Dysgenics Archives - Page 5 of 25

August 17, 2022August 17, 2022

Parliament’s Guidelines On Euthanizing The Mentally Ill

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), a.k.a. euthanasia or assisted suicide, had been touted as proponents as having an extremely limited scope. In other words, it would be available to people with terminal illnesses, who were otherwise living in extreme pain.

Bill C-14 was supposed to be limited to terminal cases. In the next session, Bill C-7 increased the eligibility options. Suddenly, even people with serious mental illnesses were able to obtain euthanasia, provided the mental problem wasn’t the sole reason.

And now, we reach the point where people whose SOLE problem is a mental illness can be put down with the help of so-called medical professionals. The people pushing the slippery slope argument have been proven correct once again.

An interim report was released in June 2022, and it’s widely expected that expanding the scope will become law very soon.

MAID PRACTICE STANDARDS

Recommendation 1: Development of MAiD practice standards
The federal, provincial and territorial governments should facilitate the collaboration of physician and nurse regulatory bodies in the development of Standards of Practice for physicians and nurse practitioners for the assessment of MAiD requests in situations that raise questions about incurability, irreversibility, capacity, suicidality, and the impact of structural vulnerabilities. These standards should elaborate upon the subject matter of recommendations 2–13.

INTERPRETING GRIEVOUS AND IRREMEDIABLE MEDICAL CONDITION

Recommendation 2: Establishing incurability
MAiD assessors should establish incurability with reference to treatment attempts made up to that point, outcomes of those treatments, and severity and duration of illness, disease or disability. It is not possible to provide fixed rules for how many treatment attempts, how many kinds of treatments, and over what period of time as this will vary according to the nature and severity of medical conditions the person has and their overall health status. This must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The Panel is of the view that the requester and assessors must come to a shared understanding that the person has a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability. As with many chronic conditions, the incurability of a mental disorder cannot be established in the absence of multiple attempts at interventions with therapeutic aims.

Recommendation 3: Establishing irreversibility
MAiD assessors should establish irreversibility with reference to interventions tried that are designed to improve function, including: recognized rehabilitative and supportive measures that have been tried up to that point, outcomes of those interventions, and the duration of decline. It is not possible to provide fixed rules for how many attempts at interventions, how many types of interventions, and over how much time, as this will vary according to a requester’s baseline function as well as life goals. Therefore, this must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The Panel is of the view that the requester and assessors must come to a shared understanding that the person is in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability.

Recommendation 4: Understanding enduring and Intolerable suffering
MAiD assessors should come to an understanding with the requester that the illness, disease or disability or functional decline causes the requester enduring and intolerable physical or psychological suffering.

VULNERABILITIES

Recommendation 5: Comprehensive capacity assessments
MAiD assessors should undertake thorough and, where appropriate, serial assessments of a requester’s decision-making capacity in accordance with clinical standards and legal criteria. These assessments should be consistent with approaches laid out in standardized capacity evaluation tools.

Recommendation 6: Means available to relieve suffering
To ensure all requesters have access to the fullest possible range of social supports which could potentially contribute to reducing suffering, the Panel recommends that ’community services’ in Track 2 Safeguard 241.2(3.1)(g) should be interpreted as including housing and income supports as means available to relieve suffering and should be offered to MAiD requesters, where appropriate.

Recommendation 7: Interpretation of track 2 safeguard 241.2(3.1)(h) the person has given serious consideration to those means
Serious consideration should be interpreted to mean genuine openness to the means available to relieve suffering and how they could make a difference in the person’s life.

Recommendation 8: Consistency, durability, and well-considered nature of a maid request
Assessors should ensure that the requester’s wish for death is consistent with the person’s values and beliefs, unambiguous and rationally considered during a period of stability, not during a period of crisis.

Recommendation 9: Situations of involuntariness
Persons in situations of involuntariness for periods shorter than six months should be assessed following this period to minimize the potential contribution of the involuntariness on the request for MAiD. For those who are repeatedly or continuously in situations of involuntariness, (e.g., six months or longer, or repeated periods of less than six months), the institutions responsible for the person should ensure that assessments for MAiD are performed by assessors who do not work within or are associated with the institution.

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Recommendation 10: Independent assessor with expertise
The requester should be assessed by at least one assessor with expertise in the condition(s). In cases involving MAiD MD-SUMC, the assessor with expertise in the condition should be a psychiatrist independent from the treating team/provider. Assessors with expertise in the person’s condition(s) should review the diagnosis, and ensure the requester is aware of all reasonable options for treatment and has given them serious consideration.

Recommendation 11: Involvement of other healthcare professionals
Assessors should involve medical subspecialists and other healthcare professionals for consultations and additional expertise where necessary.

Recommendation 12: Discussion with treating team and collateral information
• If the requester’s primary healthcare provider is not one of the assessors, assessors should obtain input from that person. When the requester’s clinical care is shared by members of a multidisciplinary healthcare team, assessors should solicit their input as well.
• With a requester’s consent, assessors and providers shall obtain collateral information relevant to eligibility and capacity assessment. This should include reviewing medical records, prior MAiD assessments, and discussions with family members or significant others. Care must be taken to determine that obtaining collateral information will not be harmful to the requester.

Recommendation 13: Challenging interpersonal dynamics
Assessors and providers should be self-reflective and examine their reactions to those they assess. If their reactions compromise their ability to carry out the assessment in accordance with professional norms, they should seek supervision from mentors and colleagues, and/or discontinue involvement in the assessment process. The practitioner should adhere to any local policies concerning withdrawal from a MAiD assessment and onward referral.

IMPLEMENTATION

Recommendation 14: Consultations with first nations, inuit and métis peoples
Consultation between health regulatory bodies in each province and territory with First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples must aim to create practice standards with respect to MAiD MD-SUMC, and MAiD more generally, that incorporate Indigenous perspectives and are relevant to their communities.

Recommendation 15: Training of assessors and providers in specialized topics
To support consistent application of the law and to ensure high quality and culturally sensitive care, assessors and providers should participate in training opportunities that address topics of particular salience to MAiD MD-SUMC. These include, but are not limited to: capacity assessment, trauma-informed care and cultural safety.

Recommendation 16: Prospective oversight
Given its concurrent jurisdiction in relation to MAiD, the federal government should play an active role in supporting the development of a model of prospective oversight for all or some Track 2 cases that could be adapted by provinces and territories.

Recommendation 17: Case-based quality assurance and education
The federal government should play an active role in supporting the development of provincial/territorial systems of MAiD case review for educational and quality improvement purposes.

Recommendation 18: Modifications to data collection under the federal maid monitoring system
Data related to specific topics (eligibility, supported decision-making, means available to relieve suffering, refusal of means available, and residence and legal status) should be collected in the MAiD monitoring system in addition to data already collected under the 2018 Regulations. These data can be used to assess whether key areas of concern raised about MAiD MD-SUMC and complex Track 2 cases discussed in this report are being addressed by the clinical practices recommended.

Recommendation 19: Periodic, federally funded research
The federal government should fund both targeted and investigator-initiated periodic research on questions relating to the practice of MAiD (including but not only MAiD MD-SUMC).

If nothing else, Recommendation #8 points out that this should only be an option during a period of stability, and not during a crisis.

Keep in mind, this is only an interim report. There’s nothing to suggest this won’t be expanded on at some later point.

Since its inception, the rates of people receiving assistance in suicide has increased year over year. This will surely raise those numbers even more.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/Work
(2) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/AMAD/report-1/
(3) https://parl.ca/Content/Committee/441/AMAD/Reports/RP11896958/amadrp01/amadrp01-e.pdf
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/canadas-bill-c-14-assisted-suicide/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/euthanasia-3-bill-c-7-to-expand-scope-of-assisted-suicide/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/recent-statistics-on-euthanasia-assisted-suicide-in-canada/

August 15, 2022August 15, 2022

Recent Statistics On Euthanasia (Assisted Suicide) In Canada

Some statistics are available for the totals of assisted suicide, a.k.a. euthanasia. Nearly 20,000 people have been put down, according to data from StatsCan. It will be interesting to see if there is a major spike in 2021, given harsher lockdown measures and vaccine passports.

Given the prolonged (and intentional) infliction of mental, emotional and financial harms, how many otherwise normal and healthy people have been driven to the point where this is seriously contemplated as an option?

YEAR	CARRIED OUT
2017	2,838
2018	4,478
2019	5,425
2020	7,383

It’s interesting that this is pushed so heavily by liberals, who pretend to be adamantly in favour of protecting the rights of vulnerable people. There’s considerable overlap with supporting abortion, and the LGBTQ agenda. These are all things that have the effect of driving down the population.

In 2020, this increased to 7,383 deaths (2.4% of all deaths in Canada), representing a 36.0% increase in the number of MAID recipients from 2019 to 2020. As for the reasons Canadians are supposedly seeking early death, these are listed:

PERCENTAGE	REASON SOUGHT
67.5%	Cancer
12.4%	Cardiovascular
11.2%	Chronic Respiratory

There’s also some data for people who’ve changed their minds. The numbers don’t add up to 100%, as many checked off more than 1 reason.

PERCENTAGE	REASONS SOUGHT
66.4%	Changed Their Mind
47.8%	Palliative Measures Are Sufficient
12.1%	Family Members Don’t Support MAiD
1.3%	Unknown Reason

In 2020, approximately 2.5% of people who previously applied for euthanasia changed their minds. It’s worth pointing out that withdrawal (of consent) immediately before MAID was 22.0%, or nearly a quarter of those.

It gets worse. New changes are expected to take place in 2023 which will allow mentally ill people to be euthanized (even if that was their only condition).

If a mental illness is the only medical condition leading you to consider MAID, you are not eligible to seek MAID at this time. Under the new changes made to the law, the exclusion will remain in effect until March 17, 2023.

This temporary exclusion provides the Government of Canada and health professional bodies more time to consider how MAID can be provided safely to those whose only medical condition is a mental illness.

To support this work, the government initiated an expert review to provide recommendations on protocols, guidance and safeguards for those with a mental illness seeking MAID.

After March 17, 2023, people with a mental illness as their sole underlying medical condition will have access to MAID if they meet all of the eligibility requirements and the practitioners fulfill the safeguards that are put in place for this group of people.

If you have a mental illness along with other medical conditions, you may be eligible to seek MAID.

Eligibility is always assessed on an individual basis, taking into account all of the relevant circumstances. However, you must meet all the criteria to be eligible for medical assistance in dying.

In other words, it will soon be legal to euthanize people SOLELY for having mental illnesses. People who have them can still receive MAiD today, as long as there is additionally some other condition that qualifies.

Of course, this raises all sorts of other issues, such as exploitation and informed consent. Who will really be making these decisions?

(1) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220110/dq220110d-eng.htm
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying-annual-report-2019.html
(3) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying/annual-report-2020.html
(4) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-quotidien/220110/dq220110d-eng.pdf?st=okhC30sr
(5) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying.html

July 11, 2022

World Circular Economy Forum, Related Groups

Have you heard about the World Circular Economy Forum? If not, let’s take a look at what’s going on over here. This is a collection of people who devise ways to make the economy function in a waste free world.

At first, this organization seems to present as a large scale recycling scheme, devoted to reducing garbage and pollution. While there is truth in that, it appears the goals are much larger.

The first forum took place in 2017, and the most recent one was hosted in 2021. That said, 2017 is an interesting year, since that’s when the Canadian budget started pumping money into alternative protein sources.

It’s a bit amusing that this group goes out of its way to have a name as close as possible to the World Economic Forum. Did they thing no one would notice? Or that no one would care? Anyhow, let’s see who’s supposedly running this thing.

Partners include:

African Circular Economy Alliance
Circular Economy Leadership Canada
City of Toronto
Ellen MacArthur Foundation
European Circular Economy Stakeholders Platform
European Union
Finnish Government
International Chamber of Commerce
Government of Canada
Government of the Netherlands
United Nations Environmental Program

Strangely, I don’t recall any public figures campaigning on becoming part of such an organization. Nor does there seem to have been anything in the way of media coverage. But at least we aren’t forced to help finance this “circular economy” fad, are we?

It turns out, that we will be. At least that’s what this 2021 report makes pretty clear. Like other eco initiatives, this will require lots of start-up money.

[Page 3]
The current state of circular finance
.
Despite the lack of harmonized frameworks, taxonomies, and metrics, financial institutions are beginning to move forward with initiatives to advance circular finance solutions in various ways. Globally, some financial institutions have set multi-billion dollar targets for investing in circular deals. Large multilateral development banks are supporting financial institutions in developing structured frameworks to accommodate innovative financial solutions and advisory services. A report authored by Patrick Schröder and Jan Raes and published by Chatham House titled, “Financing an inclusive circular economy: De-risking investments for circular business models and the SDGs,” highlights the importance of public investment and stimulus packages to de-risk and incentivize financial investments in circular models.

In order to get this going, billions of dollars will need to be pumped into it. Note: this doesn’t refer to any accounting, just an idea in broad strokes. The report continues:

[Page 8]
Circular economy opportunities and priorities are increasingly intersecting with broader ESG considerations such as biodiversity, equity, diversity and inclusion, and climate action goals, although the intersections are not yet well understood. Investment in circular business strategies and operations can result in significant positive social, environmental, and economic benefits. Circular businesses are creating more resilient green jobs and skills that will be needed in a low-carbon future. For instance, the Share, Reuse, Repair Initiative’s Just Circular Recovery and Transition project brings together circular innovators and community organizations to advance employment opportunities within marginalized communities. Additionally, circular businesses are prompting consumers to have conversations around lighter living and to make more sustainable choices.

[Page 8]
A study by the Ellen McArthur Foundation shows that 45% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are associated with products and food. Achieving net-zero commitments will require reducing embodied carbon through circular strategies, such as designing for reuse and remanufacturing, product-as-a-service models, and advanced recycling. For instance, the Ellen McArthur foundation estimates that remanufacturing and reusing an engine reduces carbon intensity by 85%

This also ties in with the idea of “alternative” protein sources and eating bugs. After all, if traditional food sources are considered to not be environmentally friendly, they need to be phased out.

It turns out that taxpayer dollars are being used for the “circular economy” initiative, even if they aren’t being directly given to this organization. Here are some of those grants:

And in a turn of events, Canadian taxpayers is also giving large amounts of money directly to the World Economic Forum. In fact, there is a lot they are forced to finance.

RECIPIENT	DATE	DATE
Accelerating Sustainability Events Management Inc	Jul 28, 2021	$175,000.00
Carboncure Technologies Inc	Jan 8, 2021	$2,026,500.00
City Of Guelph	Mar 13, 2020	$10,000,000.00
Collège D’Enseignement Général Et Professionnel	Feb 6, 2020	$2,000,000.00
Conference Board Of Canada	Mar 31, 2021	$390,000.00
Council Of The Great Lakes Region	Mar 18, 2020	$553,000.00
Distillerie Maison Alfred Inc.	Dec 5, 2021	$30,476.00
Gabriola Island Recycling Organization	Mar 24, 2022	$98,000.00
Global Centre For Indigenomics	Oct 27, 2021	$49,900.00
Keddie, Leanne	Mar 15, 2022	$234,045.00
Leading Change For Young Professionals	Jul 28, 2021	$299,875.00
Natural Step (Canada) Inc.	Feb 21, 2019	$299,875.00
Ontario Genomics Institute	Oct 1, 2021	$1,262,661.00
Leadership Coalition, Natural Step Canada Inc	Mar 18, 2020	$175,000.00
Pivot Furniture Technologies Inc.	Feb 1, 2019	$170,900.00
Pivot Furniture Technologies Inc.	Sep 16, 2021	$460,000.00
Rethink Resource Inc.	May 31, 2021	$30,000.00
Rethink Resource Inc.	May 31, 2021	$50,000.00
Tgm Tours Inc.	Jan 25, 2021	$143,000.00
University Of British Columbia	Mar 18, 2022	$1,040,000.00
World Economic Forum	Dec 23, 2014	$1,000,000.00
World Economic Forum	Sep 29, 2015	$6,000,000.00
World Economic Forum	Dec 14, 2015	$10,000,000.00
World Economic Forum	Dec 3, 2018	$52,925.00
World Economic Forum	Apr 25, 2019	$999,580.00
World Economic Forum	Jan 17, 2020	$500,000.00
World Economic Forum	Mar 16, 2020	$5,933,063.00

The University of British Columbia is a registered charity, so it already receives a favourable tax rate on its income.

This is eye-catching, this grant to the World Economic Forum, Center for 4th Industrial Revolution. Isn’t that the name of one of Klaus Schwab’s books? Isn’t this all supposed to be just a conspiracy theory?

It’s also worth mentioning that both Carboncure Technologies Inc. and the Conference Board Of Canada were receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, over the last few years. This is run by the C.R.A. and is used to help pay employees’ wages.

There is a corresponding group here called Circular Economy Leadership Canada. Its partners include many well known chains. It states on its main page that:

“We’re collectively committing to support the U.N. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12 on responsible consumption and production, and to substantially reduce waste, in all of its forms, by 2030.”

In other words, it’s helping to implement parts of Agenda 2030. The organization just needs large amounts of financial assistance (continuously) to make this happen.

Goal #2 in the U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda is ending hunger in all its forms. One of the methods pushed is phasing out traditional agriculture with alternative protein sources, such as bugs.

Goal #13 in the UNSDA is preventing climate change. There is actually considerable overlap with #2. By stating that certain agricultural practices cause these changes, it provides a further excuse to further shut down farms.

Goal #12 ties in to both #2 and #13. This calls for creating “sustainable food and consumption patterns”. By saying that current models do not suffice in feeding everyone, while asserting they cause climate change, this goal is able to solve the other two. It’s another instance of causing the problem, getting a reaction, then proposing a solution.

A cynic may wonder just how literally the term “circular economy” is meant to be taken. After all, there are efforts to get people in the West eating bugs. After humans are dead and buried, presumably they’ll be eaten by bugs themselves.

(1) https://www.wcef2021.com/
(2) https://www.wcef2021.com/about/
(3) https://circulareconomyleaders.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/WCEF-Financing-the-Circular-Economy-What-We-Heard-Report-20211015-EN1.pdf
(4) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/
(5) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/record/ic,230-2018-2019-04-0189,current
(6) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(7) https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf

FOOD SERIES:
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/cricket-production-subsidies-aspire-food-group/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/budget-2017-subsidizing-the-phase-out-of-meat-in-canada/
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/holomodor-2-0-coming-or-all-just-a-coincidence/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/nacia-and-insect-consumption-alternative-protein-market/

July 5, 2022

Canadian Forces To Water Down Dress Code, Appearances For Troops

One would think that this announcement is satire or parody, but it’s not. Under the guise of “being inclusive”, the Canadian military plans to water down its dress code standards. This is so absurd that it hardly requires commentary.

What are some of the changes that will take place?

General
Why are changes to the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions being introduced now?

Discussions have been ongoing for quite some time – the decision to update the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions was not made lightly, and much thought was given to the approach because of the exacting specifications as to the dress and appearance of our military in various scenarios. Many discussions were required, including with the Defence Advisory Groups, Gender Advisors, with current military members as well as the next generation of Canadians who will follow us. The bottom line is, the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions are about fifty years old and so the policy as a whole was overdue for revision. The appearance of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) has not kept pace with the Canadian society which it serves.

When will the changes to the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions take effect?

The updated Dress Instructions will take effect in early September 2022. This will allow time for CAF Members and leaders at all levels to review and understand the changes.

Who makes the decisions about the Dress Instructions? Is there some process you follow or is your Dress and Ceremonial Section just doing what it feels is appropriate?

In the matter of military dress and appearance, the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) and Chief of Military Personnel (through the Dress and Ceremonial Section of the Directorate of History and Heritage) are advised by:
.
the environmental Commanders of the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and Royal Canadian Air Force, who are the principal advisers on Navy, Army and Air Force distinctive environmental uniforms (DEU);
the National Defence Clothing and Dress Committee (NDCDC), chaired by Assistant CMP, which provides the focal point for coordinating the views of all environments and organizations, and approves routine changes within established policy (see paragraphs 11. to 14.); and
personnel branch advisers, who submit routine comments through the NDCDC.
In accordance with the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions, Commanders of Commands are delegated the authority to establish rules for the design and wear of their respective operational orders of dress.

Commanders at all levels are charged with ensuring that personnel under their command, whether environmentally or extra-environmentally employed, are dressed in accordance with the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions.

What if a CAF member’s religious beliefs require them to dress in a way that isn’t covered by the new Dress Instructions? Or conversely, what if their appearance does not conform to the regulations outlined in Section 2 – Appearance but it conforms to their cultural beliefs?

One of the goals of the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions update was to make the rules more inclusive and therefore limit the need for accommodations. However, accommodations will always be available to CAF members who have special requirements related to religious or spiritual belief. Members should communicate these requirements with their chain of command, as leaders retain the right to order restrictions based on the need to meet safety and operational requirements.

The following text has been removed: “Behaviour such as chewing gum, slouching, placing hands in pockets, smoking or eating on the street and walking hand in hand, is forbidden.” Does that mean CAF members can now do all those things when in uniform?

Pursuant to QR&O 17.02, the deportment and appearance of all ranks, in uniform or when wearing civilian attire, shall on all occasions reflect credit on the CAF and the individual. It is the responsibility and duty of all CAF members to ensure that, while in uniform, they comport themselves in a manner which projects a positive military appearance. Leaders at all levels have a role to play in this regard.

What happens if a CAF member doesn’t follow the updated Dress Instructions?

When a uniform is required to be worn, all CAF members shall wear the applicable uniform described in this manual in accordance with the instructions contained herein. Pursuant to QR&O 17.02, the deportment and appearance of all ranks, in uniform or when wearing civilian attire, shall on all occasions reflect credit on the CAF and the individual. It is the responsibility and duty of all CAF members to ensure that, by their vigilance, actions and example, the policies, regulations and instructions contained herein are adhered to.

Are any more changes expected to the Dress Instructions?

The update is occurring in three phases. The first phase involves a rewrite of critical policy where significant change is necessary (Section 2, Chapter 2); changing exclusive or gendered language to inclusive throughout the policy; and reducing the need for accommodations. Also as part of this phase, the Logistik online clothing catalogue was opened to all members in September 2021, so that clothing choice was no longer restricted by gender. Later phases of the update will revisit the functional authority changes from 2017 (where each Environment has its own specifications); change terminology in catalogues and supply manuals; and make design changes to the clothing itself.
.
Going forward, the intention is to continually review the updated Dress Instructions, in order to provide additional clarity where necessary and to include any elements previously overlooked.

Details
Can the different gender design of the DEU uniforms be intermixed or must CAF members only wear either the “female” pattern or the “male” pattern?

DEUs are no longer gender based. Both catalogues are open to all members and they may be intermixed. CAF members may choose whichever design best fits, as long as it is worn as per the Dress Instructions. Some restrictions may be imposed in certain circumstances such as on parade.

References to gender have been removed but traditionally gendered items like skirts, nylons, and purses are still part of CAF dress. Does this mean that CAF members who identify as men can wear skirts?

Yes, it does. The overall aim of the updated Canadian Forces Dress Instructions is to make the policy more inclusive and less prohibitive, and to allow CAF members increased freedom to make personal choices regarding their appearance, providing that safety and operational effectiveness are always maintained.

Will recruits need to shave their head on basic training?

No, the updated hair policy applies to all CAF members from recruitment to retirement.

Is there a maximum length for hair?

No, there are no restrictions on the length of hair. However, long hair must be tied when extending below the top/ridge of the shoulder or that extends below the service dress collar for ceremonial occasion. It must not prevent the proper wear of headdress and must not impede the visibility of the member’s face. Safety and operational requirements shall be met.

What types of braids are considered acceptable?

Any style braid(s) may be used, as long as it remains in line with safety and operational requirements. Hair must be tied to ensure the headdress can be worn properly and the face is visible. A bun, braids, or ponytail are examples of appropriate ways to tie the hair. Specific exceptions are listed at DAOD 5340-3.

Is unnatural-coloured hair acceptable in ceremonial orders of dress? And must accessories match the colour of hair?

Yes, the colouring of hair is permitted in all orders of dress unless it inhibits an operational duty. For example, bright coloured hair may have a negative operational impact during field operations or training. Leaders are invited to discuss with their members to find a simple, suitable accommodation, such as a scarf to cover the hair. Accessories do not have to match the colour of the member’s hair. However, all accessories shall meet safety and operational requirements and not must not discredit the CAF.

Is there any change on the beard policy?

Yes, the wearing of sideburns, beards, moustaches and goatees, or combination of style, is authorized for all members of the CAF from recruitment to release. There is no maximum or minimum length. Only, they must be kept neatly groomed and symmetrical in style while always complying with safety requirements and operational requirements.

Can CAF members be asked to shave their facial hair?

Yes, Commanders of Commands, Task Force Commanders, Formation Commanders and Commanding Officers retain the right to order restrictions on the wearing of facial hair to meet safety and operational requirements. This instruction does not supersede Federal or National safety codes or regulations.

Since multiple facial hair styles are approved, must a person request a period of transition for each change in facial hair?

No, as long as it is neat and evenly trimmed. For example, a member going from a goatee to a full beard should shave down the goatee so facial hair appears evenly and symmetrically trimmed.

Are tattoos on the face permitted? And what is considered the face?

The face is the front part of the head that extends from the forehead to the chin and from the anterior part of one ear to the other. Tattoos are permitted on the face as long as they conform to the regulations outlined in Section 2 – Appearance. “Tattoos that the member knows, or ought to know, are associated with criminal activities (e.g. criminal gangs), tattoos that promote and/or express, on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination as defined in the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), the following: hatred, violence, discrimination, or harassment: and tattoos that a CAF member knows, or ought to know, promote and/or express: racism, sexism, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, ableism, or sexual explicit material.”

Are hoops and long earrings acceptable in uniform?

Yes, ear piercings, hoops and spacers are authorized but can be no more than 2.5 cm in length from the bottom of the ear. Safety and operational requirements must always be met. Spacers must not extend 2.5 cm in diameter. In all ceremonial orders of dress (No. 1), only one single stud type (one in each ear) is permitted in the lobe not to exceed 1 cm.

What jewelry is acceptable for ceremonial orders of dress?

The following is acceptable:
.
Rings: a maximum of two rings which are not of a costume jewellery nature. Additional rings may only be worn when they indicate professional standing, such as an engineer, or are worn with a wedding band as a single set indicating betrothal or fidelity, e.g., an engagement or an anniversary ring. Rings shall not inhibit the execution of proper arms drill or cause an unsightly bulge in white or black gloves.
Necklaces and bracelets: shall not be visible;
Piercings: the only piercing jewellery authorized are single or single set of stud or single stone earrings (one in each ear) in the earlobe(s) only. Piercings are not permitted on the face. Earrings shall not exceed one centimetre square or diameter. Gauges/spacers shall not exceed 2.5 cm in diameter.
Plain tie-pins or clips or with a Canadian military insignia are permitted.

In operational dress (order of dress 5), is there a limit to the number of ear-piercings that are acceptable?

In general, there are no restrictions unless there is a safety issue or operational effectiveness may be jeopardized.

Following both the jewelry and piercings policy, can two piercings be connected with a chain in one ear?

Yes, as long as both piercings and chain are within 2.5 cm in diameter or length, and safety or operational effectiveness is not compromised. However, only one single stud (max 1 cm) or spacer(max 2.5 cm) per ear is authorized in ceremonial orders of dress (order of dress No. 1).

If a CAF member recently had their upper ear pierced and cannot remove this earring for 2 months, what should they do when asked to wear a ceremonial order of dress?

Members should communicate with their chain of command to find a solution.

Can CAF members with eye lash extensions be ordered to have them removed?

Yes, if they affect operational duties, as in the case of wearing night-vision goggles (NVGs).

Are CAF members permitted to have long fingernails in uniform?

Yes, long fingernails are permitted so long as they do not impede the member’s ability to perform their duties. An example of this is being unable to do weapons drills due to long fingernails. Safety and operational requirements must always be met.

Are CAF members required to wear gloves at all times while wearing a toque?

No, gloves do not need to be worn when the toque is worn or vice versa. The toque is authorized as alternative winter headdress and can be worn with all orders of dress.

Are sunglasses permitted for wear on a ceremonial parade? Are transition (photochromic) lenses, mirrored lenses and clip-ons permitted?

Yes, sunglasses are permitted for wear in all orders of dress, including ceremonial (No. 1) dress. Eyeglasses and sunglasses are permitted for wear in all orders of dress, including transition lenses, mirrored lenses, and clip-on lenses.

Are backpacks required to be slung over both shoulders?

A backpack can be worn slung over both shoulders, or over the left shoulder; this leaves the right arm free to salute.

Worth pointing out: the Canadian Forces will still boot members for not taking an experimental injection (for a non-existent virus). Guess they had to draw the line somewhere.

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/services/defence/caf/military-identity-system/dress-manual/changes-canadian-forces-dress-instructions.html#toc1
(2) https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/revised-caf-dress-code-allows-for-face-tattoos-long-hair-and-beards-1.5975684
(3) https://twitter.com/CanadianForces/status/1544306513975574535

July 3, 2022July 21, 2024

Replacement Migration In Canada: 1966 To 1979 Data

Here’s some data going back to the 1960s. These years feature quite differently than more recent reports. The United States and United Kingdom were consistently at the top of the source countries list. That has since been replaced by China, India and the Philippines. White genocide (a.k.a “replacement”) is a very real thing.

According to the United Nations, enacting policies designed to bring about the destruction of an ethnic, racial, or religious group (in all or in part), is considered genocide. Consequently, forced multiculturalism and population replacement should be viewed through that lens.

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. Source Countries From 1966 To 1979

Let’s look at the “official” numbers from 1966 to 1979. The U.S. and U.K. are still featured prominently, something that will change in the coming years.

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1966
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United Kingdom	63,291	32.5	1
Italy	31,625	16.2	2
United States	17,514	9.0	3
Germany	9,263	4.8	4
Portugal	7,930	4.0	5
France	7,872	4.0	6
Greece	7,174	3.7	7
China	4,094	2.1	8
West Indies	3,935	2.0	9
Netherlands	3,794	1.9	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	156,492	80.4	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	38,251	19.6	—
GRAND TOTAL	194,743	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1967
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United Kingdom	62,420	28.0	1
Italy	30,055	13.4	2
United States	19,038	8.6	3
Germany	11,779	5.3	4
Greece	10,650	4.6	5
France	10,122	4.5	6
Portugal	9,500	4.2	7
West Indies	8,403	3.8	8
China	6,409	2.9	9
Australia	4,967	2.2	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	173,343	77.8	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	49,533	22.2	—
GRAND TOTAL	222,876	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1968
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United Kingdom	37,889	20.6	1
United States	20,422	11.1	2
Italy	19,774	10.8	3
Germany	8,966	4.8	4
China	8,382	4.6	5
France	8,184	4.4	6
Austria	8,125	4.4	7
Greece	7,739	4.2	8
Portugal	7,738	4.2	9
West Indies	7,563	4.1	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	104,782	57.0	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	79,192	43.0	—
GRAND TOTAL	183,974	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1969
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United Kingdom	31,977	19.8	1
United States	22,785	14.1	2
West Indies	13,093	8.1	3
Italy	10,383	6.4	4
China	8,272	5.1	5
Portugal	7,182	4.4	6
Greece	6,937	4.3	7
Germany	5,880	3.6	8
France	5,549	3.4	9
India	5,395	3.3	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	117,453	72.7	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	44,078	27.3	—
GRAND TOTAL	161,531	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1970
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United Kingdom	26,497	18.7	1
United States	24,424	16.5	2
West Indies	12,456	8.4	3
Italy	8,533	5.8	4
Portugal	7,902	5.4	5
Greece	6,327	4.3	6
Yugoslavia	5,672	3.8	7
India	5,670	3.8	8
China	5,377	3.6	9
France	4,410	2.9	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	101,596	68.8	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	46,118	31.2	—
GRAND TOTAL	147,714	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1971
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United States	24,366	20.0	1
United Kingdom	15,451	12.8	2
Portugal	9,157	7.5	3
Italy	5,790	4.8	4
India	5,313	4.4	5
China	5,009	4.1	6
Greece	4,769	3.9	7
Philippines	4,180	3.4	8
Yugoslavia	2,997	2.4	9
France	2,966	2.4	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	79,998	66.6	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	41,902	34.4	—
GRAND TOTAL	121,900	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1972
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United States	22,618	18.5	1
United Kingdom	18,197	14.9	2
Portugal	8,737	7.2	3
Hong Kong	6,297	5.2	4
India	5,049	4.1	5
Uganda	5,021	4.1	6
Italy	4,608	3.8	7
Greece	4,016	3.3	8
Philippines	3,946	3.2	9
France	2,742	2.2	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	81,231	66.6	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	40,775	33.4	—
GRAND TOTAL	122,006	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1973
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United Kingdom	26,973	14.6	1
United States	25,242	13.7	2
Hong Kong	14,662	8.0	3
Portugal	13,483	7.3	4
Jamaica	9,363	5.1	5
India	9,203	5.0	6
Philippines	6,757	3.7	7
Greece	5,833	3.2	8
Italy	5,468	3.0	9
Trinidad-Tobago	5,138	2.8	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	122,122	66.3	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	62,078	33.7	—
GRAND TOTAL	184,200	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1974
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United Kingdom	38,456	17.6	1
United States	26,541	12.1	2
Portugal	16,333	7.5	3
India	12,868	5.9	4
Hong Kong	12,704	5.8	5
Jamaica	11,286	5.2	6
Philippines	9,564	4.4	7
Greece	5,632	2.6	8
Italy	5,226	2.4	9
Haiti	4,857	2.2	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	143,467	65.7	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	74,998	34.3	—
GRAND TOTAL	218,465	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1975
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United Kingdom	34,978	18.6	1
United States	20,155	10.7	2
Hong Kong	11,132	5.9	3
India	10,144	5.4	4
Portugal	8,390	4.5	5
Jamaica	8,211	4.4	6
Philippines	7,364	3.9	7
Italy	5,078	2.7	8
Guyana	4,394	2.3	9
South Korea	4,314	2.3	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	114,163	60.8	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	73,718	39.2	—
GRAND TOTAL	187,881	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1976
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United Kingdom	21,548	14.4	1
United States	17,315	11.6	2
Hong Kong	10,725	7.2	3
Jamaica	7,282	4.9	4
Lebanon	7,161	4.8	5
India	6,733	4.5	6
Philippines	5,939	4.0	7
Portugal	5,344	3.6	8
Italy	4,530	3.0	9
Guyana	3,430	2.3	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	90,007	60.2	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	59,422	39.8	—
GRAND TOTAL	149,429	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1977
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United Kingdom	17,977	15.6	1
United States	12,888	11.2	3
Hong Kong	6,371	5.5	3
Philippines	6,232	5.4	4
India	5,555	4.8	5
Lebanon	3,847	3.3	6
Portugal	3,579	3.1	7
Italy	3,411	3.0	8
France	2,757	2.4	9
Guyana	2,472	2.4	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	65,089	56.7	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	49,825	43.3	—
GRAND TOTAL	114,914	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1978
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United Kingdom	11,801	13.7	1
United States	9,945	11.5	2
India	5,110	5.9	3
Hong Kong	4,740	5.5	4
Philippines	4,370	5.1	5
Portugal	3,086	3.6	6
Italy	2,976	.43	7
France	1,754	2.9	8
South Africa	1,653	1.9	9
Lebanon	1,454	1.7	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	46,880	54.3	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	39,424	45.7	—
GRAND TOTAL	86,313	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1979
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
Vietnam	19,859	17.7	1
United Kingdom	12,853	11.5	2
United States	9,617	8.6	3
Hong Kong	5,966	5.3	4
India	4,517	4.0	5
Laos	3,903	3.5	6
Philippines	3,873	3.5	7
Jamaica	3,213	2.9	8
Guyana	2,473	2.2	9
China	2,058	2.1	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	68,332	61.0	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	43,764	39.0	—
GRAND TOTAL	112,096	100	—

Permanent Residents: U.S., Europe and Australia as a percentage of overall migration globally. The vast majority of people getting PR in recent years aren’t from those areas.

YEAR	# U.S.	% U.S.	# Eur.	% Eur.	# Aust	% Austr	# Other	% Other
1973	25,242	13.7	71,883	39.0	2,096	1.1	84,979	46.1
1974	26,541	12.1	88,694	40.6	2,022	0.1	102,208	46.3
1975	20,155	10.7	72,898	38.8	1,654	0.1	87,174	46.4
1976	17,315	11.5	49,908	33.3	1,387	0.1	80,819	54.1
1977	12,888	11.2	40,747	35.5	1,063	0.1	60,216	52.4
1978	9,945	11.5	30,075	34.8	1,233	1.4	45,060	52.2
1979	9,617	8.6	32,858	29.3	808	0.1	68,813	61.4

3. More Recent Statistics On Immigration Source Countries

The above may not seem too bad, but keep in mind that the trends are about to get a whole lot worse. Here are numbers from within the last decade. Of course, this doesn’t include the hordes of students and “temporary” workers who come and don’t leave.

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)

Notice any major changes? The U.K. and U.S. are nowhere near as prominent as they once were, and the demographic replacement is accelerating.

Of course, this doesn’t address the levels of student visas and “temporary” workers, which would increase drastically in the coming years.

4. Documents Provided By Canadian Government

June 30, 2022

Gov’t Recommends More Pathways For Hong Kong Residents To Come

The Canadian Government has posted its take on the report by the Immigration Committee in Parliament. This concerns the topic: “Safe Haven in Canada: Special Immigration and Refugee Measures are Urgently Needed for the People of Hong Kong”.

The responses are not encouraging. Overall, Ottawa seems to favour more people coming to Canada, and less accountability overall. While most of the recommendations are specific to Hong Kong, there’s little interest in legitimate security concerns related to China.

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

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. Recommendations From June 2022 Report

Recommendation 1
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada issue study permits to Hong Kong applicants who have been accepted in a study program at an institution with a COVID-19 readiness plan, regardless of their age.

Recommendation 2
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada undertake to extend the young professionals Working Holiday work permit for Hong Kong residents to two years and to include persons up to 35 years of age.

Recommendation 3
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada extend the criteria for eligibility for the three-year open work permit to include all persons with a minimum of 60 credits or its equivalent of post-secondary education regardless of when this education was completed.

Disagreed with, if only because there are already of pathways available. This is a response that will come up over and over again.

Recommendations 4 and 5
#4 That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada adopt an inclusive approach and develop a pathway to permanent residence for former Hong Kong residents based on a broad range of work experience, and requiring minimal language and education levels.
#5 That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada quickly develop and implement a pathway to permanent residence for Hong Kong residents who complete their post-secondary studies in Canada, ensuring that this pathway remains available to all Hong Kong residents studying at designated learning institutions.

Recommendations 6 and 7
#6 That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada create a temporary public policy to grant refugee status to pro-democracy activists within Hong Kong and within third countries, which will enable their resettlement to Canada.
#7 That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada implement a temporary public policy to bring Hong Kong residents at risk to Canada on temporary resident visas regardless of their age.

Recommendation 8
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada partner with designated non-governmental organizations to identify Hong Kong pro-democracy activists in need of safe haven in Canada on a temporary resident visa, to certify Hong Kong refugees, and to facilitate both classes of Hong Kong residents at risk to travel from Hong Kong to third countries and to Canada, and redevelop a refugee stream similar to the former source country program.

Recommendation 9
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada acknowledge the urgency of the situation and that, given the exit ban will take effect on 1 August 2021, the Minister immediately respond with an expansion of humanitarian measures to the current immigration and refugee measures to support the people of Hong Kong.

Recommendation 10
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada issue travel documents to residents of Hong Kong at risk of persecution and exempt them from non-essential pandemic travel restrictions, following all public health guidelines.

Recommendation 11
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada implement a temporary public policy to create an expedited pathway to permanent residence for Hong Kong residents in Canada or abroad before the exit ban comes into effect on 1 August 2021.

Recommendation 12
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada promote its family reunification stream to family members of Hong Kong residents looking to come to Canada and create a temporary public policy to also include extended family members of Canadian citizens and of pro-democracy activists living in Canada.

Recommendation 13
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada develop a temporary public policy to allow former Canadian citizens to return to Canada as permanent residents.

Recommendation 14
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, in partnership with Public Services and Procurement Canada, and, as needed, other departments and agencies, investigate Canada’s Visa Application Centres in China, especially in regard to personal data leaks due to employee coercion, and that it tables its findings with the Committee.

Recommendation 15
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada terminate its contract with VFS Global in China and bring the services back in-house at Canadian diplomatic missions in China.

The Government disagrees with recommendations #14 and #15, which is interesting. There seems to be little urgency to investigate, or replace a private agency (despite concerns) that is processing the visas for Chinese nationals.

Doesn’t seem like there is much interest in protecting Canadian borders or sovereignty.

3. Important Links

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/CIMM/report-1/
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/CIMM/report-1/response-8512-441-10
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/content/Committee/441/CIMM/GovResponse/RP11842881/441_CIMM_Rpt01_GR/DepartmentOfCitizenshipAndImmigration-e.pdf
(4) Department Of Citizenship And Immigration Hong Kong

Category: Dysgenics

Parliament’s Guidelines On Euthanizing The Mentally Ill

Like this:

Recent Statistics On Euthanasia (Assisted Suicide) In Canada

Like this:

World Circular Economy Forum, Related Groups

Like this:

Canadian Forces To Water Down Dress Code, Appearances For Troops

Like this:

Replacement Migration In Canada: 1966 To 1979 Data

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

2. Source Countries From 1966 To 1979

3. More Recent Statistics On Immigration Source Countries

4. Documents Provided By Canadian Government

Like this:

Gov’t Recommends More Pathways For Hong Kong Residents To Come

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

2. Recommendations From June 2022 Report

3. Important Links

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

2. Source Countries From 1966 To 1979

3. More Recent Statistics On Immigration Source Countries

4. Documents Provided By Canadian Government

Share this:

Like this:

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

2. Recommendations From June 2022 Report

3. Important Links

Share this:

Like this: