Free Speech Archives - Page 23 of 29

March 21, 2019November 15, 2021

UN Issues “Human Rights Compliant Guidance” For Treating Returning Terrorists

(1) https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Human-Rights-Responses-to-Foreign-Fighters-web-final.pdf
(2) UNCHR Human Rights Responses to Foreign Fighters or Terrorists
(3) https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/FTF-Report-1-3_English.pdf
(4) https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/4/7/393503_2.pdf
(5) OSCE Guidelines for Addressing the Foreign Terrorists Fighters
(6) https://stepstojustice.ca/steps/1-understand-grounds-detention

“Guidance to States on human rights-compliant responses to the threat posed by foreign fighters”

That title is a direct quote. The UN promotes “human rights-compliant responses” to terrorists who have left their country to take up arms against them, commit atrocities, then expect to be welcomed back.

” In June 2014, it was estimated that up to 12,000 people from more than 80 countries had travelled to Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic to join groups such as the Al-Nusrah Front and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). In September 2015, that number was thought to have grown to almost 30,000 from more than 100 countries. By August 2017, the flow of people to Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic had diminished dramatically in light of the military efforts against ISIL. In October 2017 it was estimated that over 40,000 people from more than 110 countries had joined ISIL, and that at least 5,600 of them had returned home.”

1/ In 2014, 12,000 people across 80 countries travelled to Iraq and Syria.
2/ In 2015, that number thought to be 30,000.
3/ In 2017, thought to be 40,000.
4/ At least 5,600 thought to have returned home.
How is this not a crisis?

“2. There is no clear profile for foreign terrorist fighters. Some are motivated by extremist ideology, while others appear more driven by alienation and boredom. Motivation may also change over time. Motivational factors may also include the desire to belong to a group or to gain peer acceptance; kinship, nationalism or patriotism; and humanitarian reasons, namely to protect the local population. Financial or material gain may also be a factor. The Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy points to prolonged unresolved conflicts, dehumanization of victims of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, lack of the rule of law and violations of human rights, ethnic, national and religious discrimination, political exclusion, socio-economic marginalization and lack of good governance conditions among the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism”

This seems deliberately designed to avoid the obvious: above, 12,000-40,000 people were thought to have joined ISIS. You know what motivates them? ISLAM. This UN report dances around that point, and implies that any form of unhappiness or social exclusion leads to people joining.

“3. The movement of people for the purposes of joining and supporting terrorist groups as well as their return to their countries of origin poses serious challenges to States in their efforts to prevent acts of terrorism. It is crucial that States adopt comprehensive long-term responses that deal with this threat and manage the return of fighters, and that in doing so they comply with their obligations under international human rights law. States have an obligation to protect the lives of individuals subject to their jurisdiction, and this includes the adoption of effective measures to counter the threat posed by foreign fighters. However, in its 2016 review of the Global Counter- Terrorism Strategy, the General Assembly expressed serious concern at the occurrence of violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms committed in the context of countering terrorism and stressed that, when counter-terrorism efforts neglected the rule of law and violated international law, they not only betrayed the values they sought to uphold, but they might also further fuel violent extremism that could be conducive to terrorism.”

That’s right. The UN expects host nations to “manage” the return of foreign fighters, who — to be frank — are overwhelmingly muslim. Nations have an obligation to ensure that “their” human rights are not violated in any way.

Curious to know: how does punishing them “further fuel violent extremism”? They are already violent, and anyone looking to join ISIS is a radical anyway.

“5. In resolution 2178 (2014), the Security Council underscored that respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are complementary and mutually reinforcing with effective counter-terrorism measures, and are an essential part of a successful counter-terrorism effort. It noted the importance of respect for the rule of law so as to effectively prevent and combat terrorism, and that failure to comply with these and other international obligations, including under the Charter of the United Nations, is one of the factors contributing to increased radicalization and fosters a sense of impunity. The Counter-Terrorism Committee has noted the importance, as States revise legislation and policy to stem the flow of foreign terrorist fighters, to recognize that the protection of human rights and the rule of law contribute to the countering of terrorism. Arbitrary arrests, incommunicado detentions, torture and unfair trials fuel a sense of injustice and may in turn encourage terrorist recruitment, including of foreign terrorist fighters”

This is asinine. Somehow, if nations were nice and tolerant to returning terrorists, and ensured they have all the human rights they rejected…. then people won’t turn to terrorism. Perhaps there is a flow of terrorists because host countries are weak. Something to consider.

“7. In December 2017, the Security Council adopted resolution 2396 (2017), building on resolution 2178 (2014) and providing greater focus on measures to address returning and relocating foreign terrorist fighters and their families, and requiring States to strengthen their efforts in border security, information-sharing, and criminal justice. In order to protect public order and safety in the countries to which foreign terrorist fighters return or relocate, resolution 2396 (2017) sets out additional measures beyond those in resolution 2178 (2014), which may raise concerns from a human rights perspective”

Interesting. Not only do we have obligations to terrorists, but to their families as well.

” The document then analyses the gender aspects and the situation of children affected by or involved in foreign fighter activities and provides guidance on how to ensure information exchange, data collection and analysis in conformity with human rights. The document then addresses criminal justice measures, including the definition of terrorism; prosecution, fair trial and due process rights; rehabilitation and reintegration of returnees; and special laws, sunset clauses and review mechanisms. Finally, the document provides guidance on the right to an effective remedy for those whose rights have been violated and on preventing and countering violent extremism and incitement.”

Wouldn’t be the UN without a few gender references.

You read that right: rehabilitation and reintegration of returnees.

“11. Any measures undertaken to implement resolutions 2178 (2014), 2396 (2017) or other Security Council resolutions must comply with general human rights principles grounded in treaty law and customary law. This means that any measures which may limit or restrict human rights must be prescribed by law, be necessary, proportionate to the pursuance of legitimate aims and non-discriminatory. They should also be procedurally fair and offer the opportunity of legal review.“

What do you consider reasonable then? Is leaving to go join ISIS not a valid reason for the host country to fear for the safety of its citizens, should you return? As far as legal process goes: how does one investigate in a war zone across the world?

“13. In a limited set of circumstances, States may also take measures to temporarily derogate from certain international human rights law provisions. As noted by the Human Rights Committee, measures derogating from the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights must be of an exceptional and temporary nature. Two fundamental conditions must be met: the situation must amount to a public emergency which threatens the life of the nation; and the State party must have officially proclaimed a state of emergency. The obligation to limit any derogations to those strictly required by the exigencies of the situation reflects the principle of proportionality which is common to derogation and limitation powers.”

Okay, from your criteria: #1 is met. These fighters are a threat to the public.
As for #2, “why” must a public declaration be made?

14. The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, along with regional refugee instruments,22 are the core legal instruments of the international refugee regime, complemented by customary international law and international human rights law. These instruments define the term “refugee” and establish an international framework for the protection of refugees

These people are not refugees. UN is deliberately obfuscating here. They are terrorists, who “chose” to leave their country.

“16. International humanitarian law is also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict and is applicable to both situations of international or non-international armed conflicts. These rules are enshrined in the four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, as well as in customary rules of international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons, civilians, who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities as well as fighters hors de combat and restricts the means and methods of warfare.“

This is not an official war. People can’t just leave their country, join a foreign army, then expect to return afterwards. They have committed treason. It’s idiotic to claim that humanitarian law would apply to these people.

“18. States have used different measures, whether legislative, administrative or operational, to prevent the departure of foreign fighters to conflict areas as well as to prevent their return. These could include travel bans, the seizure, retention, withdrawal and non-renewal of passports or identity cards, the stripping of citizenship, restrictions on travel or entry to territory and various types of house arrests or preventive detention. All of these measures have a serious impact on a number of fundamental human rights, including the rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement. They also raise a number of serious due process concerns if, for example, decisions are taken following secretive proceedings, in absentia or on the basis of vaguely defined criteria without adequate safeguards to prevent statelessness.“

Here’s the thing: very few people would actually care if any terrorists were left stateless as a result. If you leave to take up arms against a nation or it’s allies, you are a TRAITOR. You have forfeited your rights to be a citizen.

“21. The right to life, liberty and security of person is fundamental in international human rights law. It is the first substantive right protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Deprivation of liberty involves a more severe restriction on motion than merely interfering with freedom of movement. Examples of deprivation of liberty include arrest, imprisonment, house arrest, administrative detention and involuntary transportation, but may also include the cumulative effects of multiple restrictions on freedom of movement when, taken together, they would amount to a de facto deprivation of liberty. International human rights law protects against such deprivation of liberty, except on grounds of and in accordance with procedures established by law. But, even assuming that a deprivation of liberty is lawful, international human rights law also absolutely prohibits any deprivation of liberty that is arbitrary. The prohibition of arbitrary detention is non-derogable and must be understood to incorporate elements of “inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law as well as elements of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality”. The right to life is non-derogable, and the Human Rights Committee has stated that the fundamental guarantee against arbitrary detention is also non-derogable insofar as even situations that allow for derogations in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights cannot justify a deprivation of liberty that is unreasonable or unnecessary under the circumstances.”

It would be nice if the UN at some point starts listing rights and protections that society should have.

I’ll stop it here, but it goes on about ensuring that foreign fighters and terrorists have their human rights met. Ironic, since this group would never extend human rights or life to others.

Noticeably absent is any concern for the populations of these countries. Returning terrorists will pose a risk to the public, most likely for life. However, the UN talks about “managing” those risks.

Canadian Criminal Code:

Purpose and Principles of Sentencing
Marginal note:
Purpose
718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

I think that terrorism would certainly qualify under the first 3 criteria. We must (a) denounce the conduct; (b) deter the offender, and others, and (c) separate the offender from society. The other 3 are of much less concern.

Grounds to Deny Bail

The Crown considers 3 grounds of detention:
Primary – You may not go to court when required.
Secondary – You may commit another crime, or the public may not be safe while you’re out on bail.
Tertiary – Because of the circumstances of your offence, the public might feel that the justice system is not working if you’re let out of custody.

Terrorists would qualify on all 3 grounds.

Regardless, the overwhelming majority of the public does not want these people coming back. Not now, not ever.

March 20, 2019October 11, 2021

TSCE #16: World Border Congress Meets In Morocco, March 19-21

2. Giving Some Context

CLICK HERE, for the UN’s response to repatriating terrorists.
CLICK HERE, for Border Security Report.

As a bit of a side note: Morocco is also where the UN Global Migration Compact was signed on December 10, 2018.

Also, I cannot be the only one who thinks such an organization is creepy as hell. Why is there a “global border management”? What happened to countries making their own decisions?

3. Who Are These People?

“The annual gathering of the international border management and protection community will take place in Casablanca, Morocco on 19th-21st March 2019.

Co-hosted by the Ministry of Interior and General Secretariat for Migration and Border Surveillance of Morocco (Directeur de la Migration at de la Surveillance des Frontieres), the World Border Security Congress is delighted to be welcomed back to the North African country and economic hub of the region.

The 2019 World Border Security Congress will see the largest international gathering of border security and management policymakers and practitioners from more than 50 countries gather for the 3 day meeting for some great discussions, meetings, workshops and networking with colleagues and peers from the global border security community.”

Okay, this seems to be a globalist love-fest.

From Their Main Page

Current Border Security Challenges:
– Migration Crisis Tests European Consensus and Governance (1)
– Migrants and refugees streaming into Europe from Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia (2)
– Big Business of Smuggling Enables Mass Movement of People for Enormous Profits (3)
– Climate Change and Natural Disasters Displace Millions, Affect Migration Flows (4)
– Europe and the United States Confront Significant Flows of Unaccompanied Child Migrants (5)
– Tackling Southeast Asia’s Migration Challenge (6)
– ISIS threatens to send 500,000 migrants to Europe (7)
– Border Skirmishes Resonate in National Domestic Politics (8)
– Women’s Labour Migration from Asia and the Pacific (9)

As we see the continued escalation of the global migration crisis, with mass movements of people fleeing the war zones of the Middle East as well as illegal economic immigration from Africa and elsewhere, international terrorism(10) shows every sign of increasing, posing real threats to the free movement of people.

The world is expected to see a continuation of the migration challenges for the border management and security community, as little sign of peace and security in the Middle East is apparent and porous borders in Africa continue to provide challenges.

International organized criminal gangs and human and drug trafficking groups exploit opportunities and increasingly use the internet and technology to enhance their activities.

Controlling and managing international borders in the 21st Century continues to challenge the border control and immigration agencies around the world. It is generally agreed that in a globalised world borders should be as open as possible, but threats continue to remain in ever evolving circumstances and situations.

Advancements in technology are assisting in the battle to maintain safe and secure international travel. The border security professional still remains the front line against these threats.

This reads like it was brought to you by the same people who pushed the UN Global Migration Compact. But let’s go through this list a bit. Starting with your points list:

1/ Testing European consensus and governance? There “is” no European consensus, unless one argues that Europeans are unhappy with what their governments have brought them

2/ Yes migrants ARE streaming into Europe from Africa, the Middle East and Asia. But you promote open borders, which makes this problem all that much worse.

3/ True, smuggling people IS big business. However, you fail to mention that mass migration, and promoting mass migration is also big business, and it has much the same effect (legal or not).

4/ Climate change: everyone’s favourite boogeyman. Mass migration has nothing to do with welfare and handouts that economic migrants can get by moving to the West and pretending to be refugees.

5/ Regarding all of these “unaccompanied child migrants”, it would be interesting to know just how many of them are actually children. This seems to be a widespread scam.

6/ Yes, Southeast Asia has a migrant crisis as well. However, mass migration to the west is not the solution. All it will do is drain Western nations and cause their collapse.

7/ ISIS threaten to sends 100,000 fighters to Europe, but globalist organizations like the UN say that we must be compassionate. They also don’t want countries rejecting “citizens” who fight for ISIS.

8/ If there are border skirmishes going on, all the more reason to shut down borders and heavily restrict, if not outright ban people from certain countries.

9/ Of course, it wouldn’t be complete without the feminist card.

10/ Strengthen borders to stop this from coming here.

11/ Technological advancements? Now that sounds interesting. Seems these people don’t actually want to PREVENT bad things from happening, rather they wish to PROFIT from it happening. In fact, 2 major sponsors: FIND BIOMETRICS, and BIOMETRIC UPDATE, could see a huge surge in business caused by mass migration.

Here is a quote from the report:

“Governments around the world need to continue to invest in their border security, as a wide range of threats, such as combating terrorism, controlling the movement of goods and monitoring personnel across international borders, continue to pose challenges requiring round the clock monitoring.”

What a coincidence: the sponsors of this conference are selling just the tools that governments will need to secure their borders.

This conference is sponsored by companies that sell:
A/ Biometric services
B/ Security screening devices
C/ Digital and mobile technology

Is it much of a surprise that mass migration would be PROMOTED by a group and its sponsors who will end up PROFITTING from it? Not really.

World Border Congress Has Sympathy For ISIS Fighters

From THIS REPORT:
“Despite the fact that it is illegal to make an individual stateless, there is strong public opinion in most countries that supports the idea of leaving them to fend for themselves, and it easy to understand why. Whatever prison sentences they receive and deradicalisation they undergo, they will have to be regarded as a potential threat for the remainder of their lives.

And of course, it is certain that at least some of them will go on to attempt to commit an atrocity sometime in the future.

So, for most people, stopping their return seems like plain common sense. But would it be the wisest choice? If you leave them stateless, what will happen to them and where will they go?

It is fairly certain that the Kurds won’t want to be responsible for them for any prolonged period. And the Turkish authorities certainly won’t want to inherit the problem. The most likely outcome is that they will gradually be quietly released or abscond and use underground trafficking routes, new documents and new identities to either return to Europe or go elsewhere to carry on the fight.”

This group glosses over legitimate security risks posed by mass migration. However, the risks that “do” exist can be managed by purchasing services from the conference’s many sponsors.

This is disturbing. Want to know what is actually worse?

4. UN Response To “Foreign Fighters”

Again, the report is available here.

3. The movement of people for the purposes of joining and supporting terrorist groups as well as their return to their countries of origin poses serious challenges to States in their efforts to prevent acts of terrorism. It is crucial that States adopt comprehensive long-term responses that deal with this threat and manage the return of fighters, and that in doing so they comply with their obligations under international human rights law. States have an obligation to protect the lives of individuals subject to their jurisdiction, and this includes the adoption of effective measures to counter the threat posed by foreign fighters.

13. In a limited set of circumstances, States may also take measures to temporarily derogate from certain international human rights law provisions. As noted by the Human Rights Committee, measures derogating from the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights must be of an exceptional and temporary nature. Two fundamental conditions must be met: the situation must amount to a public emergency which threatens the life of the nation; and the State party must have officially proclaimed a state of emergency. The obligation to limit any derogations to those strictly required by the exigencies of the situation reflects the principle of proportionality which is common to derogation and limitation powers.

16. International humanitarian law is also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict and is applicable to both situations of international or non-international armed conflicts. These rules are enshrined in the four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, as well as in customary rules of international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons, civilians, who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities as well as fighters hors de combat and restricts the means and methods of warfare.

18. States have used different measures, whether legislative, administrative or operational, to prevent the departure of foreign fighters to conflict areas as well as to prevent their return. These could include travel bans, the seizure, retention, withdrawal and non-renewal of passports or identity cards, the stripping of citizenship, restrictions on travel or entry to territory and various types of house arrests or preventive detention. All of these measures have a serious impact on a number of fundamental human rights, including the rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement. They also raise a number of serious due process concerns if, for example, decisions are taken following secretive proceedings, in absentia or on the basis of vaguely defined criteria without adequate safeguards to prevent statelessness.

The World Borders Congress states that it believes that fighters who go abroad have rights. It implies that the safety of the host populations must be “balances” against the rights of terrorists themselves. From the above passages, the UN is clearly on board with this proposal.

The UN is totally fine with mass migration and returning terrorists for IDEOLOGICAL reasons.

Sponsors of World Borders Congress is fine with mass migration and returning terrorists for FINANCIAL reasons.

A partnership made in hell.

March 7, 2019July 9, 2020

Challenge To Proposed UN Parliament: Calgary

(Topic Previously Covered by Canuck Law)

CLICK HERE, for a very interesting page on free speech in Canada (links included).

Here is a portion of what is going to the Federal Court of Canada:

REMEDY SOUGHT
(a) To issue a permanent, binding injunction against the Federal Government ever participating in such a United Nations Parliament or other ”World Government” scheme on the grounds it violates the laws cited above

(b) To find that any such actions in furtherance of this scheme are unconstitutional.

Alternatively an order that:
(c) To rule that any such measure would require the following forms of consent:
I/ Vote from the Federal House of Commons
II/ Vote from the Senate
III/ Signature of the Prime Minister
IV/ Royal Assent from the Governor General
V/ A nationwide referendum on this issue with 75% majority
VI/ 7 of 10 Provinces (with 50%+ population) affirming

Note, should that alternative be ordered, it is asked that the court also rule for (c), that any Province or Municipality that wishes to opt out may do so.

Written submissions For challenge to UN Parliament

Part I: Jurisdiction
Part II: Issues
Part III: Facts
Part IV: Law
Part V: Authorities
Part VI: Order Sought
Part I: Jurisdiction

Part I: Jurisdiction

Under Section 18 of the Federal Courts Act, and Section 300/301 of Federal Court Rules, the Federal Court of Canada has jurisdiction to hear such an application.

Federal Court also has jurisdiction to issue an injunction under Rule 18(1)(a) and 18(3) of Federal Courts Act ”
18 (1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction (a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal;

Remedies to be obtained on application
(3) The remedies provided for in subsections (1) and (2) may be obtained only on an application for judicial review made under section 18.1.

Rule 303(2) in Federal Court Rules states that in an application for judicial review (which an extension of time is sought here), where no person can be named, the Attorney General of Canada shall be named as a Respondent. Since there is no ”single person” who is responsible for this mess, the Attorney General of Canada shall be named as a Defendant

Part II: Issues

Seven questions to consider

First: Does the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government), violate the 1867-1982 Constitution Act, which requires the Government of Canada to provide, “Peace, Order and Good Government” and makes no provision for abdication of that duty to supra-national bodies?

Second: Does the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government) violate the 1982 Constitution Act, which states that it is the supreme law of Canada, and that any laws that any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.”

Third: Considering that this would add a new layer of Government to Canada, would this violate Sections 91 and 92 of the Consitution, which separate Federal and Provincial Jurisdictions?

Fourth: Does the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government), require a constitutional amendment (Part V, Section 38 of the Constitution) that would require consent of:
(a) The House of Commons
(b) The Senate
(c) 7 of 10 Provinces, consisting of 50%+ of the population

Fifth: Does the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government) violate Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which ensure all Canadians the right to participate in their democracy?

Sixth: Given some of the initiatives the UN proposes, such as internet regulation and free speech restrictions, would these violate Canadians’ fundamental freedoms, enshrined in Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and explicitly affirmed in Section 32?

Seventh: Would the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government), violate Part II, Section 35 of the Constitution of Canada, which enshrines Aboriginal Rights?

Part III: Facts

The United Nations (UN) is a globalist body which more and more is taking rights and sovereignty away from individual nation states

Since 2007, there has been an initiative by high ranking politicians and former politicians of ”UN Countries” to form a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA). Dozens of current Canadian MPs, including Liberal, NDP, PM Justin Trudeau, and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May have all endorsed such a World Gov’t (Exhibit B)

As shown by screenshots (Exhibit A) from the website, the goal is explicitly to form LEGALLY BINDING decisions. This would in effect reduce nations to mere ”States” or ”Provinces” of the UN.

Other initiatives by the UN include
A/ Internet governance (digital cooperation)
B/ Global ban on blasphemy (criticism of Islam)
C/ Gender language agenda
D/ Global MIgration Compact (258M economic migrants)
E/ Paris Accord (carbon taxes)
F/ UN Global Citizenship Education
G/ Encouraging repatriation of Islamic terrorists
H/ Right to abortion (even for children)
I/ Agenda 21 (June 1992)
J/ Agenda 2030 (September 2015)
K/ Urban Development Agenda

This is only a partial list. But if this proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government) were ever to take place, all of these ”non-legally binding” initiatives will become ”legally-binding”.

Canadians have never been asked to vote on such a matter, either at the Municipal, Provincial or Federal level. The Government of Canada (nor any Gov’t) has no legal or moral mandate to enact such a proposal.

Canadians have never participated in any sort of national referendum to guage interest and approval of such an idea.

Canadians have never had the sort of public debate necessary to give an informed and intelligent response to such a proposed World Government.

Part IV: Relevant Laws

The proposed United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (World Government) should be rejected because it violates a number of Constitutional provisions. Here are some of them:

(a) Section 2 of Charter: Fundamental Freedoms
(b) Section 3 of Charter: Right to participate in democracy
(c) Section 32 of Charter: Applicability
(d) Part II, Section 35 of Constitution, Aboriginal rights
(e) Part V, Section 38 of Constitution, amending Constitution
(f) Part VII, Section 52 of Constitution, primacy of Constitution
(g) Part VI: Section 91 & 92 of Constitution, distribution of powers

FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS (S2)

(a) Fundamental Freedoms
Marginal note:
Fundamental freedoms

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.

DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS (S3)

Democratic Rights
Marginal note:
Democratic rights of citizens

Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER (S32)

Application of Charter
Marginal note:
Application of Charter

(1) This Charter applies
(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS (S35)

RIGHTS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF CANADA
Marginal note:
Recognition of existing aboriginal and treaty rights

(1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
Definition of “aboriginal peoples of Canada”
(2) In this Act, “aboriginal peoples of Canada” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.
Marginal note:
Land claims agreements
(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) “treaty rights” includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING CONSTITUTION (S38)

PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (101)
Marginal note:
General procedure for amending Constitution of Canada

(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by
(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and
(b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.
Marginal note:
Majority of members
(2) An amendment made under subsection (1) that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1).
Marginal note:
Expression of dissent
(3) An amendment referred to in subsection (2) shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution supported by a majority of its members prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless that legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution supported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment.

PRIMACY OF CONSTITUTION (S52)

Primacy of Constitution of Canada

(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
Marginal note:
Constitution of Canada
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes
(a) the Canada Act 1982, including this Act;
(b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and
(c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
Marginal note:
Amendments to Constitution of Canada
(3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.

DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS (S91/S92)

VI. DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS
Powers of the Parliament
Marginal note:
Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada

It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

Repealed. (44)
1A.
The Public Debt and Property. (45)

The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.
2A.
Unemployment insurance. (46)

The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.
And any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section shall not be deemed to come within the Class of Matters of a local or private Nature comprised in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces. (47)
Exclusive Powers of Provincial Legislatures
Marginal note:
Subjects of exclusive Provincial Legislation

In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

Repealed. (48)

Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes.

The borrowing of Money on the sole Credit of the Province.

The Establishment and Tenure of Provincial Offices and the Appointment and Payment of Provincial Officers.

The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon.

The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Public and Reformatory Prisons in and for the Province.

The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals.

Municipal Institutions in the Province.

Shop, Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer, and other Licences in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial, Local, or Municipal Purposes.

Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes:
(a)
Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province:
(b)
Lines of Steam Ships between the Province and any British or Foreign Country:
(c)
Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces.

The Incorporation of Companies with Provincial Objects.

The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province.

Property and Civil Rights in the Province.

The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.

The Imposition of Punishment by Fine, Penalty, or Imprisonment for enforcing any Law of the Province made in relation to any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section.

Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

Sections 91 and 92 have no provision for any supra-national body to interfere with this distribution of powers.

Note that ”Parliamentary Perogative” does not apply here, since the proposed Gobal Government is not a treaty BETWEEN governments. Rather, it would dissolve nations in favour of a supra-national body,

Part V: Authorities

Reference re Senate Reform, [2014] 1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

Sibbeston v. Canada (Attorney-General), 1988 CanLII 5673 (NWT CA) (S52)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927, 1989 CanLII 87 (SCC) (S2)
CLICK HERE, for the full text of decision.

Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912 (S3)
CLICK HERE, for decision, view para 27, 30, 31.

2 cases on Aboriginal duty to consult:
Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR 511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII) (S35)
(1) CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

(2) Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII) (S35)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

Reference re Senate Reform, [2014] 1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

(a) The General Amending Procedure
[33] Section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides:
38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by

(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and

(b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.

(2) An amendment made under subsection (1) that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1).

(3) An amendment referred to in subsection (2) shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution supported by a majority of its members prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless that legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution supported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment.

(4) A resolution of dissent made for the purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at any time before or after the issue of the proclamation to which it relates.

[34] The process set out in s. 38 is the general rule for amendments to the Constitution of Canada. It reflects the principle that substantial provincial consent must be obtained for constitutional change that engages provincial interests. Section 38 codifies what is colloquially referred to as the “7/50” procedure — amendments to the Constitution of Canada must be authorized by resolutions of the Senate, the House of Commons, and legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces whose population represents, in the aggregate, at least half of the current population of all the provinces. Additionally, it grants to the provinces the right to “opt out” of constitutional amendments that derogate from “the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province”.

Sibbeston v. Canada (Attorney-General), 1988 CanLII 5673 (NWT CA) (S52)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

[6] The respondent’s amended petition cannot be pursued under principles of Canadian constitutional practice that must now be regarded as established. They include the political reality that it is the people of Canada, expressing their political will through the joint constitutional authority of the Parliament of Canada and the elected legislative assemblies of the provinces, who are sovereign in the delineation of federal-provincial power-sharing under the Constitution of Canada. Beyond that no segment of the Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is paramount to other segments, or indeed the balance, of the Constitution. The Constitution “as a whole” is Canada’s supreme law.

[7] Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides:
52(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes
(a) the Canada Act, 1982, including this Act;
(b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and
(c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
(3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.

[8] Section 52 espouses the equality of its components including amendments. Charter scrutiny could not have been reserved by its drafters: Reference re an Act to Amend the Education Act (Ontario) (1987), 1987 CanLII 65 (SCC), 40 D.L.R. (4th) 18, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148, 77 N.R. 241.

[9] The Constitution Act, 1982, also provides:
Application of Charter
32(1) This Charter applies
(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927, 1989 CanLII 87 (SCC) (S2)
CLICK HERE, for the full text of decision.

C.The Second Step: Was the Purpose or Effect of the Government Action to Restrict Freedom of Expression?

Having found that the plaintiff’s activity does fall within the scope of guaranteed free expression, it must next be determined whether the purpose or effect of the impugned governmental action was to control attempts to convey meaning through that activity. The importance of focussing at this stage on the purpose and effect of the legislation is nowhere more clearly stated than in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at pp. 331-32 where Dickson J. (as he then was), speaking for the majority, observed:

In my view, both purpose and effect are relevant in determining constitutionality; either an unconstitutional purpose or an unconstitutional effect can invalidate legislation. All legislation is animated by an object the legislature intends to achieve. This object is realized through the impact produced by the operation and application of the legislation. Purpose and effect respectively, in the sense of the legislation’s object and its ultimate impact, are clearly linked, if not indivisible. Intended and actual effects have often been looked to for guidance in assessing the legislation’s object and thus, its validity.

Moreover, consideration of the object of legislation is vital if rights are to be fully protected. The assessment by the courts of legislative purpose focuses scrutiny upon the aims and objectives of the legislature and ensures they are consonant with the guarantees enshrined in the Charter. The declaration that certain objects lie outside the legislature’s power checks governmental action at the first stage of unconstitutional conduct. Further, it will provide more ready and more vigorous protection of constitutional rights by obviating the individual litigant’s need to prove effects violative of Charter rights. It will also allow courts to dispose of cases where the object is clearly improper, without inquiring into the legislation’s actual impact.

Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912 (S2)
CLICK HERE, for decision, view para 27.

27 An understanding of s. 3 that emphasizes the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process also is sensitive to the full range of reasons that individual participation in the electoral process is of such importance in a free and democratic society. As Dickson C.J. wrote in R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, at p. 136:

The Court must be guided by the values and principles essential to a free and democratic society which I believe embody, to name but a few, respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, commitment to social justice and equality, accommodation of a wide variety of beliefs, respect for cultural and group identity, and faith in social and political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals and groups in society.

In this passage, Dickson C.J. was addressing s. 1 . Yet since reference to “a free and democratic society” is essential to an enriched understanding of s. 3 , this passage indicates that the best interpretation of s. 3 is one that advances the values and principles that embody a free and democratic state, including respect for a diversity of beliefs and opinions. Defining the purpose of s. 3 with reference to the right of each citizen to meaningful participation in the electoral process, best reflects the capacity of individual participation in the electoral process to enhance the quality of democracy in this country.

30 In the final analysis, I believe that the Court was correct in Haig, supra, to define s. 3 with reference to the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process. Democracy, of course, is a form of government in which sovereign power resides in the people as a whole. In our system of democracy, this means that each citizen must have a genuine opportunity to take part in the governance of the country through participation in the selection of elected representatives. The fundamental purpose of s. 3 , in my view, is to promote and protect the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the political life of the country. Absent such a right, ours would not be a true democracy.

31 For this reason, I cannot agree with LeBel J. that it is proper, at this stage of the analysis, to balance the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process against other democratic values, such as the aggregation of political preferences. Legislation that purports to encourage the aggregation of political preferences might advance certain collective interests, but it does not benefit all citizens, namely, those whose interests are not aggregated by the mainstream political parties. As a result, the proportionality analysis endorsed by LeBel J. clearly admits of the possibility that collective or group interests will be balanced against the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process at the infringement stage of the analysis. If the government is to interfere with the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process in order to advance other values, it must justify that infringement under s. 1 .

Also worth noting (need a residency to vote) persons who have recently arrived in a province or territory (Reference Re Yukon Election Residency Requirements (1986), 27 D.L.R. (4th) 146 (Y.T.C.A.); Storey v. Zazelenchuk (1984), 36 Sask.R. 103 (C.A.); Olson v. Ontario (1992), 12 C.R.R. (2d) 120 (Ont.Gen.Div.); Arnold v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1987), 43 D.L.R. 4th 94 (Ont.H.Ct.) — although 6 to 12 month minimum residency requirements were justified under section 1)

Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR 511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII) (S35)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

26 Honourable negotiation implies a duty to consult with Aboriginal claimants and conclude an honourable agreement reflecting the claimants’ inherent rights. But proving rights may take time, sometimes a very long time. In the meantime, how are the interests under discussion to be treated? Underlying this question is the need to reconcile prior Aboriginal occupation of the land with the reality of Crown sovereignty. Is the Crown, under the aegis of its asserted sovereignty, entitled to use the resources at issue as it chooses, pending proof and resolution of the Aboriginal claim? Or must it adjust its conduct to reflect the as yet unresolved rights claimed by the Aboriginal claimants?

27 The answer, once again, lies in the honour of the Crown. The Crown, acting honourably, cannot cavalierly run roughshod over Aboriginal interests where claims affecting these interests are being seriously pursued in the process of treaty negotiation and proof. It must respect these potential, but yet unproven, interests. The Crown is not rendered impotent. It may continue to manage the resource in question pending claims resolution. But, depending on the circumstances, discussed more fully below, the honour of the Crown may require it to consult with and reasonably accommodate Aboriginal interests pending resolution of the claim. To unilaterally exploit a claimed resource during the process of proving and resolving the Aboriginal claim to that resource, may be to deprive the Aboriginal claimants of some or all of the benefit of the resource. That is not honourable.

Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

23 The Province argues that, before the determination of rights through litigation or conclusion of a treaty, it owes only a common law “duty of fair dealing” to Aboriginal peoples whose claims may be affected by government decisions. It argues that a duty to consult could arise after rights have been determined, through what it terms a “justificatory fiduciary duty”. Alternatively, it submits, a fiduciary duty may arise where the Crown has undertaken to act only in the best interests of an Aboriginal people. The Province submits that it owes the TRTFN no duty outside of these specific situations.

24 The Province’s submissions present an impoverished vision of the honour of the Crown and all that it implies. As discussed in the companion case of Haida, supra, the principle of the honour of the Crown grounds the Crown’s duty to consult and if indicated accommodate Aboriginal peoples, even prior to proof of asserted Aboriginal rights and title. The duty of honour derives from the Crown’s assertion of sovereignty in the face of prior Aboriginal occupation. It has been enshrined in s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, which recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal rights and titles. Section 35(1) has, as one of its purposes, negotiation of just settlement of Aboriginal claims. In all its dealings with Aboriginal peoples, the Crown must act honourably, in accordance with its historical and future relationship with the Aboriginal peoples in question. The Crown’s honour cannot be interpreted narrowly or technically, but must be given full effect in order to promote the process of reconciliation mandated by s. 35(1).

25 As discussed in Haida, what the honour of the Crown requires varies with the circumstances. It may require the Crown to consult with and accommodate Aboriginal peoples prior to taking decisions: R. v. Sparrow, 1990 CanLII 104 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075, at p. 1119; R. v. Nikal, 1996 CanLII 245 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013; R. v. Gladstone, 1996 CanLII 160 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010, at para. 168. The obligation to consult does not arise only upon proof of an Aboriginal claim, in order to justify infringement. That understanding of consultation would deny the significance of the historical roots of the honour of the Crown, and deprive it of its role in the reconciliation process. Although determining the required extent of consultation and accommodation before a final settlement is challenging, it is essential to the process mandated by s. 35(1). The duty to consult arises when a Crown actor has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of Aboriginal rights or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect them. This in turn may lead to a duty to change government plans or policy to accommodate Aboriginal concerns. Responsiveness is a key requirement of both consultation and accommodation.

Part VI: Order Sought

(a) To issue a permanent, binding injunction against the Federal Government ever participating in such a United Nations Parliament or other ”World Government” scheme on the grounds it violates the laws cited above

(b) To find that any such actions in furtherance of this scheme are unconstitutional.

Alternatively an order that:

(c) To rule that any such measure would require the following forms of consent:
I/ Vote from the Federal House of Commons
II/ Vote from the Senate
III/ Signature of the Prime Minister
IV/ Royal Assent from the Governor General
V/ A nationwide referendum on this issue with 75% majority
VI/ 7 of 10 Provinces (with 50%+ population) affirming

Note, should that alternative be ordered, it is asked that the court also rule for (c), that any Province or Municipality that wishes to opt out may do so.

Sincerely,

March 7, 2019November 17, 2022

ICLEI – Local Gov’t For Sustainability (Globalism)

(Local Governments For Sustainability)

(1) https://www.iclei.org
(2) http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/JBSBooklet.pdf
(3) https://www.fsmgov.org/paris.pdf
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/the-paris-accord-a-giant-wealth-transfer-scheme/
(5) http://www.un.org/en/climatechange/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/the-climate-change-scam-part-1/
(7) https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/10/newurbanagenda/

About us
ICLEI is the leading global network of 1,500+ cities, towns and regions committed to building a sustainable future. Through our collective efforts, we impact more than 25 percent of the global urban population.

Local and regional governments across the ICLEI network work alongside a diverse team of global experts in 22 offices active across 124 countries. Together, we address the local impacts of unprecedented global change, from climate change to urbanization, aiming for urban development to have the least possible impact on global systems and to build communities that are people-centered and equitable.

ICLEI firmly believes that sustainable cities are the foundation of a more just and sustainable world. We are doing our part to make urban sustainability an inextricable part of all development at the subnational, national and global levels

ICLEI has hijacked the agenda of over 1500 cities so far.
ICELI effects more than 25% of urban population.

Here is some more about their 5 Pathways.

Our pathways, our approach

ICLEI engages at the local to global levels, shaping policy and sparking action to transform urban environments worldwide. We build connections across levels of government, sectors and stakeholder groups, sparking city-to-city, city-to-region, local-to-global and local-to-national connections. By linking subnational, national and global actors, policies, commitments and actions, ICLEI strengthens action at all levels, in support of sustainable urban development.

At the subnational level, ICLEI drives change along five interconnected pathways that cut across sectors and jurisdictional boundaries. This design enables local and regional governments to think and design solutions in a holistic and integrated way, creating change across entire urban systems.

These pathways, outlined below, were released as part of the ICLEI Montréal Commitment and Strategic Vision 2018-2024, our roadmap for sustainable urban development.

(1) City to City
(2) City to Region
(3) Local to Global
(4) Local to National

Let’s be clear on this. This is taking the globalist agenda down to the local level. The wealth transfer schemes and right-destroying ideas are being implemented within the cities.

ADVOCACY
Global advocacy is a big part of ICELI.

“ICLEI aims to build a global policy environment that supports local and regional governments in their efforts to scale up sustainable urban development worldwide.

Through our advocacy, we have reshaped the global sustainability landscape to ensure local and regional governments are recognized, engaged and resourced, and demonstrated their crucial role in translating global policy into action.

Members of the ICLEI network are an integral part of our global advocacy. They represent ICLEI in intergovernmental processes and national dialogues that form the basis for implementing the global sustainable development agenda.

ICLEI is active in efforts to advance the new global sustainable development agenda – including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Paris Climate Agreement and the New Urban Agenda.”

Straight from the horse’s mouth: their goal is to promote UN agenda
(A) Agenda 2030
(B) Paris Climate Agreement
(C) New Urban Agenda

ICLEI is to be represented in intergovernmental processes and talks to implement SDA goals.

Looking through their vision, it becomes clear that ICLEI is relying on large amounts of money to push and promote their agenda.

Membership Fees
ICLEI charges a fee, for its members. But don’t worry. It’s on a sliding scale.

March 4, 2019February 11, 2020

Canada Should Leave The UN: The Masterlist

(Are we Canadians? Or are we a puppet state of the United Nations?)

Here is the list on what exactly the UN gets its tentacles into. Read through the list, and make your own decisions.

(1) UN Global Migration Compact
Let’s import 258 million people into West. Forget language, culture, religion, customs, security or health and safety. And of course, taxpayers should foot the bill
CLICK HERE, for the Globalist Compact.
CLICK HERE, for 1 of the reviews.

(2) UN Paris Accord
Never mind that carbon dioxide is caused by breathing. Let’s bankrupt our nation to fight “global warming”. Or is it climate change?
CLICK HERE, for the Paris Accord itself.
CLICK HERE, for a review of the Accord. In particular, review Articles 2, 4, 9.
CLICK HERE, for more info on the scam.

(3) UN Parliamentary Assembly
Yes, the UN actually wants to create a world government. Imagine your nation’s interests being “democratically” outvoted. Death of nations.
CLICK HERE, for the proposed global gov’t
CLICK HERE, for “Mein Kampf” 2.0
CLICK HERE, for review of the proposal.

(4) Repatriating Terrorists
It doesn’t matter if a group wants to decapitate non-believers, and cause death and destruction. Remember: A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.
CLICK HERE, for the UN supporting repatriation.
CLICK HERE, for citizenship for terrorists.

(5) UN Global Blasphemy Ban (2008)
If you value free speech, then a global ban on “Islamophobia”, also referred to a “religious defamation” ban, should be very concerning
CLICK HERE, for a non-binding global ban.
CLICK HERE, for a review of the idea.
CLICK HERE, for dishonest propaganda about “World Hijab Day”.

(6) Agenda 21 (June 1992)
Signed by “Conservative” Brian Mulroney, to funnel money into a vague open ended global development plan
CLICK HERE, for Agenda 21 plan.
CLICK HERE, for a brief review, although it doesn’t really do the 351 page document justice.

(7) Agenda 2030 (September 2015)
Signed by “Conservative” Stephen Harper, to keep funnelling money into a vague and open ended global development plan.
CLICK HERE, for Agenda 2030 text.
CLICK HERE, for the review.

(8) UN Global Citizenship Agenda
Get ready to have your children brainwashed and indoctrinated on a global scale. There are no nations, no values, cultures that are worth preserving. Remember students, we are all global citizens.
CLICK HERE, for global citizenship education
CLICK HERE, for opinion on the “education”

(9) UN Internet Governance
They call it “digital cooperation”, but this is a UN scheme to have global regulation over internet content. Not that it will ever be abused.
CLICK HERE, for so-called “digital cooperation”.
CLICK HERE, for response to this nonsense.
CLICK HERE, for Liberal Party of Canada endorsement of UN internet governance.

(9) UN Forum On Forests
Does your nation have plenty of forest areas? Don’t worry, the UN will take control of that too
CLICK HERE, for the forum on forests.
CLICK HERE, for the review.

(10) UN Urban Development Agenda
UN wants to regulate city development as well.
CLICK HERE, for UN Urban Development Agenda.

(11) UN Declaration On Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Ready for some virtue signalling about Indigenous rights? Want to have the UN promote the idea of parallel societies, and prevent any actual development? Check this out.
CLICK HERE, for the UN DRIP.
CLICK HERE, for virtue signalling from John Horgan, BC’s communist premier.
CLICK HERE, for a review of the declaration.

(12) UN Covenant Of Right To Life
UN believes that everyone has the right to life, except of course to unborn babies. Serial killers and rapists have rights, but the most vulnerable do not.
CLICK HERE, for the Covenant. See Paragraph 9 in particular.
CLICK HERE, for abortion for children.

(13) UN Gender Language Agenda
UN considers “language” to be very important, biological realities notwithstanding. Apparently misgendering someone is as horrific as honour killings or FGM.
CLICK HERE, for gender inclusive language.
CLICK HERE, for a review of the agenda.

(14) UN Democratic Agenda
UN decides that democracy is important. And just to show it, the UN also wants “its” version of democracy to be implemented.
CLICK HERE, for UN democracy agenda.
CLICK HERE, for review of the agenda.

(15) UN, MasterCard & “Financial Inclusion”
Every globalist plan needs a set system of financing. Also worth noting, globalism itself can be the means of “financing” an agenda, such as what Mastercard is pushing.
CLICK HERE, for the UN and Mastercard.
CLICK HERE, for “Mastercard is the final boss”.

(16) UN & Lawyers Without Borders
If lawyers (insert lawyer joke here) weren’t bad enough, the UN sends them to other countries around the world. Keep in mind, they don’t represent or defend clients. Instead, they act as consultants, mainly for the UN and other globalist organizations.
CLICK HERE, for Lawyers Without Borders site.
CLICK HERE, for a review of the organization.

(17) UN and Sexual Exploitation
This writes itself. The UN takes sexual abuse and sexual exploitation seriously, especially in the case of children. Sounds lovely, if not so hypocritical.
CLICK HERE, for the UN discussing the issue.
CLICK HERE, for more information.

(18) ICELI Sustainability For Local Govts
Consider them globalist-in-training. Getting cities to adopt (for all practical purposes) UN agendas. Over 1500+ so far have submitted to UN agenda.
CLICK HERE, for ICLEI main page.
CLICK HERE, for review of ICLEI.

(19) UN Promoting Replacement Migration Across 1st World
The UN believes that falling birthrates across the developed world can be solved by importing large numbers of migrants, aka “replacement migration”. Nations like Hungary, however, would rather spend the money to boost their own populations.
CLICK HERE, for the Hungarian/UN contrast
CLICK HERE, for UN policy directives on “replacement migration”.
Anyone disagree with the conclusion?

(20) World Economic Forum
This Switzerland based forum endorses globalist business practices in the name of ever expanding growth and trade. To seem “righteous”, however, all sorts of SJW/NPC themes are thrown in everywhere. WEF makes its policies appear to be “moral and humane” practices
CLICK HERE, for the World Economic Forum.
CLICK HERE, for a brief review of WEF, and overall impressions.

(21) UN Data Hub
Think your government respects your privacy? Think your data won’t be shared globally by those seeking to create a one-world order? That’s both cute, and naïve. Data mining and contrasting is all the rage in trying to implement Agenda 2030.
CLICK HERE, for UN SDG Data Hub.
CLICK HERE, for response and info on data hub.

(22) UN Principles For Responsible Investment (& ESG)
Watch credit ratings agencies and major investors crawl into bed with globalist virtue signalling. Goodbye to independent and impartial investment advice and decisions.
CLICK HERE, for UN PRI/ESG Agenda
CLICK HERE, for review to these ideas.

(23) UN Security Council, Legalised Aggression
An elite group of 15 nations sits around the table deciding which conflicts are worth supporting, and which side to support. Permanent 5: US, Russia, China, UK, France have veto power to sabotage any resolution.
CLICK HERE, for link to the UNSC website.
CLICK HERE, for a review on the Security Council.

(24) CPP Being Invested In Offshore Globalist Ventures
You work hard for your pension, but do you actually think it will be there for you when you retire? Stop being so selfish and invest in risky, speculative projects overseas.
CLICK HERE, for link to the UNSC website.
CLICK HERE, for a review on CPP Mumbai venture.

(25) New Development Finance, Predatory Lending
The Western World is bled dry for these so-called “climate change” initiatives. Money we borrow is then transferred to the 3rd world. But in an evil bait-and-switch, the money is “loaned” to nations that have little to no prospect of ever paying it back. Debt is “forgiven” when sovereignty is transferred.
CLICK HERE, for New Development Finance (178 Pages).
CLICK HERE, for the New Development Financing Agenda.
CLICK HERE, for the New Development Financing, the bait-and-switch.

(26) UN Convention On Preventing/Punishing Genocide
The following are illegal:
(a) Trying to wipe out a group,
(b) Waging lawfare against them,
(c) Trying to reduce their births so they go extinct.
These things are considered genocide, “except” when multiculturalism is pushed on societies. Typically these are developed, Western nations.
CLICK HERE, for 1948 UN Convention Against Genocide.
CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism violates convention against genocide.

(27) UN Global Taxation Efforts
We are now into global taxation. All of these so-called humanitarian or environmental efforts are just attempts to tax people for globalist causes.
See “UN Taxation” on right side bar
CLICK HERE, for article on UN taxation.

WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?
See this article, from November 2018, promoting that idea.

LEAVE THE UN ENTIRELY

March 2, 2019November 17, 2022

Lawyers Without Borders – A Branch Of The UN

(Lawyers Without Borders, a non-profit)

1. Important Links

(1) https://lawyerswithoutborders.org
(2) http://archive.is/qdViA
(3) https://lawyerswithoutborders.org/our-supporters/
(4) http://archive.is/EkDOS
(5) https://lawyerswithoutborders.org/lwob/about/faq/
(6) https://lawyerswithoutborders.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/2016-2017-Biennial-Report.pdf
(8) 2016-2017-Biennial-Report
(9) https://lawyerswithoutborders.org/general-2/
(10) https://www.linklaters.com/en
(11) http://archive.is/nD3DM
(12) https://www.thomsonreuters.com

2. About The Group

LWOB Mission Statement

LWOB was conceived in January of 2000 to create a global association of lawyers committed to internationally oriented Pro Bono service and rule of law.

It is not clear from this. Does the group wish:
1/ To enforce and aid “local” people in their own countries?
2/ To promote a single legal standard?

Who Are LWOB Supporter?

If you or your organization would like to become a founding partner, pro bono supporter (in kind service), or financial supporter of LWOB, please contact us.

LWOB supporters include lawyers and institutions from the most highly regarded circles in the international legal community who provide generous financial support and pro bono human and in-kind resources to LWOB programming and projects. LWOB depends upon the generosity of its donors and funds from grants to underwrite operational overhead and non-grant funded rule of law programming.

LWOB welcomes its newest supporter, easyprojects.net and recognizes them for their generous donation of premium access to their project management tool: EasyProjects. The program is straightforward, intuitive and combines timeline management, assignment, time keeping and management all in one easy to use intuitive program. Thanks Easy Projects!

I find this very odd. LWOB doesn’t list who its supporters or partners are. Considering the support they give to a non-profit, a little name recognition seems the least they can do.

Who Is On LWOB Board?

LWOB is managed by three relatively small boards and an advisory council consisting of representatives from LWOB’s major private donors. Our board members on all three boards are “working” board members, who tend to be very engaged with the organization by contributing in areas of their respective expertise, volunteering to represent LWOB at events, or volunteering as trial advocacy trainers and trial observers. Our board members, while concentrated in the legal profession, include individuals from accountancy, public relations, and educational sectors.

– The Executive Board of Directors chaired by Anne B. Rudman, Esq. She is joined by board members: Steven Wade, Stephen Hibbard, and Joel Cohen.
– The International Advisory Board of Directors, chaired by Dr. Amii OMara Ottunnu
– The local Connecticut Advisory Board chaired by Priscilla Pappadia, Executive Director of Lawyers for Children America
– Advisory Council members are: Laura Ellsworth, Stephen Hibbard, Joel Cohen, Gregory Palmer, Saralyn Cohen, Sara Lulo and Andrew Jones.

Also interesting. They list who their board members are, but not any of the supporting organizations which are behind their work. Is there a reason they don’t want their names listed?

LWOB develops the programming typically supported by grants that cover the hard costs of producing the pro bono work product or deliverable. We commit to our pro bono partners that their work “will never end up in a file drawer.” Where 3rd party financial underwriting is not available, LWOB will often tap into an array of in-kind supporters to self-fund and implement worthwhile programs. The ongoing Liberia Digest Project (now 10 years old) is one such project that launched with 3rd party funding in 2008, but continues now with generous pro bono and in-kind support from Linklaters and Thomson Reuters.

While our work is apolitical and neutrally oriented, security issues that have arisen around the world prevent us from disclosing the location and timetables of our work in real time. We hope you will appreciate that our effort to keep our volunteers safe and out of harm’s way is paramount and essential to the long-term sustainability of our pro bono model.

Linklaters and Thompson “are” mentioned as supporters, but oddly not in the “supporters” section. It look a little browsing to find this. It would be nice to know who these other supporters are

Security issues prevent you from disclosing your location and timetables in real time. This comes across as a red flag. If all you were doing was providing basic legal services, who would care what your real timetable is? Why is it necessary to operate entirely behind the scene?

3. Some Red Flags

From the frequently asked questions section:

What is Lawyers Without Borders?
An organization that is bringing lawyers together from around the world to give back through pro-bono service — supporting rule of law, economic development, conflict resolution, peacebuilding and sustainability in the legal sector throughout the world.

Do you represent individuals?
LWOB does not “represent” individuals. It is not a resource for individuals seeking personal pro bono representation.

From the main page:

Lawyers Without Borders is a not-for-profit 501c3 corporation whose mission is to promote rule of law around the world by leveraging and promoting pro bono service to meet the needs of the underserved, build capacity in justice sectors and support transitions and development aimed at protecting human rights, all with a neutral orientation.

So this group doesn’t actually represent clients. It just promotes rule of law around the world. Strange considering that they claim to prefer silent work to marketing.

LWOB holds special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council Division (ECOSOC) of the United Nations, has associative status with the United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI) and is accredited to the Department at the UN on the question of Palestine. LWOB and its lawyers engage regularly with the United Nations. LWOB online volunteers through the United Nations Online Volunteering service have been recognized for four successive years for their contributions to human rights and development through their work with LWOB.

Now we get to it: LWOB is basically a consulting firm for the UN. Although the site does not specify it, one can assume that a large amount of funding (if not most), comes from the UN.

LWOB doesn’t actually represents clients. Rather, they observe and consult in order to promote a certain “international law”. Yet another tentacle of the UN.

Category: Free Speech

UN Issues “Human Rights Compliant Guidance” For Treating Returning Terrorists

Like this:

TSCE #16: World Border Congress Meets In Morocco, March 19-21