(The U.N. admits it helps “migrants”, regardless of their legal status)
(Mastercard and MercyCorps)
CBC, a.k.a The “Communist Broadbasting Corporation”, or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”, is a government funded “news” organization. It receives about $1.5 billion annually to spew out anti-Canadian stories. Taxpayers don’t get a say in the matter.
CLICK HERE, to reach the CBC Propaganda Masterlist. It is far from complete, but being added to regularly.
Of course, CBC promoting globalism is nothing new. Here is a recent cover of a “non-profit” calling itself Century Initiative. Their goal was to boost Canada’s population to 100 million people by the year 2100. Of course, logistical details, or incompatibility of cultures is not discussed.
On November 23, Jonathon Gatehouse of CBC released this article. It contained a story whining about how Europe enforcing its borders was putting migrant lives in danger.
The present article is extremely biased and one sided. It takes issue with Europe protecting its own borders, and denying unending immigration from the third world. It is amazing how an article can both be factually accurate, yet so completely miss the point. CBC is being extremely selective in what information is presents.
Throughout the article, Gatehouse repeatedly implies that these migrants have the right to reach Europe and live there. The right of European Nations to defend their borders is mention is looked down upon. Let’s go through the article:
“Desperate migrants are choosing ever more dangerous sea routes to Europe and using smaller and less seaworthy boats, causing a sharp increase in drowning deaths, warns the International Organization for Migration.”
What CBC leaves out is that these are “ILLEGAL” migrants, who do not have permission to enter Europe, let along live there. This point is omitted throughout the article.
“The European Union’s success in cutting deals to close off the sea routes from Turkey to Greece, and from Libya to Italy, has resulted in an overall drop in the number of migrants arriving on the continent — 128,265 so far this year, compared to almost 187,000 in 2017, and 390,000 in 2016.
.
Some are now even arriving in the Canary Islands, a Spanish archipelago 100 kilometres off the Moroccan coast. At least 36 migrants have died trying to make that crossing in 2018, compared to one the year befoore”
The European Union is not trying to cut off one route for the sake of being a jerk. They are genuinely trying to control their borders with this move. Migrants are trying circumvent this by finding other ways to get into Europe.
“Yet despite the concerns over the rising death toll, many European nations seem focused on enacting even tougher anti-migrant policies.
.
This week, prosecutors in Sicily moved to seize a migrant rescue vessel operated by Medecins Sans Frontières and another aid organization, accusing the groups of illegally dumping of 24 tonnes of “potentially toxic waste” during stops in Italian ports.”
Gatehouse seems to miss the point of this entirely. European nations are sick of mass illegal immigration and are trying to stop it. If migrants are endangering themselves by finding innovative ways to break immigration laws, then it is not the responsibility of said nations to provide assistance. There is no obligation to aid law-breakers.
“And soon, Italy’s parliament will vote on a new immigration law proposed by the populist government that will remove humanitarian protections for migrants and block asylum seekers from accessing services. These are moves that UN human rights experts have said will “certainly” violate international law.”
Gatehouse omits the key detail that these new laws are meant for ILLEGAL immigrants. He seems to think that just showing up against Italy’s will entitles people to free benefits.
“Meanwhile in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is ratcheting up his attacks on the European Union, calling it a “transport agency” for migrants that hands out funds and “anonymous bank cards” to “terrorists and criminals.”
.
“This is the kind of slippery slope which could again lead to a broken Europe,” Orbán declared today in an interview on Hungarian public radio.
Actually, the EU and UN do provide financial assistance for migrants, regardless of their legal status. See this page, from the U.N. website, regarding the “caravan” demanding access to the U.S. See this previous article. Handing out prepaid credit cards to finance “migration” actually is happening.
“Anti-immigrant sentiment is undeniably on the rise in Europe.
.
This week, the Guardian newspaper crunched the voting results from 31 European elections over the past 20 years. It found that populist parties have tripled their support and managed to put their leaders into positions of power within 11 different governments.”
This is true, although Gatehouse bypasses the fact that mass, illegal and uncontrolled immigration directly leads to anti-immigrant sentiment and policies. Throughout the article, there is no mention of European nations having the right to decide for themselves who enters their borders.
“”I [Hillary Clinton] admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken, particularly by leaders like Angela Merkel, but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must send a very clear message — ‘We are not going to be able to continue to provide refuge and support’ — because if we don’t deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil the body politic.”
.
To date in 2018, 2,075 migrants have drowned or gone missing while crossing the Mediterranean.”
This quote is accurate. However, the connection seems to be lost on the author. And while 2075 may have died, they were trying to get into Europe ILLEGALLY. This is a point Gatehouse avoids altogether. Why should Europe assist those trying to break their laws?
This is a theme in the entire article: that these migrants have a “right” to enter Europe, and that Europe is causing a humanitarian crisis by not assisting them.
However, Gatehouse does deserve credit for one thing: not once does he refer to them as “refugees”. he acknowledges that they are migrants looking for a better life.
(A fine review of Rempel by CanandaPoli. Watch his channel.)
Who says democracy doesn’t always work? (Rhetorical question). After repeated attempts to contact Conservative MPs, and getting not a single response, it seemed better to try at home. To be fair, the MP didn’t know I had any party loyalty.
I sat down with my Member of Parliament, Cathy McLeod, on Tuesday, November 13. While mainly wanting information on the U.N. Global Migration Compact, I actually got a lot of information on other topics. In 45 minutes we covered a lot. And to be frank, her honesty was quite refreshing. That will be listed below.
Cathy McLeod, CPC MP
Futile Attempt To Get CPC MPs to Email on UN Compact
(Sent in several emails): all CPC MPs were contacted to get information on the global migration compact. When this failed, I went to my local MP in Kamloops-Thompson.
Media Inquiry on UN Global Migration Compact (to all CPC members)
Sat 10/11/2018 01:55
From: editor@canucklaw.ca
To: dave.vankesteren@parl.gc.ca, Arnold.Viersen@parl.gc.ca, Cathay.Wagantall@parl.gc.ca, mark.warawa@parl.gc.ca, chris.warkentin@parl.gc.ca, Kevin.Waugh@parl.gc.ca
Cc: Len.Webber@parl.gc.ca, alice.wong@parl.gc.ca, David.Yurdiga@parl.gc.ca, Bob.Zimmer@parl.gc.ca
Hello,
I work for a small independent website out of BC, covering law and legal topics.
This inquiry has to do with the UN Global Migration Compact, which Trudeau is expected to sign in December.
Most Canadians would be shocked at the proposal of giving the UN control over our immigration laws. However, I have not been able to find any definitive information from your party. Moreover, I don’t see any indication that the CPC is even concerned about this.
This shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Canadians need to know who sides with Canadians, and who sides with globalists.
And your immigration ”Shadow Minister”, Michelle Rempel seems determined to avoid the topic altogether. I have attempted several times unsuccessfully to get an answer.
2 Questions:
(1) Do you support or oppose the UN global migration compact?
(2) Do you support or oppose Petition E-1906 (from Max Bernier) to reject the compact?
Thanks,
Alex
Editor/Founder
http://canucklaw.ca
Please sign this petition
PETITION E-1906 (IMMIGRATION), to reject the ”Global Migration Compact”
Keep Canada’s borders intact CLICK HERE
To date, no one has answered the email.
When emailing didn’t work, I took a visit to the local MP. Here is a summary:
(1) U.N. Global Migration Compact
This was the topic that was hardest to get any information out of Ms. McLeod. After asking several times about the Migration Compact, she did eventually admit that the CPC does not oppose it. Rather they will ”study” the issue, and likely get experts to appear.
Regarding Petition E-1906 (yes, this petition sponsored by Maxime Bernier), she dismissed it as a populous move, and trying to attract attention.
Ms. McLeod said that since it was non-binding, there was little to worry about. There was no risk of people flooding in, that this was nothing like the situation in Central America. She also seemed uninterested when it was pointed out that the UN doesn’t respect nations’ borders.
The United Nations Migration Agency, IOM, is providing support and assistance to migrants crossing Central America in several self-styled caravans, while expressing concern over “the stress and demands” they are placing on host countries.
All migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status – IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico
All things said, it was strange how indifferent Ms. McLeod seemed about the entire Compact. She claimed that there would be no giving up on Canada’s sovereignty and borders. There was no reason to be alarmed and that other scandals going on merited far more outrage.
Personally, I think the CPC fully supports this UN deal, but doesn’t want to talk about it since it would be political suicide. Better to stay quiet.
(2) Disdain for Maxime Bernier
Ms. McLeod didn’t hide her disdain for Maxime Bernier. It was really the same old talking points about how he is selfish, and is more concerned with his ego. Interestingly, she never said ”how” his policies were bad, or how CPC policies were better. And that leads to the next topic….
(3) No Platform on Website
Those looking to run for office often put their platform online so anyone can take a look. However, the CPC has decided not to. Ms. McLeod explained that posting a platform was unnecessary, since an election would not be for a year. It would be rolled out bit by bit.
When I explained that other ”right leaning” parties, such as People’s Party (Bernier); the Libertarian Party (Moen); and the Nationalist Party (Patron), all did. The response was that (to paraphrase), unless there is actually an election, there is no need to post what you stand for.
Bernier claims that the CPC governs by polls, and their beliefs change along with the polls. It seems he has a point. People’s Party has a detailed agenda up, while Conservatives just post stories bashing Trudeau.
(4) Fake Refugees Coming Into Canada
The Conservative Party is willing to declare the entire US/Canada border a ”POINT OF ENTRY”, at which a potential refugee would have to cross and apply for asylum.
However, there is no real will for removing some 30,000-40,000 people who have illegally crossed from the United States. Declaring the whole border a ”POINT OF ENTRY” does nothing to the people already here. Further, Ms. McLeod gave the impression that the CPC wasn’t willing to take harsh measures to prevent what were obviously fraudulent claims. New York is not a war zone.
And while not willing to immediately deport people sneaking across the border, CPC would shorten the refugee hearings. A start, I suppose.
(5) Corporate Welfare
From the talk today, I have to wonder if the CPC even supports free trade at all. On the topics of ”bailouts” and of ”subsidies”, I was told that yes, this is how things are done in the real world. Apparently (my paraphrasing) major businesses can only succeed if they get large amounts of taxpayer money.
Note: One could argue that nationalising might be a better option. Although taxpayers are still on the hook, at least they would be part owners.
(6) Supply Management
Yes, the Conservative Party supports farmers, and Bernier keeps bringing it up for political points. That was pretty much the response.
(7) Equalization Payments
As far as attracting votes, I got the impression it would be political suicide to attempt any real reform.
(8) Terri McClintic and Gladue/Ipeelee
To the Conservative’s credit, they were quite thorough in bringing this up, and in seeing a child killer put back in prison.
However, there seems to be no will to address the underlying issue: the racist laws in Canada, which permitted this abomination to happen. Different sentencing guidelines base on race or ethnicity have no place in an equal society.
While living conditions and history were cited by the MP as justifications, it was refuted easily. Even if harsh 3rd world conditions result in higher crime, then lessening the punishments won’t erase the 3rd world conditions. Removing the effect won’t stop the cause.
(9) Statistics Canada
Originally, I thought this was a hoax story. It was actually quite nice to see the CPC fighting against this Orwellian scheme to raid the banking information of 500,000 Canadians (per year). See here, and see here.
Global News first exposed this story, and it became a national outrage. It was stunning to see this attempt at prying such personal data for ”research purposes”. Due to public backlash, formal complaints and legal challenges, the program is on hold indefinitely.
(10) Back Door Gun Registry
This was mainly in reference to bill C-71, and Ms. McLeod admitted that it was a ”backdoor gun registry”, and that CPC will oppose it. That was nice to hear.
(11) Carbon Tax, Paris Accord
The CPC opposes the carbon tax, which does nothing to reduce pollution. But to be fair, why vote for the Paris Accord at all, which specifically “endorses” a carbon tax? It does so in several passages.
However, the CPC still supports the Paris Accord, and in our talk, Ms. McLeod conflated carbon dioxide (which is plant food used in photosynthesis), with actual carbon products to be eliminated. They oppose the tax, but still support the Accord, as they don’t want to be seen as anti-environmental.
(12) Civility in the House of Commons
This touched a nerve, mentioning the childish behaviour, grandstanding, and being evasive that goes on in the house. It didn’t matter who sat in power, the antics were an embarrassment to watch. Here is one of a great many examples.
The response to my comments were that things still get done at times.
(13) M-103 — anti blasphemy motion
Ms. McLeod said that it was non-binding, but shurgged off my comments that it would (if it became law), prohibit truthful speech, and that it gives preferential treatment.
Are Conservatives an Alternative to the Liberals?
Not really. With all of the hype notwithstanding, there appear to be few differences:
(1) Conservatives oppose the carbon tax, while supporting Paris Accord
(2) Conservatives actually support legal gun owners
That is about it. Even the identity politics and pandering they are starting to embrace even more. Legitimate questions about multiculturalism and Canadian values is off limits. CPC does go out its way to avoid saying anything meaningful on the subject, or its challenges. Bernier found that out the hard way. Liberal issues like corporate welfare; trade barriers; and equalization are embraced.
Someone like Michelle Rempel is actually quite dangerous. Rather than opposing the disaster of a government, she creates the illusion of opposing. The so-called ”opposition MPs” focus on the small details, it makes one wonder how sincere they are.
To be fair, the CPC does play the outrage card quite well when scandals break: (a) Ethics breaches; (b) Terri McClintic; (c) StatsCan; (d) Illegal immigration in Canada. However, ”any” party could do this, and it serves as a distraction for the lack of real differention between LPC and CPC. One can legitimately ask: what is conservative about this party, other than the name?
Regarding the UN Global Migration Compact: the CPC is not opposing it, but will go through the motions of ”studying” it. See Point #1.
It seems that walking away from traditional parties was the right one. If all the CPC has to say is ”we’re not Trudeau”, while acting Liberal-lite, then I want nothing to do with them. While getting some honest information from my MP was nice, it actually did confirm everything Max Bernier said when he left the party.
It could be very messy for ”Conservatives” in October 2019.
Update to the Posting
There have been a few questions as to the authenticity of the article.
After pondering it, I’ve decided to post it. The voices are a bit wonky, haven’t been able to fix it yet,
Again, CPC doesn’t actually “oppose” UN global migration compact.
Further Update to the Posting
The CPC has now said that they oppose the UN Compact. More on that in another video
This agreement, though it sounds harmless enough, should send chills down the spine of anyone who values having a nation, and a national identity.
For some perspective, the European Union, (E.U.) decided to impose migrant quotas on memberstates, with or without their consent. Last September, the European Court of Justice rejected challenges brought by Hungary and Slovakia. Poland and now Hungarynow face the loss of voting rights. The E.U. will punish member states who dare to act in accordance with their constituents’ wishes
Victor Oraban of Hungary has become a de facto leader of defending nation’s rights in Europe. See here, see here, and see here.
For those of you interested in the topic of nationalism, Steve Turley is a YouTuber and conservative author I frequently watch, and here is a review of one of his latest books. Check him out.
As for the UN Global Compact on Migration, it would in essence be the global version of what the E.U. is already doing to Europe. Member states are having their arms twisted and threatened with loss of voting rights and other sanctions for not complying.
This is in fact referring to hundreds of millions.
Today, there are over 258 million migrants around the world living outside their country of birth. This figure is expected to grow for a number of reasons including population growth, increasing connectivity, trade, rising inequality, demographic imbalances and climate change. Migration provides immense opportunity and benefits – for the migrants, host communities and communities of origin. However, when poorly regulated it can create significant challenges. These challenges include overwhelming social infrastructures with the unexpected arrival of large numbers of people and the deaths of migrants undertaking dangerous journeys.
The full text of the agreement is about 34 pages. It lists 16 ”preambles”, and a further 23 ”objectives”. Here are a few:
4. Refugees and migrants are entitled to the same universal human rights and fundamental freedoms, which must be respected, protected and fulfilled at all times. However, migrants and refugees are distinct groups governed by separate legal frameworks. Only refugees are entitled to the specific international protection as defined by international refugee law. This Global Compact refers to migrants and presents a cooperative framework addressing migration in all its dimensions.
On the surface this sounds harmless enough. But remember, Trudeau (with Conservative support) is for letting people stay in the country, even if they sneak in under false pretenses. Remember, you get a hearing as long as you ”claim” to be a refugee.
7. This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, cooperative framework that builds on thencommitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and
Migrants. It fosters international cooperation among all relevant actors on migration, acknowledging that no State can address migration alone, and upholds the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law.
At least on paper, this is an improvement over the E.U. migrant quota scheme (which punishes dissent). However, we will see how ”voluntary” it really is.
Shared Responsibilities
11. This Global Compact offers a 360-degree vision of international migration and recognizes that
a comprehensive approach is needed to optimize the overall benefits of migration, while addressing risks and challenges for individuals and communities in countries of origin, transit and destination. No country can address the challenges and opportunities of this global phenomenon on its own. With this comprehensive approach, we aim to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration, while reducing the incidence and negative impact of irregular migration through international cooperation and a combination of measures put forward in this GlobalCompact.
The UN document is using the same dishonest language of ”irregular migrants”. They are illegal immigrants, and border hoppers. I also don’t like when it says that no country can address the problem on its own.
National sovereignty: The Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction, in conformity with international law. Within their sovereign jurisdiction, States may distinguish between regular and irregular migration status, including as they determine their legislative and policy measures for the implementation of the Global Compact, taking into account different national realities, policies, priorities and requirements for entry, residence and work, in accordance with international law.
Again, referring to ”illegal aliens” as ”irregular migrants”. This manipulation of language is infuriating. Reiterating that this is voluntary, but it will be interesting to see how much pressure is applied later.
OBJECTIVE 1: Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence based policies
.
17. We commit to strengthen the global evidence base on international migration by improving and investing in the collection, analysis and dissemination of accurate, reliable, comparable data, disaggregated by sex, age, migration status and other characteristics relevant in national contexts, while upholding the right to privacy under international human rights law and protecting personal data.
This sounds creepy and Orwellian. Will nations be forced to give up personal data to international agencies? See the last article here.
OBJECTIVE 4: Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate
documentation
.
20. We commit to fulfil the right of all individuals to a legal identity by providing all our nationals with proof of nationality and relevant documentation, allowing national and local authorities to ascertain a migrant’s legal identity upon entry, during stay, and for return, as well as to ensure effective migration procedures, efficient service provision, and improved public safety. We further commit to ensure, through appropriate measures, that migrants are issued adequate documentation and civil registry documents, such as birth, marriage and death certificates, at all stages of migration, as a means to empower migrants to effectively exercise their human rights.
The wording of this is troubling. How exactly will the UN help people gain identification? Will they take them at their word? Also, does this document refer to migration as a human right?
OBJECTIVE 11: Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner
.
27. 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 implementborder 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.
Arguably the worst of them all. ”Manage borders in an integrated manner”? This would destroy national sovereignty.
Okay, here is the full list of the 23 objectives:
Objectives for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration
(1) Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence-based policies
(2) Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin
(3) Provide accurate and timely information at all stages of migration
(4) Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation
(5) Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
(6) Facilitate fair and ethical recruitment and safeguard conditions that ensure decent work
(7) Address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration
(8) Save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants
(9) Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants
(10) Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration
(11) Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner
(12) Strengthen certainty and predictability in migration procedures for appropriate screening, assessment and referral
(13) Use migration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
(14) Enhance consular protection, assistance and cooperation throughout the migration cycle
(15) Provide access to basic services for migrants
(16) Empower migrants and societies to realize full inclusion and social cohesion
(17) Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to
shape perceptions of migration
(18) Invest in skills development and facilitate mutual recognition of skills, qualifications and
competences
(19) Create conditions for migrants and diasporas to fully contribute to sustainable development in all countries
(20) Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants
(21) Cooperate in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as sustainable reintegration
(22) Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits
(23) Strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships for safe, orderly and regular migration
This global compact will undermine if not destroy what it means to be a nation.
If Canada (or any other nation) has to coordinate or integrate its border policies with the United Nations, then we don’t have borders.
Further, while under the pretense of ”helping refugees” the UN seems to want to have a say in how national migration policies IN GENERAL are handled.
Side Note: See here for a piece on ID requirements to vote in some Common Law countries. It is true.
Overall, the UN Global Compact for Migration is a frightening agreement. Anyone who values the sovereignty and independence of their country should be aware of, and opposed to this.
The original article, along with partial audio is available here. Posted by Andrew Lawton.
Apparently, discussing abortion critically, is not permitted. Their former teaching student, Valerie Flokstra, seen above, found that out the hard way. Flokstra was called into a meeting with various faculty members, Nancy Norman, and Vandy Britton, to discuss how ideas are “potentially harmful”. University of the Fraser Valley, (British Columbia, Canada), openly promotes social justice in their teaching program. See below. Oddly, no written commitment to free speech, or open inquiry.
The case is widely being compared to Lindsay Shepherd, who in November of 2017, was summoned to such a meeting at Wilfrid Laurier university (WLU), for showing a TVO clip of Jordan Peterson debating gender pronouns related to transgender persons. The inquisitors were: Nathan Rambukkana, Hernert Pimlott, and Adria Joel. See below.
In fact, Valerie Flokstra cites Lindsay Shepherd in her decision to record this meeting with the faculty. Seeing how badly Shepherd was treated forced Flokstra to take defensive measures.
Another key difference is that Shepherd released the recording of her meeting immediately to the media. She found there to be various forms of retaliation and hostility to her at Wilfred Laurier University. Flokstra, on the other hand, waited until she graduated to avoid such retaliation.
Some have observed, it seems moronic that these professors wouldn’t have any reservation about holding such a meeting, and playing these games. In the Shepherd case, Professors Rambukkana and Pimlott effectively had their academic careers and reputations destroyed. Given the international coverage Shepherd got, it seems highly implausible that the UFV wouldn’t all know about it.
In the Flokstra matter, she had claimed that premature births were contributing to autism diagnoses. She questioned that women who have abortions but have children later in life more often have premature births. Statistics were cited, see here. And this led to a reasonable suggestion that abortions will lead to higher autism risks later.
If A = B, and B = C, then does A = C? Makes sense.
If prior abortion ==> higher risk of premature births later, and
If premature births ==> higher risk of autism, then
Does prior abortion ==> higher risk of autism? Seems like a reasonable conclusion. At least is cannot be dismissed out of hand.
However, Professors Norman and Britton would have none of that. They questioned Flokstra for bringing it up, and attributed a variety of negative motivations for doing so, such as pressing her own religious beliefs.
Norman and Britton engaged in Orwellian double speak. Instead of the “critical thinking” that many champion, Flokstra was told she needed to engage in “critical mindfulness“.
Flokstra was told that if she had strong opinions, she was free to write them down and hold onto them, but always to consider any potential harm that may come to students rather than saying them.
Norman and Britton also tried to explain that Flokstra shouldn’t be “shutting down students” by bringing up certain opinions. However they were dismissive when repeatedly told that “they were the ones currently shutting her down. The mental gymnastics of the pair….
Norman and Britton tried to explain that they weren’t trying to “shut down” Flokstra, but rather that they just didn’t want her to speak about various topics. Telling someone politely to shut up is apparently not shutting them down.
Norman and Britton were also dismissive of Flokstra’s assertion that these were university students in her class, not high school students, and that a higher degree of discussion should be expected of them.
Normal and Britton explained that they were (not) shutting her down, not because of the actual harm that was coming from having topics such as abortion discussed. Rather, she was (not) being shut down because of potential harm that could come from discussing these topics.
In both the Flokstra and Shepherd cases, absurd comparisons were made. Shepherd was told that showing a video uncritically of Jordan Peterson was like neutrally playing a speech by Adolf Hitler. Flokstra was told that sharing certain views in a way was like a KKK (Ku Klux Klan) group on campus. Rather than make factual, logical arguments why certain topics are “off-limits”, ridiculous rhetoric is used.
Only a partial audio (8 minutes out of almost an hour long meeting) is available for article. The summary of the meeting is that the 2 professors spent the entire time trying to shut Valerie Flokstra down, but then using double talk and word games to deny that is what they were actually doing.
Benjamin Boyce, a YouTuber in Washington State, released this fine review of the fiasco. The College Fix also did a great piece, and more are coming out.
A thought on universities: If people are going to be shut down in this manner (or any manner), a little honesty would be nice. Drop the word games (a la Shepherd and Flokstra), and just be upfront that this is what you are doing. If schools are places that do not support free speech and open inquiry, then just say so. Start calling yourselves “INDOCTRINATION CENTERS” instead of “HIGHER LEARNING CENTERS“. Ideas cannot be analyzed properly if the cannot be discussed openly.
But of course, if such honesty were used, admissions would pretty much stop altogether.
Funny, this problem is non-existent in trade schools. But then, they actually provide skills.
Jack Philips, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood Colorado is the owner of the infamous “Gay Cake” refusal.
Quite simply, he refused to create a wedding cake for 2 men, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, about to marry. He reasoned that he would have to act against his religious beliefs.
Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (similar to Privincial human rights commissions, in Canada). It ruled against Philips, claiming religion was just an excuse to justify bigotry.
So, Philips took his case to the Colorado Court of Appeals. The C.C.A. ruled that no religion had to be endorsed, but that service couldn’t be refused on protected grounds, such sexual orientation.
Finally, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which eventually ruled in the baker’s favour. However, critics complain that the ruling was on overly narrow grounds and did not actually make much of a precident. It wouldn’t address questions for florists, photographers, caterers, or others with a similar dilemma. The Supreme Court did however find the Civil Rights Commission was overly hostile to Philips.
The ruling sparked mixed opinions. Philips claims he has since had people calling to make ridiculous cakes, such as Satan cakes and cakes in the form of sex objects.
But now, Jack Philips is back in the news, and for basically the same reason: refusing to bake a cake for a transgender person named Autumn Scardina, celebrating the 7th anniversary of a gender change.
However, there is more than just a whiff of a conflict of interest here. Scardina is a lawyer whose firm does cases of employment disputes.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission has ruled that in principle this appears to be a discrimination case. So it would seem that matters will be heading down the same road as before.
However, Philips has decided to take a new approach here: suing governor Jerry Hickenlooper and other government officials, claiming religious persecution seen .
It will be interesting to see how things play out.
Author’s Views: To disclose outright, I believe that the baker should be able to refuse or accept any deal they want, and to accept or reject any business they want. It would be different if it were a government agency, or a monopoly. Several questions I must ask.
(1) As for the gay couple, why not simply find another baker? While it may be annoying to you, why not take your money and business to someone else?
(2) If you wanted others to know about this baker, why would it be necessary to sue him or go to the Civil Rights Commission? Was the purpose to harm his business?
(3) Part of the backlash against letting gay couples marry in 2015 was the claim (derided as paranoia) that it would lead to religious freedom being stepped on. Does this not prove that claim right?
(4) Regarding Autumn Scardina and the transgender cake: why go to this “specific” baker, when you knew about the case?
(5) Was it an attempt to get money from him and/or to further harm his business? Or to use your law firm to make a political point?
(6) As for both the gay cake and the trans cake: do you really want the cake for your “big day” to be made by somebody you filed a civil rights claim against? It’s not like he cares about keeping your business.
February 28, 2018 — Universities like to champion themselves as defenders of different peoples and ideologies.
However, while the former may be true, anyone who has ever spent time at one knows that the latter is not true.
In this case, 3 Ontario post-secondary institutes were facing legal challenges. But now a Superior Court has ruled in their favour.
They are: (1) Ryerson University for refusing to grant official status for men’s issues awareness, and both the (2) Durham College & UOIT and (3) University of Toronto Mississauga for refusing official status for pro-life groups.
Student Union fees are mandatory at colleges and universities.  However, Student Unions are in effect able to force money from students whose views they censor.
There is no open to ”opt-out” if the school promotes certain views, or censors others.
A group dedicating to raising awareness to how issues such as higher suicide rates, job loss, courts that are stacked against them, and a general lack of resources for men is not openly hostile to women. Regardless of some feminists will say, men are not the enemy.
Likewise, a group who wants to spread their views that unborn children should have rights is not an enemy to women.  Regardless of a person’s individual views on abortion, it is wrong to condemn those who take issue with the issue of stopping a potential future person.
Yet, with this February court ruling, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has said that it ”is” okay to shut down and ban student groups if their views are disliked.
Interesting observation: though probably a coincidence, it seems that those opposition to both groups are a way for some women to flex their political muscles.
Banning a men’s issues awareness group can be a way to ensure that the only issues that receive public attention are women’s concerns.
Banning a pro-life group can be a way to ensure that abortion is only looked at through the lens of the mother and her suffering, and not that of the unborn child.
However, universities are not places for free speech and open inquiry, unless the speech and inquiry are of ”approved” views. This is to say that they are not places of free speech and open inquiry at all.
