HERE, for Korean population decline.
    CLICK HERE, for various conferences.
    CLICK HERE, for the “About” page.
    CLICK HERE, for “resolutions” from the UN Population Division.

    2. List Of Documents

      CLICK HERE, for the 2000 UN Expert Group Meeting On Policy Responses

    1. REPLACEMENT MIGRATION: IS IT A SOLUTION TO DECLINING AND A GEING POPULATIONS? (United Nations Population Division)
    2. UN/POP/PRA/2000/2 POPULATION AGEING AND POPULATION DECLINE: GOVERNMENT VIEWS AND POLICIES (Anatoly Zoubanov – United Nations Population Division)
    3. UN/POP/PRA/2000/3 THE INVERSION OF THE AGE PYRAMID AND THE FUTURE POULATION D ECLINE IN FRANCE: IMPLICATIONS AND POLICY RESPONSES (Jean-Claude Chesnais)
    4. UN/POP/PRA/2000/4 POLICY RESPONSES TO POPULATION AGEING AND POPULATION DECLINE IN FRANCE (Georges Tapinos)
    5. UN/POP/PRA/2000/5 DEMOGRAPHIC AGEING AND POPULATION DECLINE IN 21ST CENTURY G ERMANY – CONSEQUENCES FOR THE SYSTEMS OF SOCIAL I NSURANCE (Herwig Birg)
    6. UN/POP/PRA/2000/6 POLICY RESPONSES TO POPULATION AGEING AND POPULATION DECLINE IN GERMANY (Charlotte Hoehn)
    7. UN/POP/PRA/2000/7 POSSIBLE POLICY RESPONSES TO POPULATION AGEING AND P OPULATION DECLINE: THE CASE OF ITALY (Antonio Golini)
    8. UN/POP/PRA/2000/8 FEWER AND OLDER ITALIANS, MORE PROBLEMS? LOOKING FOR S OLUTIONS TO THE DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTION (Maria Rita Testa)

      9. UN/POP/PRA/2000/9 THE COMING OF A HYPER-AGED AND DEPOPULATING SOCIETY AND P OPULATION POLICIES – THE CASE OF JAPAN (Makoto Atoh)

    3. How Far Back Does This Go?

    United Nations Conferences on Population
    .
    Since the United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945 three world conferences on population have been held. The first conference, Bucharest World Population Conference, dates back to 1974. Ten years later Mexico City hosted the second International Conference on Population. The last world conference, the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development, was held 1994. Two other conferences on population have been convened. The first one in 1954 in Rome. The second one in Belgrade in 1965. In 1999 a Special Session of the General Assembly on Population was held in New York.

      Let’s Think About This:

    • Meet in 1954 in Rome
    • Meet in Belgrade in 1965
    • 1st Conference in 1974
    • 2nd Conference in 1984
    • 3rd Conference in 1994

    4. Overview

    The Population Division was established in the earlier years of the United Nations to serve as the Secretariat of the then Population Commission, created in 1946. Over the years, the Division has played an active role in the intergovernmental dialogue on population and development, producing constantly updated demographic estimates and projections for all countries, including data essential for the monitoring of the progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals, developing and disseminating new methodologies, leading the substantive preparations for the United Nations major conferences on population and development as well as the annual sessions of the Commission on Population and Development.

    The United Nations Population Division assists the Department of Economic and Social Affairs in discharging its functions as member of the Global Migration Group. It provides programmatic support to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for International Migration and Development. It co-chairs the Population cluster of the Executive Committee on Economic and Social Affairs (EC-ESA), together with the Population Division of ECLAC.

    Why would the UN want to know all this information? Why would it want to know the population and demographic trends of memberstates? Almost like it wants to control the world.

    5. Want A Job?

    CLICK HERE, and see if you’re qualified.
    Responsibilities

    Within delegated authority, the duties of the Associate Population Affairs Officer are the following:
    .
    •Assists in developing and maintaining databases on demographic indicators, population and development indicators, population policy information and indicators or information on other population-related issues.
    •Applies the techniques of demographic analysis to estimate demographic indicators and to evaluate population data for completeness and accuracy so as to adjust the data as needed. It also includes the application of techniques or methods of projection of family planning indicators, and the provision of input to the periodic revisions of assumptions underlying those projections.
    •Prepares first drafts and inputs to technical studies or research reports.
    •Applies methodologies for demographic analysis.
    •Attends international, regional and national meetings on population issues to present results of demographic analysis and research; keeps abreast of developments in the field, gathers information, network and holds discussions on population issues with colleagues in other institutions.
    •Provides, as necessary, substantive support to technical cooperation projects in the area of population and development.
    •Performs other related duties as required, including a variety of administrative tasks necessary for the final delivery of the work unit’s products.

    Does plotting and calculating the future demographic trends turn you on? Get a kick out of becoming a minority in your own homeland? You can document the destruction of your nation and get paid quite well.

    WHY ISN’T THE PUBLIC AWARE?


    The United Nations has been studying population and demographic trends since at least 1974 (though probably much longer). They have been gathering all this information, and it is more than a passing interest.

    Keep in mind, the UN also promotes agreements such as the Global Migration Compact. There is no way the UN “wouldn’t” know about the long term trends and consequences from facilitating mass migration. There is no way the UN “wouldn’t” know about the breakdown and weakening of social cohesion by engaging in this.

    There is only one explanation
    UN WANTS DEMOGRAPHIC REPLACEMENT

    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

    UN Endorses Abortion As “Human Right”, Even For Kids

    1. Other Articles on Abortion/Infanticide

    (1) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-universities-fighting-against-free-speech-and-free-association-in-court/
    (2) https://canucklaw.ca/the-new-lindsay-shepherd-statistics-are-now-violence-infanticide-2/
    (3) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-part-3-ny-virginia-to-legalise-up-to-birth-abortion/
    (4) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-part-4-leave-no-survivors/

    2. Important Links

    (1) https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/ccpr/pages/gc36-article6righttolife.aspx
    (2) https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/GCArticle6/GCArticle6_EN.pdf
    (3) International Convenant On Civil And Political Rights On Right To Life

    3. General Comments

    “2. Article 6 recognizes and protects the right to life of all human beings. It is the supreme right from which no derogation is permitted1 even in situations of armed conflict and other public emergencies. The right to life has crucial importance both for individuals and for society as a whole. It is most precious for its own sake as a right that inheres in every human being, but it also constitutes a fundamental right, 2 whose effective protection is the prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights and whose content can be informed and infused by other human rights.

    3. The right to life is a right which should not be interpreted narrowly. It concerns the entitlement of individuals to be free from acts and omissions intended or expected to cause their unnatural or premature death, as well as to enjoy a life with dignity. Article 6 guarantees this right for all human beings, without distinction of any kind, including for persons suspected or convicted of even the most serious crimes.

    4. Paragraph 1 of article 6 of the Covenant provides that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life and that the right shall be protected by law. It lays the foundation for the obligation of States parties to respect and to ensure the right to life, to give effect to it through legislative and other measures, and to provide effective remedies and reparation to all victims of violations of the right to life.”

    So far, this looks pretty good. The UN states very bluntly that it values life.

    Individuals should not be subjected to acts or omissions which cause their premature death (a.k.a. murder), and that they should have dignity in their lives.

    States of the UN are obligated to respect life. This applies even to people suspected or convicted of committing the most serious crimes. It seems we are going down the line of “serial killers are human too”.

    “6. Deprivation of life involves a deliberate3 or otherwise foreseeable and preventable life-terminating harm or injury, caused by an act or omission. It goes beyond injury to bodily or mental integrity or threat thereto, which are prohibited by article 9, paragraph 1.4 “

    Nothing in this statement I can disagree with.

    “8. Enforced disappearance constitutes a unique and integrated series of acts and omissions representing a grave threat to life and may thus result in a violation of the right to life.7 It also violates other rights recognized in the Covenant, in particular, article 9 (liberty and security of persons), article 7 (prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) and article 16 (right to recognition of a person before the law). “

    Nothing in this passage that is offensive either. Forced disappearances “do” cause an obvious threat to life and violate all sorts of regulations.

    We will skip over 9, and come back to it.

    “10. [While acknowledging the central importance to human dignity of personal autonomy, the Committee considers that States parties should recognize that individuals planning or attempting to commit suicide may be doing so because they are undergoing a momentary crisis which may affect their ability to make irreversible decisions, such as to terminate their life. Therefore,] States should take adequate measures, without violating their other Covenant obligations, to prevent suicides, especially among individuals in particularly vulnerable situations.”

    I would agree with this. Taking the effort to engage in intervention to protect potentially suicidal people is definitely worthwhile.

    “12. States parties engaged in the use of existing weapons and in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of new weapons, and means or methods of warfare must always consider their impact on the right to life. “

    Agree fully.

    “14. States parties should monitor the impact on the right to life of less-lethal weapons which are designed for use by law-enforcement agents and soldiers charged with lawenforcement missions, including electro-muscular disruption devices (Tasers),29 rubbercoated metal bullets, and attenuating energy projectiles. The use of such weapons must be restricted only to law-enforcement agents who have undergone appropriate training, and must be strictly regulated in accordance with international protocols for their use.”

    Try not to kill suspects? Sure, good idea.

    “20. The Covenant does not provide an enumeration of permissible grounds for deprivation of life. Still, article 6, paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 implicitly recognize that countries which have not abolished the death penalty and that have not ratified the Second Optional Protocol may continue to apply the death penalty with regard to the most serious crimes subject to a number of strict conditions. Other procedures regulating activity that may result in deprivation of life, such as conditions for use of lethal weapons by the police or protocols for new drug treatment, must be established by law, accompanied by effective institutional safeguards designed to prevent arbitrary deprivations of life, and be compatible with other provisions of the Covenant.”

    Limit the death penalty to the most serious crimes? Sure.

    “28. Persons with disabilities, including psychosocial and intellectual disabilities, are entitled to special measures of protection so as to ensure their effective enjoyment of the right to life on equal basis with others. Such measures of protection shall include reasonable accommodation of public policies which are necessary to ensure the right to life, such as ensuring access of persons with disabilities to essential goods and services, and special measures designed to prevent excessive use of force by law enforcement agents against persons with disabilities.”

    People with physical and intellectual disabilities are also entitled to life and dignity. Agreed.

    “42. Under no circumstances can the death penalty be imposed as part of a policy of genocide against members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Article 6, paragraph 3 reminds all States parties who are also parties to the Genocide Convention of their obligations to prevent and punish the crime of genocide, which include the obligation to prevent and punish all deprivations of life, which constitute part of a crime of genocide.”

    So, where does the problem exist?
    See paragraph #9.

    “9. Although States parties may adopt measures designed to regulate terminations of pregnancy, (1) such measures must not result in violation of the right to life of a pregnant woman or her other rights under the Covenant, including the prohibition against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. Thus, (2) any legal restrictions on the ability of women to seek abortion must not, inter alia, jeopardize their lives or subject them to physical or mental pain or suffering which violates article 7. States (3) parties must provide safe access to abortion to protect the life and health of pregnant women, and in situations in which carrying a pregnancy to term would cause the woman (4) substantial pain or suffering, most notably where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or when the foetus suffers from fatal impairment. States parties may not regulate pregnancy or abortion in a manner that runs contrary to (5) their duty to ensure that women do not have to undertake unsafe abortions. [For example, they should not take measures such as (6) criminalizing pregnancies by unmarried women or applying criminal sanctions against women undergoing abortion or against physicians assisting them in doing so, when taking such measures is expected to significantly increase resort to unsafe abortions]. Nor should States parties (7) introduce humiliating or unreasonably burdensome requirements on women seeking to undergo abortion. The (8) duty to protect the lives of women against the health risks associated with unsafe abortions requires States parties to ensure access for women and men, and, in (9) particular, adolescents, to information and education about reproductive options, and to a wide range of contraceptive methods. States parties must also (10) ensure the availability of adequate prenatal and post-abortion health care for pregnant women.”

    Now we get to the real problem,
    UNBORN CHILDREN DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE

    4. About The Bolded Comments

    1/ States can “regulate” abortion, but not if it means violating her rights, or anything she may find cruel, inhumane or degrading. Screw the child.
    2/ No legal restrictions if it jeopardises the “mental” health of the mother. Not the physical health or life, but the mental health, which can mean anything.
    3/ States must provide access to abortion if it endangers health, and yes, that means mental health. I guess as long as the child in an inconvenience.
    4/ Again, they consider “suffering” to be mental as well.
    5/ States have to provide abortion to ensure that women won’t “unsafely” kill their children
    6/ Remove any penalties for abortion, if it would lead to “unsafe” abortions.
    7/ Unreasonably burdensome? Would a therapist or medical exam be considered burdensome? Would telling the mother to think it over be too much?
    8/ Again, since women may engage in “unsafe” abortions, states are obligated to provide it.
    9/ Why the hell are we giving children advice on reproductive options?
    10/ Kill the child or birth it, we still have to give the same care to the mother?!?!

    UN doesn’t seem to see how inconsistent this attitude is with other provisions of the same document.

    22. The second sentence of paragraph 1 provides that the right to life “shall be protected by law”. This implies that States parties must establish a legal framework to ensure the full enjoyment of the right to life by all individuals. The duty to protect the right to life by law also includes an obligation for States parties to take appropriate legal measures in order to protect life from all foreseeable threats, including from threats emanating from private persons and entities.

    24. States parties must enact a protective legal framework which includes effective criminal prohibitions on all forms of arbitrary deprivations of life by individuals, including intentional and negligent homicide, disproportionate use of firearms, infanticide, “honour” killings, lynching, violent hate crimes, blood feuds, death threats, terrorist attacks and other manifestations of violence or incitement to violence that are likely to result in a deprivation of life. The criminal sanctions attached to these crimes must be commensurate with their gravity, while remaining compatible with all provisions of the Covenant.

    UN prohibits infanticide, unless it is being done by the mother.
    Abortions for everyone.
    Abortions for children.

    Posted on

    Agenda 2030: UN Sustainable Development, Wealth Transfer Scheme

    (A wealth transfer scheme that would put the Paris Accord to shame)

    Frank Vaughn does an interesting review of Agenda 2030. Go check out his podcast.

    CLICK HERE, for the link to Agenda 2030.
    2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development web

    Declaration
    .
    Introduction
    1. We, the Heads of State and Government and High Representatives, meeting at United Nations Headquarters in New York from 25 to 27 September 2015 as the Organization celebrates its seventieth anniversary, have decided today on new global Sustainable Development Goals.

    Before going any further, let’s point one thing out: this was signed at the end of September 2015. Stephen Harper (yes, a so-called “Conservative”) was still Prime Minister. It was another month before he was voted out.

    Sustainable Development Goals
    Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
    Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
    Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well being for all at all ages
    Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
    Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
    Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
    Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
    Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
    Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
    Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
    Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
    Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
    Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*
    Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
    Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
    Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
    Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development

    A quick look will show 2 things:
    1/ A near obsession with gender equality
    2/ This is a massive wealth transfer scheme

    1.4 By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance

    1.5 By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters

    All men and women will have equal rights to economic resources? Sounds lovely, but a logistical question: what about cultures which don’t give equal rights to women? Remember diversity is our strength, and cultures must be respected.

    Build the resilience to reduce exposure and vulnerabilities? Okay, this sounds expensive.

    2.a Increase investment, including through enhanced international cooperation, in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services, technology development and plant and livestock gene banks in order to enhance agricultural productive capacity in developing countries, in particular least developed countries

    Livestock gene banks? Genetically modified farm animals and crops?
    Some more detail on the research would be nice.

    3.c Substantially increase health financing and the recruitment, development, training and retention of the health workforce in developing countries, especially in least developed countries and small island developing States

    4.a Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all

    What about nations and cultures who view women as second class people? Will they be on board with this? And build and upgrade facilities? Are we building entire schools?

    >5.6 Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences

    Health care is important. No argument on that. However,

    Two points worth addressing here.
    First, “access to reproductive rights”? Is this code for financing abortions globally?
    Second, what about cultures that don’t recognize women as equals?

    6.a By 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity building support to developing countries in water and sanitation related activities and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies

    This I would actually agree with.

    7.b By 2030, expand infrastructure and upgrade technology for supplying modern and sustainable energy services for all in developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small island developing States and landlocked developing countries, in accordance with their respective programmes of support

    Expand infrastructure. More $$$. Don’t we already pay billions annually for foreign aid? Where does it go, and how will we ensure this isn’t wasted?

    8.a Increase Aid for Trade support for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, including through the Enhanced Integrated Framework for Trade related Technical Assistance to Least Developed Countries

    Increased aid. More $$$$

    9.b Support domestic technology development, research and innovation in developing countries, including by ensuring a conducive policy environment for, inter alia, industrial diversification and value addition to commodities

    9.c Significantly increase access to information and communications technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet in least developed countries by 2020

    So we are financing internet and communications which will presumably be better an cheaper than what we schlubs have to buy ourselves? Now, are we financing research, or just handing over technology?

    10.b Encourage official development assistance and financial flows, including foreign direct investment, to States where the need is greatest, in particular least developed countries, African countries, small island developing States and landlocked developing countries, in accordance with their national plans and programmes

    You read it right here: all about financial flow.

    11.2 By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons

    Providing access to public transport systems? Does this mean the West will be financing the entire construction and installation of such systems?

    12.a Support developing countries to strengthen their scientific and technological capacity to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production

    Clarification: Are we financing research in developing countries, or are we simply giving large amounts of Westerm developed technology?

    13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning

    If industry and burning fossil fuels causes greenhouse gases, which lead to global warming, the “why” would we be trying to develop industry here? Seems counterintuitive.

    15.a Mobilize and significantly increase financial resources from all sources to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems

    If food, water, sanitation and health care are so urgent, then wouldn’t this be a very low priority by comparison? Just saying, human welfare should take precedent.

    16.a Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacity at all levels, in particular in developing countries, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime

    What about places like Palestine, which democratically elected Hamas, a terrorist group? Will they still get funded? Will funds go to “combatting terrorism”?

    Means of implementation and the Global Partnership
    60. We reaffirm our strong commitment to the full implementation of this new Agenda. We recognize that we will not be able to achieve our ambitious Goals and targets without a revitalized and enhanced Global Partnership and comparably ambitious means of implementation. The revitalized Global Partnership will facilitate an intensive global engagement in support of implementation of all the Goals and targets, bringing together Governments, civil society, the private sector, the United Nations system and other actors and mobilizing all available resources.

    61. The Agenda’s Goals and targets deal with the means required to realize our collective ambitions. The means of implementation targets under each Sustainable Development Goal and Goal 17, which are referred to above, are key to realizing our Agenda and are of equal importance with the other Goals and targets. We shall accord them equal priority in our implementation efforts and in the global indicator framework for monitoring our progress.

    62. This Agenda, including the Sustainable Development Goals, can be met within the framework of a revitalized Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, supported by the concrete policies and actions outlined in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, which is an integral part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Addis Ababa Action Agenda supports, complements and helps to contextualize the 2030 Agenda’s means of implementation targets. It relates to domestic public resources, domestic and international private business and finance, international development cooperation, international trade as an engine for development, debt and debt sustainability, addressing systemic issues and science, technology, innovation and capacity building, and data, monitoring and followup.

    63. Cohesive nationally owned sustainable development strategies, supported by integrated national financing frameworks, will be at the heart of our efforts. We reiterate that each country has primary responsibility for its own economic and social development and that the role of national policies and development strategies cannot be overemphasized. We will respect each country’s policy space and leadership to implement policies for poverty eradication and sustainable development, while remaining consistent with relevant international rules and commitments. At the same time, national development effort need to be supported by an enabling international economic environment, including coherent and mutually supporting world trade, monetary and financial systems, and strengthened and enhanced global economic governance. Processes to develop and facilitate the availability of appropriate knowledge and technologies globally, as well as capacity building, are also critical. We commit to pursuing policy coherence and an enabling environment for sustainable development at all levels and by all actors, and to reinvigorating the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development.

    From reading through this: Agenda 2030 puts a large focus on wealth transfer, from developed nations to underdeveloped nations. However, there seems to be no focus on internal control or auditing mechanisms to ensure the money is actually well spent.

    At heart, this is really a globalist agreement.
    What “Conservative” would actually sign off on this?

    *Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress