Category: Dysgenics

Posted on

Opinion: Why Pride is Obsolete

(We’re tolerant, except to police officers)

(Pride: lesbians v.s. transgenders)

(Brown and black added for “racial inclusion”)

Serious question: What is the ultimate goal of the LGBT movement?

  1. Achieving equality and acceptance in mainstream life
  2. Constantly viewing itself as a victim in need of protection
  3. Both (1) and (2)

We live in a country where gays and trans have full equality under the law, and have for many years.

So called “marriage equality” was settled in Canada back in 2005. That’s right, 14 years ago. There are also provisions in every Provincial human rights code to protect sexual orientation. And hate crime provisions have existed for many years in the Criminal Code.

We also live in a country where being trans is protected, and employers and schools are required to make accommodations. Bill C-16 seems to be both poorly written and overkill.

You would think all is great, but not so. Despite the very limited scientific knowledge on gender dysphoria, we are prohibited from questioning it, even in young children. Even in our children. Questioning if changing gender is possible will now net a hefty fine. Bake-my-cake-or-I’ll-sue is no longer just a punchline, at least in Colorado. And SOGI has creeped into elementary schools.

Note: The issues and concerns with how gender dysphoria is treated will be a topic for another post. Likewise with having young children transition.

The problem with advocacy groups is that they eventually run out of grievances to protest. And the need to celebrate a movement becomes less and less important.

If misgendering people, or suing over wedding cakes is the worst we have going on, then what genuine causes are left?

Answer: No serious causes.

Since LGBT people enjoy full rights, and equality under the law, why does this need to be flaunted in public every Spring/Summer? Isn’t the ultimate goal to live freely and without stigmatization as your true self? This is what activists don’t seem to realize.

And while a small march or parade seems harmless enough, some larger Prides are downright raunchy (Toronto is a specific example). Nudity and lewd behaviour do often happen, at sites where children are present. For the sake of readers, I’ll spare the details. What this does to promote equality is beyond me.

If LGBT people want to just go about their lives, nothing stops them. Legally, nothing can stop them, and the vast majority of people don’t care. Prides (and other such events) detract from this by bringing the issue up again and again, throwing it in the public’s face.

Yes, people had their rights violated in the past, but that ended decades ago. It doesn’t help to bring it up with people who had absolutely no involvement. It also doesn’t help when municipalities fund (all or in part) of these movements.

As an aside, LGBT activists often get triggered at the idea (often trolling) of a “straight pride”. Well, identity cuts both ways, doesn’t it?

Having equality is an important part of this nation, but your orientation or identity isn’t. It doesn’t need to be forced on the public. Rather, Canada should focus more on what built the nation, and what holds it together.

The question at the start seemed rhetorical, but is not. Activists want option (3).

Guys, you won. Go live your lives.

Posted on

Morgane Oger Further Weaponizes Human Rights Codes, $55K Ruling

(BC “Human Rights” Commission Ruling)

(Morgane Oger Foundation)

(Proposed “Hate Map” Across Canada)

1. Important Links

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt58/2019bchrt58.pdf
(2) ttp://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/00_96210_01
(3) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/bill-c-16-adding-gender-identity-to-human-rights-code-and-criminal-code/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/morgane-oger-foundation-wants-to-be-another-doxxing-site/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/weaponizing-the-human-rights-codes-and-refugee-boards/

Some Thoughts

Our favourite “serial-victim” Morgane Oger, is in the news again, this time for getting a $55,000 award ($35K for hurt feelings, and $20K in punitive damages). This was William Whatcott for calling Oger “a man”. (Oger is transgender).

A few interesting observations in reading the ruling:

(1) Morgane Oger seems perfectly content silencing William Whatcott’s free speech and right to religious expression in the name of gender identity.

(2) The BC Tribunal deliberately and repeatedly skirted the truthfulness of Whatcott’s claim that Oger is biologically male. Hormones, surgery and legal paperwork don’t change biology.

(3) The BC Tribunal awarded $35,000 in damages without any damages being proven. How exactly does one prove “hurt feelings and dignity”?

3. BC Human Rights Code

Discrimination and intent
2
Discrimination in contravention of this Code does not require an intention to contravene this Code.

Section 2 makes it very clear: absolutely no intent is required on the part of anyone in order to be found to violate someone’s human rights. For a “quasi-judicial” board, this is very disturbing. However, it seems to be the case with all provinces.

Discriminatory publication
7 (1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or that group or class of persons.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication, a communication intended to be private or a communication related to an activity otherwise permitted by this Code.

Oger claims that the publications were contrary to Section 7(1)(a) and (b) of the code.

Evidence
27.2 (1) A member or panel may receive and accept on oath, by affidavit or otherwise, evidence and information that the member or panel considers necessary and appropriate, whether or not the evidence or information would be admissible in a court of law.
(2) Nothing is admissible in evidence before a member or panel that is inadmissible in a court because of a privilege under the law of evidence.
(3) Despite section 4, subsection (1) of this section does not override an Act expressly limiting the extent to which or purposes for which evidence may be admitted or used in any proceeding.
(4) A member or panel may direct that all or part of the evidence of a witness be heard in private.

(4) flies in the face of an open inquiry, and doesn’t set any guidelines as to “when” it would be appropriate.
One of the problems Whatcott cited was the Commission refusing to hear all the evidence.

Remedies
37 (1) If the member or panel designated to hear a complaint determines that the complaint is not justified, the member or panel must dismiss the complaint.
(2) If the member or panel determines that the complaint is justified, the member or panel
(a) must order the person that contravened this Code to cease the contravention and to refrain from committing the same or a similar contravention,
(b) may make a declaratory order that the conduct complained of, or similar conduct, is discrimination contrary to this Code,
(c) may order the person that contravened this Code to do one or both of the following:
(i) take steps, specified in the order, to ameliorate the effects of the discriminatory practice;
(ii) adopt and implement an employment equity program or other special program to ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups if the evidence at the hearing indicates the person has engaged in a pattern or practice that contravenes this Code, and
(d) if the person discriminated against is a party to the complaint, or is an identifiable member of a group or class on behalf of which a complaint is filed, may order the person that contravened this Code to do one or more of the following:
(i) make available to the person discriminated against the right, opportunity or privilege that, in the opinion of the member or panel, the person was denied contrary to this Code;
(ii) compensate the person discriminated against for all, or a part the member or panel determines, of any wages or salary lost, or expenses incurred, by the contravention;
(iii) pay to the person discriminated against an amount that the member or panel considers appropriate to compensate that person for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect or to any of them.

In short, the BC Human Rights Code can award money if it rules that your feelings were hurt, or your dignity or self respect was hurt. No need to prove “actual” damages.

4. Section 2(b) Of Charter

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

5. From HRT Ruling

William Whatcott identifies himself as a Christian activist. When he learned of Ms. Oger’s candidacy, he resolved to stop her being elected. He was not a member of her riding, nor did he research her platform or the policies which she sought to advance. The sole basis for his campaign against her was that she is a transgender woman and therefore, in his view, unsuitable to hold public office. 

Very interesting choice of words. Whatcott “identifies” as a Christian activist, yet Oger “actually is” a woman.

Mr. Whatcott was not a resident in Ms. Oger’s riding. She came to his attention after he had decided there were no suitable political options within his own riding. He says that he had decided not to vote in the election at all, but then turned to prayer. He asked God how he could help in the election. He started researching the candidates across the province and, in this way, came across Ms. Oger. He learned that she had been active in lobbying for amendments to the Code to add the grounds of “gender identity and expression”, and in promoting education about sexual orientation and gender identity in schools. Most importantly, however, he was upset that the media and public at large were “pretending” that Ms. Oger was a woman. He fundamentally believes that gender is static and derived from the genitalia that a person has at birth. He believes that Ms. Oger is a man. He sees himself as the small boy in the fairy tale about the Emperor with no clothes the only one brave enough to speak the truth about Ms. Oger’s gender. He decided to focus his energies on her campaign. In doing so, he describes Ms. Oger herself as “incidental” and “small” within his larger fight for social order and freedom. 

The first part gets glossed over. Oger is trying help enact 2 policies that Whatcott is bothered by:
(A) Bill C-16, to add “gender identity” to the Criminal Code and Human Rights Code.
(B) Bringing SOGI (sexual orientation & gender identity) into schools and have it taught to young children.

In all fairness, “both” of the above issues rub a lot of people the wrong way.

[53] To the extent that s. 7 is unique, it is because it expressly and exclusively targets speech. Mr. Whatcott argues that, in doing so, it violates his Charter‐guaranteed rights to freedom of religion and expression ss. 2(a) and (b). In his final reply, he added an argument that it violates his right to life, liberty and security of the person, guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter.  

[54]This Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to apply the Charter: Administrative Tribunals Act, s . 45; Code, s. 32(i). I cannot find s. 7 of the Code unconstitutional, or that any of Mr. Whatcott’s Charter rights have been violated in the course of Ms. Oger’s human rights  complaint against him.

 

[55]There is no question, however, that this complaint engages Charter protections. In these circumstances, I must interpret and apply the Code in a manner that proportionately balances its purposes with those protections. The framework for this analysis has been set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in three cases: Doré v. Québec (Tribunal des Professions), 2012 SCC 12 [Doré]; Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12 [Loyola]; and Trinity  Western University v. Law Society of BC, 2018 SCC 32 [TWU]. 

While simultaneously claiming not to be able to apply the Charter, the Tribunal says it will balance the rights of the Charter v.s. the Code.

A. Factual context 
1. Discrimination against transgender people 
. This is a significant time for trans and gender diverse people. Their long fight for equality is bearing some fruit, as society begins to adjust its traditionally static and binary understanding of gender, and its tolerance for people to identify and express their gender authentically. One indicator of this progress is the 2016 amendment to the Code that added the grounds of gender identity and expression. 

[61] However, as this hearing made clear, the journey is far from over. Unlike other groups protected by the Code, transgender people often find their very existence the subject of public debate and condemnation. What flows from this existential denial is, naturally, a view that transpeople are less worthy of dignity, respect, and rights. In the hearing room for this complaint, we were witness to repeated, deliberate, and flagrant attacks on Ms. Oger based on nothing more than a belief that her very existence is an affront. 

(A) The Tribunal actually referred to this section as “factual context”, but then goes on to make a number of straw man arguments.
(B) It is not a fight for equality. That was never the issue.
(C)”Traditionally static and binary understanding of gender”? Actually, there has never been evidence that there are more than 2 genders. Simply passing a law does not erase science. A government could conceivably pass a law saying that dogs are cats, but it would not be based in reality.
(D) Gender identity and expression? Don’t these contradict reality? Merely expressing oneself or identifying oneself a certain way does not make it so.
(E) Questioning the reality of something not based on science is a hate crime now? Got it.

[62] And so, despite some gains, transgender people remain among the most marginalized in our society. Their lives are marked by “disadvantage, prejudice, stereotyping, and vulnerability”: F(C) v. Albert (Vital Statistics), 2014 ABQB 237 at para. 58; see also Rainbow  Committee of Terrace v. City of Terrace, 2002 BCHRT 26 at paras. 47-51. They are stereotyped as “diseased, confused, monsters and freaks”: Nixon v. Vancouver Rape Relief Society, 2002. 
BCHRT 1 at paras. 136137, overturned 2005 BCCA 601 (not on this point). Transpeople face barriers to employment and housing, inequitable access to health care and other vital public services, and heightened risks of targeted harassment and violence. The results include social isolation, as well as higher rates of substance use, poor mental health, suicide, and poverty: XY v. Ontario (Government and Consumer Services), 2012 HRTO 726 at paras. 164-166. For transgender children, antitrans bullying leads to higher rates of absenteeism and poorer educational outcomes, which then has ripple effects for their health and future prospects: Christophe Cornu (2016), “Preventing and addressing homophobic and transphobic bullying in  education; A human-rights based approach using the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child”, Journal of LGBT Youth, 13:1‐2, 6‐17 at pp 7‐8. 

(A) How are they marginalized? They have entire government bodies to fight specifically for their rights.
(B) Substance abuse, suicide, and mental health problems? Doesn’t that signify that there might be something seriously wrong with what they are doing?
(C) Children should not be transitioning. Period.

[64] Mr. Whatcott and the JCCF sought to rely on statistics about the poor health and social outcomes for transgender people as proof that – at best – the merits of being transgender was a matter for ongoing study and debate and – at worst –it was a bad lifestyle choice, whichought to be publicly discouraged. I agree with Ms. Oger that this is an illconceived attempt to “take the data about the consequences of being a victim of oppression, or the consequences of being marginalized, and turn that into the root cause of the issue”.  

[65] The poor health, economic, and social outcomes for many transgender people are not a signal of their inherent worth but rather of the significant degree to which they continue to face marginalization, stigma, and discrimination. They illustrate how much work remains to be done to make the Code’s objective of an equal society into a reality. 

(A) The Tribunal specifically states they will not consider statistical data. How very “scientific and reasoned” of them.
(B) Another straw-man argument. No one is saying these people are not worthy, but that there are very serious mental health issues that need to be addressed. Issues the tribunal has no interest in addressing.

[75] There is no dispute that a decision against Mr. Whatcott would limit his Charter right to freedom of religion. Ms. Oger concedes that Mr. Whatcott has a sincerely held religious belief that it is his duty to spread his views about transgender people: Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 at para. 65. This concession was appropriate. Mr. Whatcott identifies as Christian and describes himself as a “flawed Christian activist”. He says that his theology largely lines up with that of the Lutheran Church. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that Evangelical Christians, and I believe it is fair to count Mr. Whatcott as one, “carry their religious beliefs and values beyond their private lives and into their work, education, and politics”: TWU at para. 67. This is certainly true of Mr. Whatcott. For many years, he has manifested his religious beliefs through activism, beginning with antiabortion activism and then, in more recent years, in activism against the LGBTQ community. His beliefs about transgender people namely that they do not exist and are engaged in a falsehood  stem from his interpretation of the Christian Bible. He believes it is God’s will that he spread the Christian gospel and his views about the “morality” of being transgender. 

(A) Now we get to the heart of it. This would actually limit religious freedom.
(B) The Tribunal knows this, and will act against it anyway.

[77] There is similarly no dispute that a decision against Mr. Whatcott would limit his freedom to publicly express his views about transgender people generally, and Ms. Oger specifically. This engages his right to free expression. As I will discuss below, the scope of freedom of expression, and the significance of any possible infringement, varies according to the type of speech and the extent to which it furthers or detracts from the core values underlying the freedom. However, at this threshold stage, it is sufficient that the Flyer was a form of expression and that any decision restricting Mr. Whatcott’s right to distribute it publicly would limit his expressive rights to some extent. 

[78] With respect to Mr. Whatcott’s s. 7 Charter rights, I agree with the Attorney General that it would not be fair to consider that argument, which was raised for the first time in Mr. Whatcott’s final reply, after the hearing of this complaint had concluded. Regardless, the argument has no merit. A decision by this Tribunal would not restrict Mr. Whatcott’s life, liberty, or security of the person. The remedial jurisdiction conferred by s. 37 of the Code is in no way equivalent to penal consequences. It does not threaten Mr. Whatcott’s life or liberty. While I accept that individuals found to violate the Code may encounter, as a consequence, a degree of stigma and social disapproval, such consequences do not rise to a level of “serious  state imposed psychological stress

(A) No threat to his security? Try not paying the fine and see what happens.
(B) You also say the Commission “will” order the so-called bad behaviour to stop. And if it doesn’t, you’ll fine him again.
(C) Who cares if this is the first time the argument has been brought up?

Now a quote from the Supreme Court of Canada:

First and foremost, free expression is essential to the proper functioning of democratic governance. As Rand J. put it, “government by the free public opinion of an open society . . . demands the condition of a virtually unobstructed access to and diffusion of ideas”: Switzman, at p. 306. 
.
  Second, the free exchange of ideas is an “essential precondition of the  search for truth”: R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697, at p. 803, per  McLachlin J. This rationale, sometimes known as the “marketplace of ideas”, extends beyond the political domain to any areaof debate where truth is sought through the exchange of information and ideas. Information is disseminated and propositions debated. In the course of debate, misconceptions and errors are exposed. What withstands testing  emerges as truth. 
.
  Third, free expression has intrinsic value as an aspect of self‐realization for both speakers and listeners. As the majority observed in Irwin Toy, at p. 976, “the diversity in forms of individual selffulfillment and human flourishing ought to be cultivated in an essentially tolerant, indeed welcoming, environment not only for the sake of those who convey a meaning, uut also for the sake of those to whom it is conveyed”.  Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61 at paras. 4750; see also R v. Keegstra,  [1990] 3 SCR 697 [Keegstra], at paras. 87‐89; 

This is quite laughable, as the Tribunal has no interest in the factual basis of Whatcott’s claim (that Oger is male), nor in the statistical research and evidence regarding transgenders in general.

[119] I reject this proposition in the strongest possible terms. The question of whether transgender people exist and are entitled to dignity in this province is as valuable to ongoing public debate as whether one race is superior to another. This does not mean that all expression that criticizes or questions the existence of transgender people violates the Code. Here I distinguish between public debate about, for example, the scope of rights that different groups in society may be afforded, and commentary like that which is in the Flyer, which denies the very existence of transpeople. Understood in its proper context, it is simply not accurate to place this type of expression at the core of s. 2(b) values. 

(A) False equivalence. The reality of transitioning is not the same thing as racial supremacy.
(B) False equivalence. Questioning whether trans-people exist is not the same thing as saying a person should not have dignity.
(C) The flyer is inappropriate, but once again the Tribunal dodges the issue of “truth”.

[125] This argument confuses distinctions with discrimination. Efforts to increase the participation and representation of groups which have historically been excluded from political life serve the goals of achieving substantive equality and enriching Canada’s democracy. But to advocate against including those groups in politics is not the same thing as arguing for their deliberate inclusion. The law has long understood that identical treatment of groups is often the very source of serious inequality: Kapp at para. 27, citing Andrews. Put another way, “different treatment in the service of equity for disadvantaged groups is an expression of [substantive] equality, not an exception to it”: P. W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (5th ed. Supp. 2007), vol. 2, at p. 5553; cited with approval in Kapp at para. 37. It is simply not reasonable to equate efforts to increase the representation of disadvantaged groups in government with those which would seek to continue to exclude them. While I acknowledge that individual voters may choose to discriminate within the privacy of a ballot box, it does not further Canada’s democracy to suggest that a person’s connection with a historically disadvantaged group is a legitimate point on which to openly campaign against them. 

To summarize this word salad: ACTUAL equal treatment of people can be wrong, since it doesn’t take “historical marginalization” into account. Hence the idea of 15(2) of the Charter (affirmative action). This is essentially different rules for different groups in order to “increase representation”.

The decision is long one (100 pages), but this covers the main points. The Tribunal also goes on at length about Whatcott refusing to refer to Oger as “she” despite being repeatedly told not to.

While Whatcott comes off as a bit of a jerk, it is hard to come up with much sympathy for Oger, who is essentially a professional victim. The proposed “hate map” is essentially a doxing tool for opinions that they don’t agree with.

It is also disturbing to see the Tribunal so uninterested in fact or truth. Legitimate concerns about whether a person can transition are deemed hate speech. Further, the tribunal doesn’t care for evidence presented regarding statistics of trans-people. If anything, it is deemed as more of a reason to grant special status.

Whatcott “identifies” as a Christian activist, yet Oger “really is” a woman. The Tribunal is inconsistent in their own standards.

And as seems to be the case in all provinces, the “human rights” code stipulates that no intent is necessary for a finding against a person or group.

Will there be an appeal (in the form of an application for judicial review)? We will find out. But this sets a very bad precedent.

Posted on

IMM #2: “Temporary” Foreign Worker Program, & Other Migration

(Source: Globe and Mail)

(Source: Globe and Mail, 2012)

Disclaimer: When this piece was originally written, the number of 150,000 student visas was used. This was based on an error in reading the 2018 report. Canada actually admitted some 317,000 students in 2017. While not all will stay, most will want to and try to after graduating.

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat than illegal aliens, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. There are also social, economic, environmental and voting changes to consider. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. Politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” have no interest in coming clean on this.

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement).
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

Note: If there are errors in calculating the totals, please speak up. Information is of no use to the public if it isn’t accurate.

2. Important Links

(1) http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/files/files/TFW_EN.pdf
(2) http://archive.is/PpLay
(3) “https://www.oecd.org/migration/forum-migration-statistics/3.Feng-Hou.pdf
(4) http://archive.is/jdJCG
(5) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/180129/dq180129b-eng.htm
(6) http://archive.is/wip/ei9Dz
(7) https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201479E#a2
(8) http://archive.is/bCntt
(9) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/atlantic-immigration-pilot/hire-immigrant.html
(10) http://archive.is/wm5PH
(11) http://www.vancouversun.com/Temporary+foreign+workers+Filling+labour+depressing+wages/7564651/story.html
(12) http://archive.is/paYCu
(13) https://globalnews.ca/news/3993108/temporary-foreign-workers-canada-unemployment/
(14) http://archive.is/wip/AEfJ7
(15) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/provincial-nominees.html
(16) http://archive.is/wip/5b98A
(17) https://www.canadavisa.com/international-mobility-program.html#gs.6o5qw9
(18) http://archive.is/wip/OWMPt
(19) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/181128/dq181128c-eng.htm
(20) http://archive.is/wip/WfpUk
(21) https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/dai/smr08/2018/smr08_220_2018
(22) http://archive.is/wip/X10Rm
(23) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3710001101
(24) http://archive.is/9vhYZ
(25) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/annual-report-parliament-immigration-2018/report.html
(26) http://archive.is/Nov56
(27) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000901
(28) http://archive.is/0yxKJ
(29) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/180927/dq180927c-eng.htm
(30) http://archive.is/JgvqV

Categories to Consider:

  1. Regular immigration — 310,000 currently
  2. Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) — 78,788 in year 2017
  3. International Mobility Program — 224,033 in year 2017
  4. International Students — 317,328 in 2017
  5. “Refugees” — 44,747 in year 2017

3. More Information

Facts and Figures
More than 192,000 temporary foreign workers entered Canada in 2011. The overall total includes about 70,000 foreign workers whose employer required an LMO from HRSDC and close to 120,000 who did not require an LMO.
In 2011, more than 29,000 temporary foreign workers made the transition to permanent status.

(Source for quote)

Guess it’s not really “temporary”.

Advantages to Employers

For employers who have been unable to recruit Canadian citizens or permanent residents for job openings, the TFWP makes it possible to hire workers from abroad. Employers might also find a qualified foreign worker already in Canada, such as a foreign worker who is about to complete a job contract with another employer or a foreign national holding an open work permit that allows the employee to work for any employer in Canada.

While most temporary foreign workers will be hired to address a specific, short-term labour need, some temporary foreign workers who initially came to fill a temporary vacancy can transition to permanent residence if they meet certain requirements. For example, the Canadian Experience Class is open to foreign nationals who have been working full-time in Canada as trades people or in managerial or professional occupations and meet certain other requirements. Other foreign workers may qualify through the Provincial Nominee Program for permanent residence in Canada. These routes exist to ensure that workers who have shown that their skills are in continuing demand and that they have already adapted well to life in Canada can build a future here.

As the TFWP is designed to help employers fill short-term gaps in Canada’s labour market, most temporary foreign workers are limited to working in Canada for four years before having to return to their home country. Most TFWs have the opportunity to apply for permanent residence if that is their desire, and limiting the amount of time they may work in Canada with a temporary status encourages them to do so.

(Source for quote)

Yeah, it’s not really “temporary”.

And how many are we talking about anyway?

“A. Temporary Workers
In 2017, a total of 78,788 work permits were issued under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP), which includes caregivers, agricultural workers and other workers who require a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA).”

(Source is here).

Year Female Male Total
2015 14,884 58,132 73,016
2016 16,013 62,367 78,402
2017 14,380 64,408 78,788

Well, if nothing else the TFW category is down from the Harper years. Though, to be fair, I think this is “per year” admittants, not the total in the country at a time.

4. Provincial Nominee Programme

How the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) works
This program is for workers who:

  • have the skills, education and work experience to contribute to the economy of a specific province or territory
  • want to live in that province, and
  • want to become permanent residents of Canada

Each province and territory
Footnote
* has its own “streams” (immigration programs that target certain groups) and requirements. For example, in a program stream, provinces and territories may target:

  • students
  • business people
  • skilled workers
  • semi-skilled workers

If “temporary” foreign workers cannot get PR status Federally, then there is a good chance they can Provincially.

Now this is encouraging:

As part of the process, you will have to pass a medical exam and get a police check (certificate). Everyone must have these checks, no matter where they plan to live in Canada.

However, being healthy and of good conduct does “not” apply to refugee applicants.

Note: In 2017, the number of PN admissions was 49,724.
(Source is here)

5. International Students Fast Tracked To PNP

Although this article was meant to address the Temporary Foreign Worker’s Program (TFWP), it should also be noted that international students completing a college diploma or university degree are often accepted into the PNP as well. So it is worth looking at how many people that involves.

Number of international students increasing at a higher rate than that of Canadian students
The number of international students enrolled in Canadian postsecondary institutions has been on the rise for two decades, with their numbers increasing at a higher rate than that of Canadian students. International students totaled 245,895 in 2016/2017, representing 12.0% of overall enrolments.

Increases in international student enrolments in Canada are observed due to a variety of factors, including programs and policies put in place to increase their numbers, the quality of postsecondary education, and the appeal of Canada as a study destination. While China remained the top country of citizenship for international students in 2016/2017, most of the gains in enrolments of international students from 2015/2016 to 2016/2017 were a result of the growing number of students from India, up 34.4% (+9,060).

245,895 international students in the 2016/2017 year, and we can expect that number to grow. Of course, Permanent Resident status is often straightforward after that. From there, citizenship is really just a formality.

Now, we are told that Canada currently has an immigration intake of 310,000 per year (although scheduled to increase). This does not take the 317K (listed in 2017) of international students.

2018 REPORT TO PARLIAMENT ON IMM

In 2017, a total of 44,747 people were admitted to Canada as resettled refugees, as permanent residents in the Protected Persons in Canada category or as people admitted for humanitarian and compassionate considerations and under public policies.

Some other facts:
-In 2017, Canada admitted 159,262 permanent residents in Economic Class programs, representing 55.6% of all 2017 admissions.
-In 2017, Canada admitted 65,417 new permanent residents in the Economic Class through the Express Entry application management system, an increase of 32,003 from the previous year.
Of the 49,724 admissions under the Provincial Nominee Program, 13,531 were through Express Entry, an increase of 73% over 2016.
-In 2017, IRCC admitted 22,253 caregivers as permanent residents. This was above the high end of the planned admissions and reflected measures to reduce the inventory of applicants that applied under the former Live-in Caregiver Program.
-In 2017, a total of 587 admissions were processed through Federal Economic – Business Immigration programs.

6. You Can’t Make This Up!

Of the 286,479 permanent residents admitted in 2017, a total of 76% self-identified as having knowledge of English, French or both official languages, which is an increase of three percentage points compared to 2016.

(Source is here)

Okay, apparently you speak English of French if you “identify” as doing so.

7. How Many People Total?

A few assumptions:
(1) Although International Mobility is “meant” to be temporary, visa holders absolutely can find ways to obtain other visas, or apply for PR in certain cases, so count the entire amount.
(2) Data for 2017 lists some 317K student visas. While it is certainly true that not all will stay afterwards, the vast majority will want to.

Category Number
Permanent Immigration 310,000
Temp Foreign Worker 80,000
International Mobility 225,000
International Student 315,000
“Refugees” 45,000
Totals (approx.) 975,000

Of course, these are estimates from older data. They do not include other categories, or the hordes of illegals coming into Canada. It also doesn’t include any other program that may not be listed.

975,000 in a year. More than 1/2 million more than our “leaders” are telling us.

8. Bernier V.S. Trudeau

What we are “told” the numbers are

Who Current Proposed Diff Percent
Trudeau 310K 350K +40K +13%
Bernier 310K 250K -60K -20%

What the numbers “actually” are:

Who Current Proposed Diff Percent
Trudeau 975K 1,015K +40K +4%
Bernier 975K 915K -60K -6%

And of course, this is presupposed on the idea that there are only 810,000 legal immigrants into Canada this year.
4% increase with “open borders” Trudeau.
6% decrease with “populist” Bernier.
What a complete scam.

(Added June 17, 2019). This is Maxime Bernier calling out the “globalist” Trudeau and Scheer for supporting mass migration.

9. StatsCan Information

CLICK HERE, for 2018-2019 estimates.

Statistics Canada estimates that from 2019 to 2019
Q1 in 2018 = 36,786,021
Q2 in 2018 = 36,890,169
Q3 in 2018 = 37,058,856
Q4 in 2019 = 37,242,571
Q1 in 2019 = 37,314,442

This would be an increase of 525,000, which is 215,000 or 70% higher than what we have been told. But there’s more.

StatsCan found most growth came from migration.

The number of non-permanent residents increased by 165,729 in 2017/2018. This increase surpassed the previous peak in 1988/1989, the year when the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada was created and the new refugee determination system was introduced. Although also fed by a strong increase of asylum seekers, the increase of the number of non-permanent residents in the country in 2017/2018 was still mainly explained by the rise in the number of work and study permit holders.

So, another 525,000 new citizens, and another 165,000 new residents
That would be 690,000 people.

Let’s see some census data.
In 2011, there were 33,476,688 Canadians.
In 2016, there were 35,151,728 Canadians.
This is a difference of 1.68M, or 335,000/annually.

But this only takes into account “citizens”, not permanent residents, or other temporary residents.

Even using StatsCan data, the 800K+ estimate seems pretty reasonable, when other groups are factored in.

And to reiterate: not everyone who comes into Canada on a “temporary” path will stay. But the majority will want to and try to.

Disclaimer: When this piece was originally written, the number of 150,000 student visas was used. This was based on an error in reading the 2018 report to Parliament. Canada actually admitted some 317,000 students in 2017. While not all will stay, most will want to and try to after graduating.

Posted on

Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan (Destruction of Europe)

(Kalergi Plan, explained by Black Pigeon Speaks)

(Macron’s Reform Agenda)

1. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for UN Population Conferences (1974 Romania, 1984 Mexico, 1994 Egypt)
CLICK HERE, for the Barcelona Declaration (of 1995).
CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 1995).
CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 1998).
CLICK HERE, for the Expert Group of Population Decline (of 2000).
CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2002).
CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2005).
CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2008).
CLICK HERE, for the Declaration on High Level Dialogue on Migration (of2013).
CLICK HERE, for the New York Declaration (of 2016)
CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact (of 2018)
CLICK HERE, for the Charlemagne Prize, for unifying Europe.
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s Multiculturalism Act.

2. Let’s Get A Timeline

  1. 1918 – End of WW1, Austria Hungary broken apart
  2. 1918 onwards – tensions between nations and groups within
  3. 1922 – Kalergi’s Writings of a “Unified Europe”
  4. 1933 – Hitler becomes Chancellor of Germany
  5. 1945 – End of WW2, start of cold war
  6. 1973 – Free trade bloc between 6 European nations
  7. 1974 – Population Conference in Bucharest, Romania
  8. 1984 – Population Conference in Mexico City, Mexico
  9. 1994 – Population Conference in Cairo, Egypt
  10. 1995 – Barcelona Declaration in Barcelona, Spain
  11. 1995 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
  12. 1998 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
  13. 2000 – Expert Report on Population Decline
  14. 2002 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
  15. 2005 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
  16. 2008 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
  17. 2013 – High Level Talks in Migration, UN
  18. 2016 – New York Declaration, NY, USA
  19. 2018 – UN Global Migration Compact, Morocco

3. Who Was At Barcelona?


Barcelona declaration

adopted at the Euro-Mediterranean Conference – 27-28/11/95

• The Council of the European Union, represented by its President, Mr Javier SOLANA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Spain,
• The European Commission, represented by Mr Manuel MARIN, VicePresident,
• Germany, represented by Mr Klaus KINKEL, ViceChancellor and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Algeria, represented by Mr Mohamed Salah DEMBRI, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Austria, represented by Mrs Benita FERREROWALDNER, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
• Belgium, represented by Mr Erik DERYCKE, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Cyprus, represented by Mr Alecos MICHAELIDES, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Denmark, represented by Mr Ole Loensmann POULSEN, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
• Egypt, represented by Mr Amr MOUSSA, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Spain, represented by Mr Carlos WESTENDORP, State Secretary for Relations with the European Community,
• Finland, represented by Mrs Tarja HALONEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• France, represented by Mr Hervé de CHARETTE, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Greece, represented by Mr Károlos PAPOULIAS, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Ireland, represented by Mr Dick SPRING, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Israel, represented by Mr Ehud BARAK, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Italy, represented by Mrs Susanna AGNELLI, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Jordan, represented by Mr AbdelKarim KABARITI, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Lebanon, represented by Mr Fares BOUEZ, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Luxembourg, represented by Mr Jacques F. POOS, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Cooperation,
• Malta, represented by Prof. Guido DE MARCO, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Morocco, represented by Mr Abdellatif FILALI, Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• the Netherlands, represented by Mr Hans van MIERLO, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Portugal, represented by Mr Jaime GAMA, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• the United Kingdom, represented by Mr Malcolm RIFKIND QC MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs,
• Syria, represented by Mr Farouk AL-SHARAA, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Sweden, represented by Mrs Lena HJELM-WALLEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Tunisia, represented by Mr Habib Ben YAHIA, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Turkey, represented by Mr Deniz BAYKAL, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• the Palestinian Authority, represented by Mr Yassir ARAFAT, President of the Palestinian Authority, taking part in the Euro-Mediterranean Conference in Barcelona:

The first sections have to do with free trade and economic cooperation. However, the partnership in social, cultural and human affairs is far more interesting.

Partnership in social, cultural and Human affairs:

Developing human resources, promoting understanding between cultures & exchanges between civil societies

The participants recognize that the traditions of culture and civilization throughout the Mediterranean region, dialogue between these cultures and exchanges at human, scientific and technological level are an essential factor in bringing their peoples closer, promoting understanding between them and improving their perception of each other.

In this spirit, the participants agree to establish a partnership in social, cultural and human affairs. To this end:

they reaffirm that dialogue and respect between cultures and religions are a necessary precondition for bringing the peoples closer. In this connection they stress the importance of the role the mass media can play in the reciprocal recognition and understanding of cultures as a source of mutual enrichment;

they stress the essential nature of the development of human resources, both as regards the education and training of young people in particular and in the area of culture. They express their intent to promote cultural exchanges and knowledge of other languages, respecting the cultural identity of each partner, and to implement a lasting policy of educational and cultural programmes; in this context, the partners undertake to adopt measures to facilitate human exchanges, in particular by improving administrative procedures;

they underline the importance of the health sector for sustainable development and express their intention of promoting the effective participation of the community in operations to improve health and well-being;

they recognize the importance of social development which, in their view, must go hand in hand with any economic development. They attach particular importance to respect for fundamental social rights, including the right to development;

-they recognize the essential contribution civil society can make in the process of development of the EuroMediterranean partnership and as an essential factor for greater understanding and closeness between peoples;
-they accordingly agree to strengthen and/or introduce the necessary instruments of decentralized cooperation to encourage exchanges between those active in development
-within the framework of national laws: leaders of political and civil society, the cultural and religious world, universities, the research community, the media, organizations, the trade unions and public and private enterprises;
-on this basis, they recognize the importance of encouraging contacts and exchanges between young people in the context of programmes for decentralized cooperation;
-they will encourage actions of support for democratic institutions and for the strengthening of the rule of law and civil society;
they recognize that current population trends represent a priority challenge which must be counterbalanced by appropriate policies to accelerate economic takeoff;
-they acknowledge the importance of the role played by migration in their relationships. They agree to strengthen their cooperation to reduce migratory pressures, among other things through vocational training programmes and programmes of assistance for job creation. They undertake to guarantee protection of all the rights recognized under existing legislation of migrants legally resident in their respective territories;

-in the area of illegal immigration they decide to establish closer cooperation. In this context, the partners, aware of their responsibility for readmission, agree to adopt the relevant provisions and measures, by means of bilateral agreements or arrangements, in order to readmit their nationals who are in an illegal situation. To that end, the Member States of the European Union take citizens to mean nationals of the Member States, as defined for Community purposes;

they agree to strengthen cooperation by means of various measures to prevent terrorism and fight it more effectively together;

by the same token they consider it necessary to fight jointly and effectively against drug trafficking, international crime and corruption;

they underline the importance of waging a determined campaign against racism, xenophobia and intolerance and agree to cooperate to that end.

4. Summary


Okay, let’s gather some information here:

  1. Improving perception of them? Sounds like propaganda
  2. Mass media to “play a role”. Okay
  3. Closeness of cultures to be valued
  4. Exchanges to be promoted
  5. Migration to be valued
  6. Must repatriate illegals
  7. campaign against racism, xenophobia and intolerance (no Islamophobia). Could this be to silence critics of this mass migration pact?

In case anyone was wondering, this is to promote multiculturalism, with no expectation of assimilation. While this is promoted as a post-cultural era, the idea is to encourage mass migration (mainly to Europe). Various cultures could then expect accommodation, since tolerance was the norm.

Of course, all of this presupposed that nations were totally fine giving up their national heritage and culture, something that has never proven true.

5. Exerps of Kalergi Plan

This war of annihilation, prepared by European politics, will leave the world war just as far behind in horror as it did the German-French one. His element will be the air – his weapon the poison – his aim is the extermination of the hostile nation. The main fight will be directed against the cities of the hinterland, against women and children. The vanquished nations are destroyed – the victorious mortally wounded emerge from this mass murder. This imminent war means the complete downfall of Europe, its culture and economy. Other continents will take its place. The second danger that escapes a fragmented Europe is the conquest by Russia.

Then the fragmented and divided small states of Europe will face the one Russian world power whose territory is five times larger than the whole of Europe. Neither the small states of Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and the Balkans nor disarmed Germany would then be able to ward off the Russian onslaught. Rhine, Alps, Adriatic would become the border of Europe: until this border also falls and Europe becomes Russia’s western province. There is only one salvation from this danger: the European union. For a united Europe there is no Russian danger. Because it has twice as many people as Russia and a much more developed industry. So the decision about the Russian danger is not with Russia – but with Europe.

Getting originals of Kalergi’s work has been difficult. But here is the basic idea. Individual nation states within Europe lead to violence and war. People’s attachment to ethnicity, culture and heritage leads to violence between groups. However, if there was only one people, then these issues would not exist.

Yes, the Kalergi plan is ethnic cleansing, although the intent was to make for a more peaceful Europe. (Watch BPS’s video above as he explains it very well).

Further, individual nations weaken Europe against Russia. Russia of course is vastly stronger than any individual nation, but could be fended off if the European nations united.

The Kalergi plan was a way to solve both problems: (1) prevent violence between European nations; and (2) unite to be able to stand up to Russia.

As for the Charlemagne Prize, this is an award given to a person who has made extraordinary efforts in uniting Europe. There are some notable winners:
-Jean Claude Juncker won in 2006
-Angela Merkel won in 2008
-Emmanuel Macron won in 2018

The goal of Barcelona Declaration and Kalergi Plan is to destroy the individual European nation and to give rise to a European super state. Of course, the people’s themselves do not wish to give up their culture, language, traditions or ethnicity. Therefore, a high level of duplicity is necessary.

Of course, the aim of the December 10, 2018 UN Global Migration Compact is to erase nations throughout the West, not just Europe.

On a final note: doesn’t the Barcelona Declaration sound a lot like Canada’s Multiculturalism Act? Any unique national identity is to be removed in order to be “diverse and tolerant”

Multiculturalism policy
3 (1) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to
(a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;
(b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future;
(c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation;
(d) recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development;
(e) ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity;
(f) encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada’s multicultural character;
(g) promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins;
(h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;
(i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and
(j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.

The Multiculturalism Act is Canada’s version of the Barcelona Declaration. Nothing to unite us as a people, no unique culture, customs, traditions or heritage. Canada is to be “multicultural”, which plainly means it is to have “no” culture.

Also worth noting, Quebec has laws to protect its language and culture, while the rest of Canada does not. Hypocritical.

Instead of preventing conflicts BETWEEN societies, forced multiculturalism ensures there will be conflicts WITHIN societies.

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.