Bit Of History: Putting The Rights Of Terrorists Over Those Of Canadians


(From Canuck Politics. Although a political ad, this one is entirely truthful, and worth a mention.)

Rocco Galati and Justin Trudeau both believe it’s a human right for foreigners who obtain Canadian citizenship to retain that citizenship, even after being convicted of terrorism or treason offences. Although Galati lost that court challenge, Justin Trudeau would “correct” it anyway, by implementing Bill C-6.

Simply holding a Canadian passport doesn’t make you a Canadian, except in a civic sense. Terrorists and traitors, however, don’t even deserve that.

1. Islam, Terrorism, Religious Violence

Check this series for more information on the religion of peace. Tolerance of intolerance is being forced on the unwilling public. Included are efforts to crack down on free speech, under the guise of “religious tolerance”.

2. Galati Defending Terrorists’ “Rights”

CLICK HERE, for Galati claiming to have received threats.
CLICK HERE, for $10.5 million payout to Khadr.
CLICK HERE, for Galati defending citizenship for terrorists.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2001/2001canlii22177/2001canlii22177.html
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2003/2003fc928/2003fc928.html
galati.easier.bail.for.terrorists.2006canlii24454
galati.terrorist.citizenship.2015fc91

3. Challenging Security Certificates (2001)

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahjoub, 2001 CanLII 22177 (FCA)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2001/2001canlii22177/2001canlii22177.html

[7] In my view, the real issue is whether the designated judge in a s. 40.1 hearing has jurisdiction to grant the remedy sought. Section 40.1(4)(d) states that the designated judge shall “determine whether the certificate filed by the Minister and the Solicitor General is reasonable on the basis of the evidence and the information available to the Chief justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, and, if found not to be reasonable, quash the certificate”. In Re Baroud, Denault, J., found that the role of this court is neither to substitute its decision for that of the Minister and the Solicitor General, nor to find that they were correct in their assessment of the evidence. Rather, the designated judge must determine, based on the evidence presented to him or her, whether the Ministers’ decision to issue the certificate is reasonable.

[8] Does the assessment of reasonableness, pursuant to s. 40.1(4)(d), include as assessment of whether upholding the certificate would breach the applicant’s constitutional rights? I do not find that it does. In my view, reasonableness and constitutionality are distinct issues. Reasonableness involves an evaluation of the evidence to determine if it supports the Ministers’ decision; constitutionality is a more in-depth assessment of the applicant’s constitutional rights. In my view, a plain reading of s. 40.1(4)(d) gives the designated judge jurisdiction only to consider the reasonableness of the certificate. If Parliament had intended the designated judge to consider the validity of the certificate, including its constitutionality, the section could have been so drafted.

[9] My decision that the designated judge does not have jurisdiction to consider Charter matters is further supported by the fact that there is no appeal from the decision of the designated judge. Section 40.1(6) states:
.
“A determination under paragraph (4)(d) is not subject to appeal or review by any court”.
.
By expressly prohibiting further appeal or review, Parliament reinforced the notion that proceedings under s. 40.1 of the Immigration Act are intended only to consider whether the Ministers’ decision to issue the certificate is reasonable on the basis of the available evidence.

[15] Although I initially had doubts regarding Cullen J.’s conclusion, I am now satisfied that his conclusion is the correct one. I find support for Cullen J.’s conclusion in the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)(1998), 229 N.R. 240. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether a judge designated under subsections 40.1(8) and (9) of the Act had jurisdiction to hear constitutional issues that arose from an order made by a judge pursuant to subsection 40.1(9) of the Act.

This appeal concerned the constitutionality of the security certificates issued by the government. The limit scope of the appeals was over whether the decisions handed down were reasonable or not.

4. Bringing Back The Khadrs (2002 to ….)

Galati, decided to stop representing terrorists in late 2003. It wasn’t because he saw the practice as wrong. Instead, it was due to alleged death threats. One of his clients was Abdurahman Khadr, brother of Omar Khadr.

Omar Khadr himself, would eventually receive $10.5 million from taxpayers, due to “alleged” abuses and human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

5. Causing Delays To Justify Release (2003)

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahjoub, 2003 FC 928 (CanLII), [2004] 1 FCR 493
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2003/2003fc928/2003fc928.html

As to the first part of the test, the reference to a period of 120 days in subsection 84(2) reflects Parliament’s intent that once a certificate has been determined to be reasonable, the person named in the certificate should be removed expeditiously. In the present case, Mahjoub has been detained for slightly over three years and it has been 21 months since the certificate was upheld. However, by requiring as one of the criteria for release that the Court consider whether removal will or will not take place within a reasonable time, Parliament has contemplated that in some circumstances, removal will not have occurred within 120 days, but the period of detention may still be a reasonable period. Otherwise, release after 120 days would be automatic, absent considerations of national security or the safety of persons. What in any particular case will be reasonable will depend upon the facts and circumstances of that case. Any uncertainty about when Mahjoub may be removed resulted from two significant circumstances: (i) Court proceedings which he has initiated or will initiate; and (ii) concerns as to whether Mahjoub faces a risk of torture or death if he is removed to Egypt. With respect to the first circumstance, while it was Mahjoub’s right to exhaust all avenues of legal recourse, the time required for those challenges could not be relied upon for the purpose of arguing that he will not be removed within a reasonable time. As to the second circumstance, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed in Suresh that, absent extraordinary circumstances, deportation to torture will generally violate the principles of fundamental justice protected by section 7 of the Charter. Thus, generally, as a matter of law, the Minister should decline to deport Convention refugees where there is a substantial risk of torture.

[6]The position of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), as stated in the summary, is that it believes that Mr. Mahjoub is a high-ranking member of an Egyptian Islamic terrorist organization, the Vanguards of Conquest, a radical wing of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad or Al Jihad. According to CSIS, Al Jihad is one of the groups which split from Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood in the 1970’s to form a more extremist and militant organization. Al Jihad, according to CSIS, advocates the use of violence as a means of establishing an Islamic state in Egypt.

[7]The summary provided to Mr. Mahjoub set out, to the extent consistent with national security and the safety of persons, CSIS’s grounds for believing that Mr. Mahjoub will, while in Canada, engage in or instigate the subversion by force of the Gov ernment of Egypt, and that he is a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe was and is engaged in terrorism, and which will engage in subversion by force against the Government of Egypt. The summary also set out the Service’s grounds to believe that Mr. Mahjoub had engaged in terrorism.

[8]An open hearing was held before Mr. Justice Nadon from February 26, 2001 to March 8, 2001 for the purpose of providing to Mr. Mahjoub a reasonable opportunity to be heard with respect to the certificate. Submissions were made by counsel to Mr. Justice Nadon on May 8, 2001. On October 5, 2001 [2001 FCT 1095 (CanLII), [2001] 4 F.C. 644 (T.D.)], Mr. Justice Nadon determined that, on the basis of the evidence and information available to him, the certificate filed by the Ministers is reasonable.

[9]On March 25, 2002 [[2002] I.Adj.D.D. No. 5 (QL)], the Adjudication Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board found Mr. Mahjoub to be inadmissible, based on the security certificate. A deportation order was therefore issued.

[68]With respect to membership in the Vanguards of Conquest and/or Al Jihad, Mr. Justice Nadon found that:
.
1. Mr. Mahjoub perjured himself when he denied knowing Mr. Marzouk.
.
2. Mr. Mahjoub was not truthful with respect to his connection with Mr. Al Duri.
.
3. Mr. Mahjoub was not truthful with respect to the use of his alias “Mahmoud Shaker” to CSIS agents.
.
4. Mr. Mahjoub was not truthful regarding his true activities while he worked in the Sudan for Osama bin Laden.
.
5. Mr. Mahjoub was initially untruthful when he was interviewed by CSIS and he denied knowing Mr. Ahmad Said Khadr.

In addition to lying in his earlier application, a defense was raised that human rights had been violated, since the deportation order hadn’t taken place within 120 days (4 months). However, that falls flat when it’s pointed out that the Applicant tried other legal means to stay in Canada.

6. Easier For Terrorists To Obtain Bail (2006)

R. v. Ghany, 2006 CanLII 24454 (ON SC)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2006/2006canlii24454/2006canlii24454.pdf

[5] The applicants submit that s. 83.01 offences are “akin, of the same class and indistinguishable from offences included in s. 469 of the Criminal Code, and therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Justice. They argue that on the allegations as disclosed to date, “some of the allegations cited constitute, or may constitute, treason and/or intimidating Parliament or attempts thereunder”. Further, the applicants submit the nature and content of terrorism charges are “either subsets or specific instances of s. 469 offences or indistinguishably akin to them”.

[29] The fact that some of the offences under s. 83.01 involve elements of other offences does not assist the applicants. For example, another count of the information charges two accused with importing a firearm and prohibited ammunition contrary to s. 103 of the Criminal Code for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a terrorist group, thereby committing an offence contrary to s. 83.2 of the Criminal Code. Doing so does not turn those offences into s. 469 offences. Section 103 is not covered by s. 469.

[36] The applicants further submit that their s. 15 Charter rights are impacted by this constitutional omission. Mr. Galati argues that having these offences “against the Canadian state tried by provincially appointed “lower magistrates” infringes sections 7 and 15 of the Charter, as well as infringing the pre-amble to the Constitution Act, 1982 in placing offences against the Canadian state before provincially appointed “lower magistrates and justices”. Finally, they submit that s. 469 “offers certain procedural and judicial benefits and protections for the accused” which mitigates in favour of having “the highest judicial scrutiny, and review by exclusive jurisdiction at first instance”. In regard to the contention that the cases are being “tried” in the Ontario Court of Justice, the issue on this application is the forum of the bail hearings.

In short, Galati wanted his client (who was charged with Section 83 — terrorism — offences), to have the court view them in the same manner as Section 469 offences. This would make it mandatory that bail hearings be held by the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario. Thus it would remove the discretion for the Lower Court to conduct it. Galati admits that the reason behind it is that he figures it will be easier for his client to get bail.

7. Bill C-24, Deport Dual National Terrorists

https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=6401990

(8) The portion of subsection 3(3) of the Act before paragraph (b) is replaced by the following:
.
(3) Paragraphs (1)(b), (f) to (j), (q) and (r) do not apply to a person born outside Canada
(a) if, at the time of his or her birth, only one of the person’s parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)(b), (c.1), (e), (g), (h), (o), (p), (q) or (r) or both of the person’s parents were citizens under any of those paragraphs;
.
(a.1) if the person was born before January 1, 1947 and, on that day, only one of the person’s parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)(o) or (q), or both of the person’s parents were citizens under either of those paragraphs; (a.2) if the person was born before April 1, 1949 and, on that day, only one of the person’s parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)(p) or (r), or both of the person’s parents were citizens under either of those paragraphs; or

This provision would allow for Canada to strip away the Canadian citizenship of a foreign-born person convicted of terrorism or treason, if citizenship elsewhere was an option.

8. Fighting Deportation Of Terrorists (2015)

Galati v. Canada (Governor General), 2015 FC 91 (CanLII), [2015] 4 FCR 3
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc91/2015fc91.pdf

I. Overview
[1] The applicants seek to set aside the decision of His Excellency The Right Honourable David Johnston Governor General of Canada on June 19, 2014 to grant royal assent to Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, SC 2014, c 22 (Strengthening Citizenship Act).

[2] Section 8 of the Strengthening Citizenship Act amends the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c C-29 (Citizenship Act). The amendments allow the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to revoke the citizenship of natural-born and naturalized Canadian citizens where a citizen has a conviction relating to national security or terrorism. These convictions include treason under section 47 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 (subsection 10(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act); a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code (subsection 10(2)(b) of the Citizenship Act) and certain offences under the National Defence Act, RSC 1985, c N-5 and the Security of Information Act, RSC 1985, c O-5. Where the citizen holds, or could have a right to dual nationality, the Strengthening Citizenship Act provides for the revocation of citizenship and designation of that individual as a foreign national, which may lead to deportation from Canada.

[99] Given these principles, it is clear that Parliament must enjoy exclusive and unqualified legislative competence over citizenship, subject only to constraints of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

VI. Conclusion
[100] The application for judicial review is dismissed. The matter in respect of which judicial review is sought, the decision to grant royal assent, is a legislative act and not justiciable. The respondents are not federal boards exercising a power or jurisdiction conferred under an act of Parliament. In any event, the substantive argument with respect to constitutionality of the Strengthening Citizenship Act fails. Section 8 of the Strengthening Citizenship Act is within the legislative competence of Parliament.

JUDGMENT
.
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application is dismissed, with costs. If parties cannot agree on the amount of costs, submissions of no more than five pages in length may be made within 10 days from the date of this decision.

Although this application was thrown out, Trudeau would soon be elected, making this all a non-issue. Still, it’s absurd beyond belief that foreigners who come to Canada only to engage in these crimes should have people fighting for their rights.

9. Trudeau Liberals Introduce Bill C-6 (2016)

In early 2016, the Trudeau Government introduced Bill C-6, to remove the requirement that foreign born dual nationals be deported if convicted of terrorism or treason. In short, Trudeau did in the legislature what Rocco Galati failed to accomplish in Federal Court.

10. Rights Of Canadians Don’t Matter

Lawyers have a well deserved reputation for being scum, and these are just a few examples of it. Societal norms and protections are undermined under the pretense of “rights” for people who enter Canada with the intention of doing harm.

Just as bad are the lobbyists, politicians, NGOs, and others who undermine our laws to let these people in. Islam is not compatible with a Western Society, and we should not make any effort to accommodate it.

Foreign NGOs should not be allowed to influence laws and policies in Canada. For that matter, foreigners shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office — because their loyalty will always be divided.

Media #14: Culture Shift Well Underway To Accepting Wearing Mandatory Masks (CV #22)

What do these women have in common? They are all wearing mind control devices on their heads. It’s meant not just to control their thoughts and actions, but that of those around them, demonstrating their submission. Also see this and see this for those articles. More on the Muslims at the end.

Post of some random commenter on Toronto Star article.

1. Media Bias, Lies, Omissions And Corruption

CLICK HERE, for #1: Unifor in bed with Federal Gov’t
CLICK HERE, for #2: Global News’ selective truth on TRP granted.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Post Media owning most Canadian media.
CLICK HERE, for #4: conservative content dominated by Koch/Atlas.
CLICK HERE, for #5: origins of Malcolm’s “charity” True North Canada.
CLICK HERE, for #6: the people running the Post Millennial.
CLICK HERE, for #7: how to do research, investigative journalism.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Koch/Atlas both sides, AB court challenge.
CLICK HERE, for #9: picking up on predictive programming.
CLICK HERE, for #10: Trudeau Foundation & media embeds.
CLICK HERE, for #11: Trudeau swapped out for body double?
CLICK HERE, for #12: Shanifa Nasser, racism narrative, FHA.
CLICK HERE, for #13: George Floyd “murder” was staged psy-op.

2. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

CLICK HERE, for #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying.
CLICK HERE, for #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines.
CLICK HERE, for #4: Gates using proxies to push vaxx agenda.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Crestview Strategy, GAVI’s lobbying firm.
CLICK HERE, for #6: people GAVI/Crestview lobbied follow Gates.
CLICK HERE, for #7: M-132, Canada financing pharma research.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Canada/WHO & “vaccine hesitancy” research.
CLICK HERE, for #9: Raj Saini, lobbied by big pharma (M-132).
CLICK HERE, for #10: pharma lobbying in Alberta legislature.
CLICK HERE, for #11: ON Pharma; Bill 160 Not Implemented.
CLICK HERE, for #12: 2006 report recommends surveillance/vaxx.
CLICK HERE, for #13: more on who Theresa Tam really is.
CLICK HERE, for #14: AbCellera gets $175.6M from Ottawa.
CLICK HERE, for #15: refusing forced medications and vaccinations.
CLICK HERE, for #16: Koch/Atlas, both sides in AB court challenge.
CLICK HERE, for #17: the CV industry emerging in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for #18: buying “vaccine bonds”; GAVI/GPEI grants.
CLICK HERE, for #19: the Vaccine Confidence Project.
CLICK HERE, for #20: aborted babies used for vaccine development.
CLICK HERE, for #21: Gates’ many allies in pharma lobbying.

3. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Tam’s reversal on masks.
http://archive.is/cLhZw
CLICK HERE, for CTV: cultural shift to accepting masks
http://archive.is/97RPc
CLICK HERE, for Government now supports face masks.
http://archive.is/RBGB3
CLICK HERE, for Alberta mask program launched.
http://archive.is/z9kFu
CLICK HERE, for QC strongly recommends masks.
http://archive.is/I7QmQ
CLICK HERE, for the Guardian, on QC hypocrisy.
http://archive.is/Es9BB
CLICK HERE, for NB orders mandatory masks in public buildings.
http://archive.is/4Rnno
CLICK HERE, for NB backtracks on mandatory masks.
http://archive.is/d6QF0
CLICK HERE, for Cote St Luc makes masks mandatory.
http://archive.is/EcftZ
CLICK HERE, for Fauci admits mask wearing is symbolic.
http://archive.is/8QXqs
CLICK HERE, for BI rebuke to computer modelling.
http://archive.is/zBK0P
CLICK HERE, for VICE strike over PPE.
http://archive.is/6fmIm
CLICK HERE, for Children’s Health Defense article on CV.
http://archive.is/q3zAY

CLICK HERE, for Austrian girls wearing hijab for protection.
http://archive.is/5NqIG

4. Following Content Involves Speculation

This should go without saying, but I don’t know 100% that this is what they have in mind. Am trying to make sense of otherwise bizarre and random series of events. So take everything you read from that perspective.

5. Why Cover This Subject?

This may come off as alarmist, but will address it anyway. After seeing events unfold, it’s impossible to believe that events unfolding are not being done for public SAFETY, but for public CONTROL instead.

It’s really brilliant strategy. Shut down entire sectors of society and strip away civil rights. Inflict mental, financial and psychological stress to such a degree that people will be desperate to end it. BY end it, this means go back to the “new normal” as they call it, but ceding that certain rights will be gone forever.

Why do this? If people are willing to wear masks full time (and accept the health risks associated with them), then they will submit to nearly anything. Seeing widespread use in public will have the psychological effect of convincing doubters that there is a real health emergency.

Of course, there is a self-fulfilling prophecy element here. Wearing masks for a long time can cause breathing problems, or make existing ones worse. As such, it may be reported that more people are getting sick, presumably of this virus. Hence the need for more draconian measures.

When other more drastic events happen, such as protests over “systemic racism” across the Western World, the mask issue will get lost in the noise. This of course is done on purpose. Although no government official came out and said publicly this will be permanent, the end result is that it will be. That is of course, unless people stand up to it, and soon.

This is not about public safety, but about public control. And if people are willing to accept a “culture shift” where this becomes normal, what else would they accept?

Does this sound paranoid? Perhaps, but consider the following sections and topics before you decide.

6. Real Reason Tam Flip Flopped

Theresa Tam had been questioned why this change of heart happened. Cynics suggested she downplayed the situation to buy time so that China (where she’s from) could purchase Canadian supplies. While plausible, there is another possible motive, a psychological one.

If face masks had been made mandatory early on, there would likely have been public backlash. This is especially true since the death waves didn’t materialize. So the opposite approach was taken.

By intentionally causing a shortage of PPE, the Canadian Government can cause a panic in claiming that more cases are coming. This takes longer, but makes the shift a lot less obvious. Of course, people are desperate to get their livelihoods back after months long shutdown.

People can get back to work, but only if they wear a mask. And only if they accept other conditions, and conditions to be named later.

7. Culture Shift Is A Major Goal

OTTAWA — Ottawa’s top doctor suggests a “culture shift” is needed to accept people wearing masks or face coverings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Medical Officer of Health Dr. Vera Etches has been recommending Ottawa residents wear masks to protect themselves from COVID-19 for several weeks.

Now, Ontario’s Ministry of Health and Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam are recommending Canadians wear non-medical face masks when maintaining a two-metre distance isn’t possible.

During a Town Hall with Ottawa’s Board of Trade on Wednesday afternoon, Dr. Etches suggested a “culture shift” is needed to accept wearing a face mask to protect yourself and others from COVID-19.

Speaking on Newstalk 580 CFRA’s Ottawa Now with Kristy Cameron, Dr. Etches said wearing a mask or face covering is a “new behaviour” Canadians have never been asked to do before.

“It’s a new behaviour that we want to make more normal. So shifting the culture,” said Dr. Etches.

“Typically, previously before if we saw someone wearing a mask we’d wonder ‘oh, are they sick’ and be kind of concerned. I think what we’re looking for now is to recognize that people are wearing masks to protect others.”

Ottawa’s Emergency and Protective Services General Manager Anthony Di Monte told reporters on Wednesday afternoon that OC Transpo and Ottawa Public Health are working together on developing a policy for masks on OC Transpo buses and the O-Train.

Di Monte added he doesn’t think the city wants to explore a bylaw mandating people wear face masks in public places and businesses.

The Chair of the Board of Health, Councillor Keith Egli says Ottawa wants to get “buy-in” from the public on wearing masks, just like how everyone bought in to the need for physical distancing to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

“We’ve seen from the actions of our citizens in the past that they get the importance of physical distancing, and I’m confident they’ll get the importance of wearing a mask when that’s impossible.”

You heard it straight from the source. The goal is “shifting the culture” so that Canadians get used to wearing a mask in public. They would rather not push a law to mandate it, but instead get people to accept it internally.

Perhaps we are just animals who need to be trained in a new behaviour. Seems to be where things are going.

Why they would prefer to “shift the culture” as opposed to making such things mandatory? Quite simply, less backlash or chances to be challenged if the masses can be manipulated into doing it willingly.

8. Provinces Jump On Board

She said Public Health will be posting the updated recommendations on medical masks online today, noting that the recommendation isn’t mandatory and will allow for public health officers across Canada to consider their area’s needs.

In the hours after her announcement, public health officers from various provinces began echoing the recommendation. Dr. David Williams, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health, said that as people continue to enter public settings they should be wearing non-medical masks.

“In certain situations such as transit where you cannot be assured that you’ll be able to guarantee that two metre or six foot distance, and we are recommending, strongly recommending the use of [a] facial covering, non-medical, in that time so as to prevent any further transmission to others and to respect their space as well as your space in that regard,” Williams said.

Quebec’s Deputy Premier Genevieve Guilbault also encouraged her province’s residents to adopt the habit of wearing a non-medical mask when in public.

“It’s a new habit that we’re going to have to develop and cultivate. It’s not instinctive for us and perhaps doesn’t come naturally for us yet to wear a face covering when you leave your home, but we must absolutely develop that habit,” she said, speaking in French.

Infectious Disease Specialist Dr. Abdu Sharkawy said the latest recommendation is a prudent one, but cautioned that Canadians should not ease up on other public health efforts.

Whether they are complicit in the scam, or just useful idiots, Provincial politicians and officials are once again parroting the talking points of Theresa Tam. This comes despite her repeatedly giving contradictory information.

Forget the conflicting advice. Forget the computer modelling that has been laughably wrong. Forget about the people who have recovered and internally developed antibodies. Don’t stop to think that if this virus (assuming it exists) was anywhere near as deadly as predicted, people would be dropping like flies.

9. Alberta Begins Mask Program

Quebec is asking its residents to wear a mask if they leave their house. Alberta’s chief medical officer of health Dr. Deena Hinshaw said her recommendation is for Albertans to wear a mask if they are going somewhere where they will be two metres from another person.

Hinshaw also stressed that wearing a mask does not replace public health measures.
.
“Even if someone is wearing a mask, it’s still really important to try and maintain that distancing as much as possible. There may be a mistaken impression that if a group of friends want to get together and have a party, as long as everyone is wearing a cloth mask, they can do so and there’s no problem at all,” she said.

Yes, people should be wearing masks, but don’t assume you would otherwise still enjoy your freedoms.

10. Quebec “Strongly Recommends” Masks

Premier Francois Legault, his health minister and the public health director all donned masks as they entered a media briefing in Quebec City – the first time they have done so. “A good way to greatly reduce the contagion is to wear a mask,” Legault said. “We strongly recommend that you do so.

But Legault said the province won’t make masks mandatory for now, unlike such places as France and New York State, where they are required while using public transit.

Legault said the government doesn’t want to discriminate against those who are unable to buy or make their own masks. Legault also said it would be difficult legally to order that masks be worn, because they haven’t been proven to be 100 per cent effective in stopping the spread of the virus.

But Montreal civil rights lawyer Julius Grey said the mask doesn’t need to be perfectly effective to be made mandatory. It is enough that the benefit be “reasonably probable” to gain an exemption under Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – which outlines a balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of society, he said.

Grey said forcing people to wear masks might infringe on individual rights but it would be considered a “reasonable limit” as long as the mask rules were not too draconian.

“It’s only common sense,” Grey said. “These are charter rights, but they can be limited for something as serious as COVID.”Grey noted that the Quebec government’s own secularism law prohibits certain public servants deemed to be in positions of authority – including teachers, judges and police officers – from wearing religious symbols, such as turbans, kippas and hijabs.

“How is it they can prohibit the hijab, but they can’t mandate and enforce the mask for public safety?” Grey asked with a laugh.

Grey noted that most physical distancing measures introduced since COVID-19 raise charter issues. He said that’s likely to repeat when a vaccine for coronavirus emerges, given there are many opposed to vaccination despite the need to protect society as a whole.

Quebec’s public health department last month began offering instructions for homemade masks. And last week, Montreal’s transit authority announced it would distribute 600,000 masks in the coming weeks to transit users, saying they would not be obligatory because it wouldn’t be able to enforce the rule.

Quebec public health director Dr. Horacio Arruda said Tuesday he wouldn’t hesitate to make masks compulsory if necessary. “But when we make it mandatory, we will make sure that people who cannot afford them cannot be discriminated against compared to those who can,” Arruda told reporters.

So it’s not being made mandatory in Quebec, at least for now. However the goal is to apply social pressure to people into conforming, to get the public to force skeptics into compliance.

Masks are being given out for free. Of course they are. If you want someone to submit to absurd demands, then make it as easy as possible for them to do so.

Interestingly, this puts Quebec in the strange position of proposing mandatory masks for health reasons, even as they banned face coverings for being a security risk, and diluting their culture.

It’s rather disturbing to see this article. While it is cloaked in the language of “strongly recommended”, it also clearly talks about making it mandatory, and whether it would survive a Charter challenge in court.

11. New Brunswick & Mandatory Masks

The province also announced new rules for wearing face masks.
.
“When outside of the home, and in any location in which physical distancing of 2 metres is not possible, people must wear a face covering that covers their mouth and nose,” the government said in a news release. “Effective June 9, everyone entering a building open to the general public must wear a face covering. Children under the age of two, children of any age while attending licensed early education and childcare facilities, and those unable to wear face coverings due to medical issues are exempt from these requirements.”

On June 5th, the New Brunswick Government announced that masks would be mandatory for entering any public building as of June 9th. That was reversed a day later, which sounds great. However, the reversal was not one of principle, but of putting extra burdens on people. Potentially it could still happen later.

11. Cities Implementing Mask Use

Toronto Mayor John Tory has given consideration to the idea, but hasn’t made it law yet.

MONTREAL — A municipality on the island of Montreal is boasting that it has become the first jurisdiction in Canada to make wearing a mask mandatory for anyone entering a business or a city-owned building.

Cote St-Luc Mayor Mitchell Brownstein said his council passed the bylaw on Monday, and businesses have two weeks to comply. Fines for businesses and individuals who violate the bylaw range from $100 to $500, he said.

Brownstein said all business owners will be required to post a sign provided by the city alerting clients to wear a mask upon entry. He said exceptions will be made for people with asthma or other health conditions or disabilities preventing them from wearing masks.

He said his office researched the situation across the country and found no other town or province that has gone this far. “We want to make Cote St-Luc the safest place for people to shop, and hopefully the provinces in Canada will follow,” Brownstein said in an interview Tuesday.

On Monday, Ottawa’s transit commission voted to make mask-wearing on public transit mandatory starting June 15, but officials said they will not prohibit unmasked people from boarding.

Cote St-Luc has gone further and made masks mandatory. Let’s see how long this lasts.

Even within businesses, this mind control can be implemented. By denying people access without masks, such as Whole Foods, Longo’s, it makes submission more and more likely

Granted, retailers may ease up. However, it’s chilling to see them risk losing customers to this hoax. But as long as the businesses are doing it voluntarily, it’s not government overreach.

An article by VICE inadvertently looks at the issue in a different light. Could demanding your own subjugation be viewed as a human right worth striking over?

And no, this is by no means limited to Canada. Parts of the United States and other countries are also implementing various degrees of the same program.

That one is from New Mexico, but the same idea applies.

12. Mandatory Masks On Travel

COVID-19 is a global public health challenge that has changed the daily lives of people around the world, and ensuring the safety and security of Canadians remains the Government of Canada’s top priority.

Today, the Minister of Transport, the Honourable Marc Garneau, announced new measures requiring all air passengers to have a non-medical mask or face covering to cover their mouth and nose during travel. These measures come into effect at noon EDT on April 20, 2020.

Domestic travel has now been somewhat reopened. The catch? Submitting to wearing a mask. This on top of the other nonsense that is pushed on passengers.

This is also being done by ebus.

Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown, who “identifies” as a conservative, announced on June 3rd that face masks will be mandatory for public transit. It was such as urgent matter it won’t actually be implemented until July 2nd.

This is problem isn’t just in Canada. Take a look at our Southern neighbour, and you will see some of the same behaviour.

Certainly images like this (forcing people off buses), create bad optics for officials, but there are other ways to achieve the same goals.

13. Anthony Fauci Flip Flops On Masks

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1246790212694487040
https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1246210376351592448
https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1244020292365815809

Not only have Canadian officials been laughably incompetent, but so have the American ones. Fauci of course is the public face, but the Surgeon General seems to toe the line. However, one might ask if this had been calculated ahead of time: to appear to be unprepared in order to frighten the public.

Dr. Anthony Fauci now says that a second wave of COVID-19 may not even happen and that wearing a mask is largely symbolic at this point.

In a Wednesday interview with CNN’s “Newsroom,” Fauci — member of the White House’s coronavirus task force — said that a second COVID-19 wave is not necessarily inevitable.

“We often talk about the the possibility of a second wave, or of an outbreak when you’re reopening,” Fauci explained. “We don’t have to accept that as an inevitability.”

Anthony Fauci has finally admitted that masks really are just symbolic, and that the dreaded “repeat waves” were just speculation. So the U.S. was largely shut down on guesswork.

14. Press Briefings Are Hoax

These press conferences are a farce in the sense that the reporters are wearing masks strictly for show. They take them off as soon as the camera is off. And the President doesn’t even bother.

Despite the obvious signs that this is a hoax, on the state level, mask requirements are piling up. The site, MASKS4ALL.CO tracks it by state level. So far, 14 have statewide orders. The website also recommends contacting your Member of Congress to push for wider laws.

15. Worthless Computer Modelling


Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020

To long to go into here, but the computer modelling used to make these predictions has been debunked. In fact, the researchers have a long history of overinflated predictions. To be clear, modelling isn’t proof of anything — it’s guesswork. Yet major decisions are made because of it.

For a great summary of this, Jill Colton did a video on it. She drops a lot of truth bombs in it.

16. Shift To Race Riot Psy-Op

The murder of George Floyd by Derek Chauvin made international news. The video is still widely available online, which is strange considering the censorship levels that YouTube and other outlets engage in.

Another obvious thing: it wasn’t Derek Chauvin that did this. Look at the side by side pictures (one of the perpetrator, the other of Derek Chauvin’s mugshots. They look nothing alike, yet the media is being silent on it. Chauvin isn’t the man responsible, and in retrospect, we don’t even know that Floyd is dead, or that it was even him.

One would think that having the police department burned down would cause someone to speak out publicly that the man who allegedly killed Floyd wasn’t the officer in question. If telling the crowd that “it wasn’t one of our people” doesn’t work, what approach would you take?

Of course, don’t expect the mainstream media to cover this story properly. Here is Jennifer Mayerle perpetuating the coronavirus psy-op with her mask, while she covers the George Floyd psy-op in her talk. Mayerle clearly has trouble breathing with her mask on (just listen to her), but the act must keep going.

This is from NBC News. How messed up is it to be forced play along with the “pandemic” psy-op, while being charged with serious crimes resulting from the Floyd psy-op?

See how effective this has been? By intentionally shutting down entire sectors of society, governments have made people desperate to return to normal. And they can, if a few freedoms are permanently given away.

Now that the media attention is focused on rioting (from the psy-op listed earlier), the media has a new crisis to focus on. Wearing masks is “the new normal”. We need to move on and focus on the systemic racism that is breaking our nations apart.

17. Tam Supports Protest, Wear A Mask

https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623514258976768
https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623515311747076
https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623516389736455
https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623517362814976

Forget all that “social distancing” that was all the rage before. Forget about staying at home whenever possible, and avoiding crowds. None of that matters anymore. Protesting is totally fine, just WEAR A MASK.

18. Protesting Exemption For Racism

This is disturbing on many levels. Then man pretending to be Trudeau, and his adoring public, are wearing useless masks to protect themselves from a fake pandemic. While doing that, they are taking a knee to atone for the non-existent problem of systemic racism. Of course, the real Trudeau has worn blackface several times, and openly calls Canadians “racist”.

It’s hard to tell how many people actually are taking this seriously. Nonetheless, it is chilling to see Canada, or anyone, go down this path.

Nonetheless, there has been a very successful bait and switch performed here. The “planned-emic” started out in slow motion, but then more and more rights were taken away. The economy is slowing being allowed to reopen, but in a controlled fashion. The new normal is one where face coverings will be expected, if not required or legislated.

Of course the obvious question has to be asked: why in the world would Tam, or anyone RECOMMEND that people attending protests on these loaded subjects conceal their faces? Is the goal to create anarchy and chaos?

19. Make Public Submission Easy/Affordable

Alberta plans, at least for now, to make free masks available virtually everywhere to encourage their use. Make Albertans think these free gifts are for their benefit.

There’s actually a trend that is emerging: deny a person access to a place of business, but provide free masks at the entrance. The reason? To make it “easier” for people to go about their day. Just one catch: they must agree to a face covering.

The plan of course being to change behaviour and culture in the long term.

20. Parallel With Islamic Head Coverings

Okay, we finally get to the topic of contrasting the forced wearing of face masks with forcing girls and women to wear the hijab. There are a lot of the same techniques at play here.

  • Wear a hijab as part of 1 world vision
  • Wear a hijab to show you’re not a bigot
  • Wear a hijab as an act of solidarity
  • Wear a hijab to avoid harassment/rape
  • Wear a hijab to avoid being arrested
  • Wear a hijab to avoid being killed

World Hijab Day is a real thing: it’s to celebrate the head coverings, even for people who aren’t Muslims. Of course, this all looks fine and dandy. Never mind the very real fact that in many countries, women don’t have the choice, but are forced to wear one.

Then there is this approach: if you won’t wear a hijab in order to avoid harassment or sexual assault, do it to avoid Islamophobia and show tolerance. Remember, not all Muslims are bad people, and you should be more accepting of them.

Yes, wearing a hijab to show solidarity with the group is something that has been suggested by both Muslims, and non-Muslim useful idiots.

According to the EU Times, even in 2016, Austrian girls were putting the hijab on to prevent assault and harassment from Muslim men. Despite the girls not being Muslim, or having anything to do with that culture, they WILLINGLY put the headscarf on in order to protect themselves. Many would say that not allowing such incompatible people in would be a great idea. Many would support deporting such people. Instead, the pressure is put on locals to conform for their own safety.

Also see this video by One America News Network.

In other countries, women are actually arrested for refusing to wear the hijab. Punishment can come in the forms of a fine, lashings, imprisonment, or a combination thereof. Remember, in the West, people are told to embrace the hijab as empowerment.

Not the first honour killing to happen. A 16 year old was killed by her brother and father, at least partially, for refusing to wear a hijab. This happened in Canada.

Many women will say they wear it willingly, but are they really? Some will yes, but is fear of harassment, abuse, rape, or arrest contributing to many more wearing it? Is it really a choice when it is made under duress? How much is due to family pressure?

21. Consequence Of Mask Refusal

The comparison of face masks to the Muslim head scarf may seem absurd on the surface, but consider what is happening already in parts of the West.

  • People are being fined for refusing to wear one
  • People are prohibited from taking public transit
  • People are prohibited from flying without a mask
  • People are prohibited from entering certain stores
  • Certain jobs now require a mask at all times

Certainly, there isn’t an exact duplication, but there are parallels. Even in the West, women began “willingly” wearing the headscarf to avoid physical and emotional attacks.

The virus mask, on the other hand, seems to be enforced with a more Chinese style “social credit” type of way. Restrict things that the public is allowed to access without it.

In both cases, mental manipulation is required to sustain it.

TSCE #17: Bill C-32/C-75; Lowered Age Of Consent; Reduced Penalties For Crimes Against Children

In 2016, Justin Trudeau announced that it was a priority to lower the age of consent for anal sex from 18 to 16. This was done under the guise of equality, and not treating people differently due to sexual orientation.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

CLICK HERE, for #1: series intro and other listings.
CLICK HERE, for #2: suing for the right to illegally enter U.S.
CLICK HERE, for #3: the U.N.’s hypocrisy on sexual abuse.
CLICK HERE, for #4: fake refugees gaming the system.
CLICK HERE, for #5: various topics on subject.
CLICK HERE, for #6: Islamic sexual violence on women/children.
CLICK HERE, for #7: UNHCR party to S3CA, consultations req’d.
CLICK HERE, for #8: UN blurs line between smuggling/irregular.
CLICK HERE, for #9: more UNODC research into smuggling.
CLICK HERE, for #10: allowing illegals violates int’l treaties.
CLICK HERE, for #11: NGOs in court to open CDA’s borders.
CLICK HERE, for #12: the Zionist roots of Amnesty Int’l NGO.
CLICK HERE, for #13: Canadian Council of Refugees NGO.
CLICK HERE, for #14: NGOs coordinate illegal Roxham Rd. crossings.
CLICK HERE, for #15: Ex-Israeli Ambassador David Berger.
CLICK HERE, for #16: NGOs in court for decades to open borders.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for previous review on Bill C-75, terrorism.

CLICK HERE, for Bill C-32, introduced in November 2016.
http://archive.is/p1AqH
CLICK HERE, for text for Bill C-75, criminal matters.
http://archive.is/QYxr0
CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Criminal Code.
CLICK HERE, for Parliamentary study on Bill C-75.
http://archive.is/efXwo

3. Context For This Piece

A mea culpa to begin with: although Bill C-75 was covered in the fall of 2018 (see previous review), it seems that I missed the more subtle aspect of the bill. Watering down penalties for terrorism offences was only part of it. C-75 was also a smokescreen for bringing more degeneracy to Canada, but under the radar. Yes, most terrorism committed in the West is done by Muslims, and that was how to accomplish this.

The agenda can be summarized as such:

  • Focus on ideology, reduced terrorism penalties
  • Let other perversions slip through

Most commentators (yes, guilty here too), focused on the terrorism and let far too much of the other content go pretty much unnoticed. It’s time to fix that.

One particular example, was the Prime Minister using the opportunity to slip in a clause to lower the age of consent (for anal) from 18 years old to 16, by repealing Section 159 of the Criminal Code. It was previously introduced in Bill C-32, but because of a public backlash, it never got past first reading. By embedding it in Bill C-75 instead, it passed almost unnoticed.

After some serious thought, this article will be made part of the TSCE series (trafficking, smuggling, & child exploitation). The reason being, that Bill C-75 makes it easier to harm children by reducing the penalties for child predators and child sex predators.

4. Bill C-32 Introduced In November 2016

Criminal Code
Amendment to the Act
R.‍S.‍, c. 9 (3rd Supp.‍), s. 3
1 Section 159 of the Criminal Code is repealed.

Clause 1: Existing text of section 159:
.
159 (1) Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act engaged in, in private, between
(a) husband and wife, or
(b) any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more,
both of whom consent to the act.
.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2),
(a) an act shall be deemed not to have been engaged in in private if it is engaged in in a public place or if more than two persons take part or are present; and
(b) a person shall be deemed not to consent to an act
(i) if the consent is extorted by force, threats or fear of bodily harm or is obtained by false and fraudulent misrepresentations respecting the nature and quality of the act, or
(ii) if the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the person could not have consented to the act by reason of mental disability.

Yes, lowering the age of consent for anal sex was apparently a priority of the Trudeau Government from early on. One has to wonder why there is this level of pandering. A cynic may suspect there could be a personal stake in getting the age lowered.

However, the public was very unhappy and suspicious about this bill, and why this was a priority for the government. What is interesting is that although Bill C-32 never got past first reading, the idea of lowering the age of consent still went ahead. Instead, it would be slipped into Bill C-75.

A serious alternative: if Trudeau wants all sexual acts to be treated the same, what would be wrong with RAISING the age of consent for all acts to 18? This is normal in many countries.

5. Bill C-75 Brought In March 2018

Yes, just a single line in Bill C-75 mentions the repeal of Section 159 of the Canadian Criminal Code. Of course, if you didn’t know what to look for, or didn’t have a copy handy. you wouldn’t know what it meant.

Think this over: Bill C-32 was met with public hostility over the proposal to lower the age of consent for anal sex. So that Bill is allowed to die, while the provision is slipped into Bill C-75.

  • Keep talking about (Islamic) terrorism, penalties
  • Let other degeneracy, perversions go ahead

The sleight-of-hand worked out as planned. While Canadians were rightly shocked at the prospect of having terrorism offences hybridized (available for either summary or indictable method for trial), instead of only the more serious indictable, this was allowed to pass. That way, the other items would get little to no scrutiny. And yes, this site is also guilty of the oversight.

6. Bill C-75 Used Partly To Divert Attention

These are the areas of Bill C-75 which the media focused on. Certainly, they are very serious, and need to be addressed. These are the offences which are now “hybridized”, meaning they are eligible to be tried summarily.

  • Section 52: Sabotage
  • Section 65: Rioting
  • Section 69: Neglect by peace officer
  • Section 82: Possession of explosives
  • Section 83.02: Providing property for certain purposes
  • Section 83.03: Making services/property available for terrorism
  • Section 83.04: Using property for terrorism purposes
  • Section 83.18(1): Participation in terrorist activity
  • Section 83.181: Leaving Canada to participate in terrorism
  • Section 83.23(1): Concealing who carried out terrorism
  • Section 280(1): Abduction of child under age 16
  • Section 281: Abduction of child under age 14

Now let’s briefly address some of the more disturbing aspects of Bill C-75 that weren’t covered by the mainstream or alternative media.

  • Section 58: Fraudulent use of citizenship
  • Section 159: Age of consent for anal sex
  • Section 172(1): Corrupting children
  • Section 173(1): Indecent acts
  • Section 180(1): Common nuisance
  • Section 182: Indecent interference or indignity to body
  • Section 210: Keeping common bawdy house
  • Section 211: Transporting to bawdy house
  • Section 242: Not getting help for childbirth
  • Section 243: Concealing the death of a child
  • Section 279.02(1): Material benefit – trafficking
  • Section 279.03(1): Withholding/destroying docs — trafficking
  • Section 279(2): Forcible confinement
  • Section 291(1): Bigamy
  • Section 293: Polygamy
  • Section 293.1: Forced marriage
  • Section 293.2: Child marriage
  • Section 295: Solemnizing marriage contrary to law
  • Section 435: Arson, for fraudulent purposes
  • Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime

See what’s going on here? The focus is on some of the more blatant and obvious crimes, and how they have become “hybridized” offences. Yet some extremely serious ones are mostly ignored, despite the same thing happening to them.

In later sections of the bill, it discusses access to justice, and reducing the standards for accused people to be released until trial.

7. Hybridization Of Offences Continues

Corrupting children
172 (1) Every one who, in the home of a child, participates in adultery or sexual immorality or indulges in habitual drunkenness or any other form of vice, and thereby endangers the morals of the child or renders the home an unfit place for the child to be in, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

172 (1) Every person who, in the home of a child, participates in adultery or sexual immorality or indulges in habitual drunkenness or any other form of vice, and by doing so endangers the morals of the child or renders the home an unfit place for the child to be in, is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) [Repealed, R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 6]

Indecent acts
173 (1) Everyone who wilfully does an indecent act in a public place in the presence of one or more persons, or in any place with intent to insult or offend any person,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months.

Indecent acts
173 (1) Everyone who wilfully does an indecent act in a public place in the presence of one or more persons, or in any place with intent to insult or offend any person,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Yes, corrupting children, and committing indecent acts against children now, thanks to the Trudeau Government, are eligible to be tried summarily. How exactly does this help protect children? The punishments for doing these crimes are reduced.

Common nuisance
180 (1) Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby
(a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
(b) causes physical injury to any person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Common nuisance
180 (1) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who commits a common nuisance and by doing so
(a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
(b) causes physical injury to any person.

Also worth noting is that Section 181 (spreading fake news to create mischief) has been repealed as a criminal offence.

Marginal note:
Dead body
182 Every one who
(a) neglects, without lawful excuse, to perform any duty that is imposed on him by law or that he undertakes with reference to the burial of a dead human body or human remains, or
(b) improperly or indecently interferes with or offers any indignity to a dead human body or human remains, whether buried or not,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 178

note:
Dead body
182 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who
(a) neglects, without lawful excuse, to perform any duty that is imposed on him by law or that he undertakes with reference to the burial of a dead human body or human remains, or
(b) improperly or indecently interferes with or offers any indignity to a dead human body or human remains, whether buried or not.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 1822019, c. 25, s. 63

Interfering with a dead body, even indecent interference, or indignity to a corpse can now be tried summarily.

Neglect to obtain assistance in child-birth
242 A female person who, being pregnant and about to be delivered, with intent that the child shall not live or with intent to conceal the birth of the child, fails to make provision for reasonable assistance in respect of her delivery is, if the child is permanently injured as a result thereof or dies immediately before, during or in a short time after birth, as a result thereof, guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 226

Neglect to obtain assistance in childbirth
242 A female person who, being pregnant and about to be delivered, with intent that the child shall not live or with intent to conceal the birth of the child, fails to make provision for reasonable assistance in respect of her delivery is, if the child is permanently injured as a result of the failure or dies immediately before, during or in a short time after birth, as a result of the failure, guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 242 2019, c. 25, s. 82

Yes, it’s no big deal if you don’t bother to call for help when about to give birth. If the child dies, covering it up doesn’t seem very important either. What a twisted direction to be going.

Concealing body of child
243 Every one who in any manner disposes of the dead body of a child, with intent to conceal the fact that its mother has been delivered of it, whether the child died before, during or after birth, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 227

Concealing body of child
243 Every person who in any manner disposes of the dead body of a child, with intent to conceal the fact that its mother has been delivered of it, whether the child died before, during or after birth, is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 243 2019, c. 25, s. 82

As for those people wanting to participate in multiple marriages, forced marriages, child marriages, or other such abominations, guess what? Lesser penalties are heading your way.

Polygamy
293 (1) Every one who
(a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into
(i) any form of polygamy, or
(ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time,
whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or
(b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii),
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Polygamy
293 (1) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who
(a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into any form of polygamy or any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage; or
(b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in paragraph (a).

Polygamy typically involves one man having several wives. It opens the door to abuse and exploitation, since the “wives” generally don’t have the same rights as the man. Of course, there is nothing to say that these are child marriages and/or forced marriages.

Forced marriage
293.1 Everyone who celebrates, aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is marrying against their will is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
2015, c. 29, s. 9.

Forced marriage
293.1 Every person who celebrates, aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is marrying against their will is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction
2015, c. 29, s. 92019, c. 25, s. 115.

Forced marriage amounts to sex slavery. Typically, it is a very young girl forced to “marry” a much, MUCH older man. What sane person would make this eligible to be tried as a summary offence? This crosses the line for any so-called cultural accommodations and crosses into (child) exploitation.

Marriage under age of 16 years
293.2 Everyone who celebrates, aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is under the age of 16 years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
2015, c. 29, s. 9

Marriage under age of 16 years
293.2 Every person who celebrates, aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is under the age of 16 years is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
2015, c. 29, s. 92019, c. 25, s. 115

Given that very young children are not able to give informed consent, would this not be the same exploitation and child sex slavery as addressed above?



Marginal note:
Pretending to solemnize marriage
294 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years who
(a) solemnizes or pretends to solemnize a marriage without lawful authority; or
(b) procures a person to solemnize a marriage knowing that he is not lawfully authorized to solemnize the marriage.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 2942018, c. 29, s. 29

Pretending to solemnize marriage
294 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who
(a) solemnizes or pretends to solemnize a marriage without lawful authority; or
(b) procures a person to solemnize a marriage knowing that he is not lawfully authorized to solemnize the marriage.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 2942018, c. 29, s. 292019, c. 25, s. 116.

Why would someone pretend to solemnize a marriage? It could be because the terms of the marriage would not be accepted in everyday society, such as child marriages, or forced marriages.

Arson for fraudulent purpose
435 (1) Every person who, with intent to defraud any other person, causes damage by fire or explosion to property, whether or not that person owns, in whole or in part, the property, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Arson for fraudulent purpose
435 (1) Every person who, with intent to defraud any other person, causes damage by fire or explosion to property, whether or not that person owns, in whole or in part, the property, is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

So burning down your place of business or home (and endangering the public) could possibly be tried summarily. Just make sure that you set the fire for the insurance money.

Participation in activities of criminal organization
467.11 (1) Every person who, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament, knowingly, by act or omission, participates in or contributes to any activity of the criminal organization is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Participation in activities of criminal organization
467.11 (1) Every person who, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament, knowingly, by act or omission, participates in or contributes to any activity of the criminal organization is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Smuggling children across the border, or providing children for these marriages could be considered organized crime. Perhaps that is why they were included in the hybridization list.

And of course, lowering the age of consent for anal sex was addressed in previous sections. There are many provisions in Bill C-75 that were not addressed. The likely reason was that the terrorism changes made were so shocking.

8. Submissions In Bill C-75 Hearings

CanadianAllianceForSexWorkLawReform-e
The Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform made a submission for the Bill C-75 hearings, asking for restrictions to sex work be removed. The rationale being that having portions of the “job” that were not fully legal endangered the workers and limited their access to courts and the police if need be.

UNICEFCanada-e
UNICEF also made a submission in the hearings. They claim that their mandate is to advocate for the well being of all children. That extends to both child victims of crime, and child criminals. While the intent may be good, foreign institutions should not be trying to influence Canadian law.

CanadianCentreForGenderSexualDiversity-e
The Canadian Centre for Gender & Sexual Diversity made a submission, including a list of items they thought should have been included in Bill C-75.
1-Bill C-75 fails to address sex work criminalization
2-Bill C-75 fails to protect intersex children from non-consensual surgery
3-Bill C-75 fails to repeal the ‘bawdy house’ laws or obscenity laws that disproportionately affect queer and trans people
4-Bill C-75 fails to properly define marginalized person

VancouverRapeReliefAndWomensShelter-e
The Vancouver Rape Relief wrote in support of the “reverse-onus” burden in domestic violence cases, where men would have to show that they deserve bail. However, the group laments that “rich white men” will be able to get off the hook, while men of colour will more often remain locked up. Oh, intersectionality at its finest.

CanadianCentreForChildProtection-e
The Canadian Center for Child Protection spoke very critically about certain changes which would weaken the penalties for abduction of children and forced marriages. A well written piece, but pretty sad that these facts need to be stated.

It was also addressed in the previous review that changes were being made to (for the most part) make it easier for accused criminals to get out on bail and to remain out even when breaching conditions. Crime just isn’t something the government takes seriously.

9. Liberals All Voted For This

All Liberal MPs voted for Bill C-75. Every single one who was in the House of Commons. They all voted for a Bill that reduces the criminal penalties for terrorism offences, and crimes against children. Regardless of whether the vote was whipped (it probably was), MPs in the government should have been standing up against this.

10. More Then Just Terrorism At Stake

The review from 2018 seems to be incomplete, so a follow up was called for. While terrorism related charged were prominent in the bill, there were many other things that needed to be addressed as well.

Slipping in content from Bill C-32 (lowering the age of consent for anal sex) was just one thing that wasn’t discussed in the media. Seems that when Bill C-32 died, the discussion died as well. A cynic might wonder if the exclusive focus on the terrorism elements was deliberate.

(a) Focus on the reduced penalties for terrorism offences
(b) Ignore the degeneracy, child exploitation aspects of the bill

In watering down penalties in this manner, the Trudeau Government puts people — particularly children — in danger. It is difficult to comprehend how this makes children safer when the potential punishments for crimes against children are reduced.

Under the guise of criminal justice reform, the Trudeau Government is making it more likely that children will continue to be harmed. After all, Bill C-75 reduces potential penalties for serious crimes against children.

Hopefully this gives a more rounded summary of Bill C-75 than the what last article did.

Solutions #12: Perserve The Spiritual Founding Of The West

1. Previous Solutions Offered

CLICK HERE, for #1: Offering something to the other side.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Canada should leave the UN entirely.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Dumping multiculturalism and feminism.
CLICK HERE, for #4: More births instead of replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Restore 1934 Bank of Canada Act
CLICK HERE, for #6: Abolish Human Rights Tribunals Entirely.
CLICK HERE, for #7: Abolish Gladue, fix underlying problems.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Banning (political) corporate welfare.
CLICK HERE, for #9: Putting a total moratorium on immigration.
CLICK HERE, for #10: How to do research, investigative journalism.
CLICK HERE, for #11: Have proper entry/exit border system.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms.
http://archive.is/CtL2f
CLICK HERE, for DOJ postings on CDN Charter case rulings.
http://archive.is/DPNZC
CLICK HERE, for the Quarantine Act of 2005.
http://archive.is/5phw1
CLICK HERE, for the Emergency Act of 1985.
http://archive.is/sbbGs

(a) R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 SCR 697
(b) Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2000] 2 SCR 1120
(c) Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, [2006] 1 SCR 256
(d) Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44
(e) R. v. N.S., 2012 SCC 72
(f) Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72

CLICK HERE, for Pew Research, 2013 religious trends.
http://archive.is/boEQH
1948.UN.Convention.Genocide.Prevention.Punishing

3. Context For This Article

This piece addresses the coronavirus “planned-emic”, but in the larger context of an attack on religion.

Over the last few months, the priorities and demands of various governments has seemed illogical, conflicting, and downright nonsensical. Here are just a few examples:

  • Abortion is still considered an essential service, but performing marriages is something that can wait
  • Interprovincial travel restricted, but foreigners still allowed in
  • Mass unemployment gets worse, but foreign workers still imported
  • Possible arrest for not “social distancing”, but criminals are released for their own safety
  • Religious gatherings banned, but only for some groups

Shutting down the economy and arranging bailouts for cronies is no shocker. However, there is something more nefarious at play, the destruction of Western Society. In particular, there is a continued attack on a major institution that built the West: Christianity.

It’s bittersweet that Prime Minister Trudeau constantly flouts the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms that his father implemented. There seems to be no hesitation to trample on Section 2 (fundamental freedoms).

As officials in Canada (and the U.S) see nothing wrong with forcibly shutting down religious services, the time is long overdue to fight back.

This fake pandemic is blatant, but it’s part of a larger effort. The goal is to erase the Christian founding of Canada and replace it with a mix of: nihilism; Satanism; Islam; diversity and multiculturalism. The ideology which built the West (and its old-stock) are being replaced.

But while these groups enjoy Human Rights Tribunals and special rights fighting for them, Christian groups are told they have to become secular to be ever more accommodating.

Yes, the majority are being told they can’t have an identity and must accommodate everything under the sun. Yet groups that are hostile to Christians are pandered to endlessly. This is a recipe for breaking up Western nations. This pattern applies both to religions and ethnic groups.

4. Theresa Tam Rehearsed Scenario In 2010


Start clip at 56:50. It will give you chills.

Thank you to Civilian Intelligence Network for digging up the film. In what can only be described as predictive programming, or a trial run, Theresa Tam “Canada’s top Doctor” takes part in a 2010 film about a fictional epidemic in Canada. Doesn’t get much more premeditated than shooting a film a decade in advance.

In the film (56:50 to 57:50) Tam talks approvingly (seeming almost giddy) about being able to enforce mandatory quarantines, using tracking bracelets, and only “worry later” about questions of an overreach. It’s difficult to make the clip look worse than it actually is. Seems that life is now imitating art.

The video also talks about mandatory vaccinations. If people refused, they can be taken “to temporary detention centers”. Again, this video was released in 2010, a decade ago.

5. Lobbying/Vaxx Agenda Behind The Scenes

CLICK HERE, for CV #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying.
CLICK HERE, for CV #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation.
CLICK HERE, for CV #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan.
CLICK HERE, for CV #3: Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines.
CLICK HERE, for CV #4: Gates using proxies to push vaxx agenda.
CLICK HERE, for CV #5: Crestview Strategy, GAVI’s lobbying firm.
CLICK HERE, for CV #6: people GAVI/Crestview lobbied follow Gates.
CLICK HERE, for CV #7: M-132, Canada financing pharma research.
CLICK HERE, for CV #8: Canada/WHO & “vaccine hesitancy” research.
CLICK HERE, for CV #9: Raj Saini, lobbied by big pharma (M-132).
CLICK HERE, for CV #10: pharma lobbying in Alberta legislature.
CLICK HERE, for CV #11: ON Pharma; Bill 160 Not Implemented.

If you doubt that government lobbying and the pharma lobby are greatly influencing how this “pandemic” is playing out, consider the content in the above articles. The Federal Government, the Provincial Governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario (among many others), are being lobbied by drug companies.

Furthermore, “depopulation” fetishists like Bill Gates are active in the media claiming vaccines are needed. Globalists everywhere are clamoring for more control of their populations.

There is much more at stake than simply a virus or public illness. Assuming it even exists, the severe overreach cannot be explained merely by hysteria. Something else is in play.

Of course, if Western nations do impose mandatory vaccinations on their citizens, guess which groups will be predominantly impacted?

6. Court Rulings Against Christianity

This page is available on the Canadian Department of Justice website, and lists a few dozen critical cases in Charter precedent. While they may seems appealing on the surface, most are actually quite disturbing. Let’s look at some.

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 SCR 697

10. Hate speech towards targeted groups
James Keegstra was a high school teacher in Alberta who taught his students that Jewish people were evil. He also denied that the Holocaust occurred and said it was invented by Jewish people to gain sympathy. Keegstra was convicted for promoting hatred against an identifiable group based on these statements to his students.
.
Keegstra argued that the Criminal Code prohibitions on hate speech infringed his freedom of expression. The Supreme Court confirmed that the Charter protects all forms of speech, including hate speech, so long as it does not include violence. However, the majority of the Court concluded that the limits the Criminal Code placed on Keegstra’s freedom of expression were justifiable. This is because the limits aimed to protect groups targeted by hate speech and to promote positive relations in a country dedicated to equality and multiculturalism.
.
The Keegstra case serves as a reminder that freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited in situations where there is a need to balance competing interests like respect for difference, equality and multiculturalism.

That’s right. As of 1990, “Holocaust denial” is deemed to be a criminal offense, regardless of how well founded it may be. This also applies even when there no violence sought. The Court considers promoting positive relations to be more important than truth.

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2000] 2 SCR 1120

19. Freedom speech and equality of the LGBTQ2 community
Little Sisters was a specialized bookstore that sold books primarily to the gay and lesbian community. The bookstore imported most of its material from the United States. Customs officials classified the books and other materials as “obscene” which prevented the shipments from entering Canada. Under the customs regime, businesses and individuals in Canada were prohibited from importing “obscene” materials into Canada.
.
Little Sisters challenged the customs rules, arguing that the regime violated freedom of expression and the equality rights of the LGBTQ2 community. The Supreme Court concluded that the customs regime did limit freedom of expression, but that most of the law could be justified as a reasonable limit on this right. However, the Court found that the way that the customs officials were applying the law violated the equality rights of the customers of Little Sisters bookstore because the officials were applying a discriminatory standard to their materials compared to those aimed at a heterosexual audience.
.
This case helped pave the way for further recognition of the rights of sexual minorities in Canada and also confirmed that freedom of expression protects the right to receive materials like books. The case also highlighted that both laws and the actions of all government officials must respect the Charter.

So Customs was within its discretion to not allow obscene material into Canada. However, the gay rights screamed discrimination and had their property admitted anyway. Now that drag queen story hour is a reality, will denying child pornography now be constitutionally protected?

Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, [2006] 1 SCR 256

24. Religious freedom in school
Gurbaj Singh Multani was an orthodox Sikh student who believed that his religion required him to wear a kirpan at all times, including at school. A kirpan is a religious object worn by people of Sikh faith that looks like a dagger. Multani and his parents agreed with the school board’s request that he seal the kirpan in his clothing at all times while wearing it at school. However, the school board’s council of commissioners told Multani that he could not wear the kirpan to school even if it was sealed in his clothing because bringing dangerous objects to school violated the school’s code of conduct.
.
The Supreme Court found that the council’s decision infringed Multani’s freedom of religion. Multani sincerely believed that his Sikh faith required him to wear the kirpan and the prohibition on wearing it would have prevented him from attending public school altogether. The school board had not justified that a full ban on wearing kirpans in school was a reasonable limit on freedom of religion. There had never been a violent incident involving a kirpan at school and there was no evidence that the kirpan itself was a symbol of violence. The Court’s decision provides important guidance on the relationship between religious freedom, multiculturalism and public education in Canada. A total ban on wearing kirpans in schools ignores the importance of respect for minorities and religious tolerance in Canada’s multicultural society.

It seems that knives are a public safety issue in Canadian schools, and must be banned. That doesn’t seem to apply, though, when people of non-Christian religions complain that it’s mandatory.

Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44

29. Supervised injection sites
In 2003, health authorities in British Columbia opened a supervised drug injection site to combat the epidemic of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. In order for the operation of these sites to be considered legal, the federal Minister of Health must grant an exemption from the prohibitions of possession and trafficking of controlled substances. In 2008, the BC health authorities made an application for a new exemption before the previous one expired. The Minister denied the application. The organization that ran the site and a number of its clients argued that the Minister’s decision violated the right to life, liberty and security of the person.
.
The Supreme Court found that the Minister’s decision would prevent injection drug users from accessing life-saving health services. As a result, the health of the clients would be threatened and their lives would be endangered. Evidence showed that in over the 8 years of its operation, the safe injection site had proven to save lives with no known negative impact on public safety or health. The Minister’s decision went against the public safety objectives it was supposed to be pursuing. It was also arbitrary, meaning it had no rational connection to the government’s stated purpose of protecting lives and health. The Court ordered the Minister to grant the exemption.

Rather than getting these people real treatment, the BC Health Authorities decided that funded that taxpayer funded narcotics was a better solution. Additionally, BC would also cover the salaries and building overhead needed for this operation to function.

R. v. N.S., 2012 SCC 72

31. Balancing competing rights and freedoms: religious freedom and trial fairness
After N.S. was sexually assaulted, the Crown called her as a witness in the preliminary inquiry of her accused attackers. For religious reasons, N.S. asked to testify wearing a niqab, a head scarf that covers the face except the eyes. The judge ordered her to remove her niqab, but N.S. argued that making her do so would infringe her right to religious freedom.
.
The majority of the Supreme Court held that if wearing the niqab poses no serious risk to trial fairness, a witness who wishes to wear it for sincere religious reasons may do so. This case requires judges try to find a way to balance freedom of religion and trial fairness if the two rights conflict with each other. More generally, this case highlights the need for public institutions to accommodate religious difference as much as possible so everyone feels respected, while still upholding other Charter-protected rights and freedoms.

Most adults will know that a lot of information can be gleaned from facial expressions. In criminal cases, being able to properly cross examine a witness is very important. Having the face covers denies the other side the chance to fully get a read on the person. Additionally, it is extremely disrespectful to have this coming into the courts at all.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72

32. Sex work and the right to security of the person
Terri Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott were current or former sex workers who challenged three provisions of the Criminal Code which criminalized various activities relating to prostitution, including:
-public communication for the purposes of prostitution
-operating a bawdy house
-living off of the avails of prostitution
.
They argued that these restrictions deprived sex workers of their right to security by forcing them to work in secret, which prevented them from adopting important and life-saving safety measures, even though prostitution itself was legal.
.
The Supreme Court decided these provisions violated the right to security because they increased the serious risks sex workers faced on a daily basis. The government had not proven that the provisions were a proportionate response to the harms of social nuisance and the exploitation of sex workers. The provisions were unconstitutional because they went too far in terms of the conduct they prohibited as compared to the social harms they were supposed to address. In addition, the very serious impact of some of the prohibitions on sex workers’ safety was “totally out of sync” with the objective of the law.

The Canadian authorities have an obligation to ensure that the most degenerate and disgusting acts are performed safely. Perhaps not engaging in it at all would be safer, but who am I to judge?

So what do we have here?

  • Holocaust denial is an actual crime
  • Degeneracy allowed into Canada as gay rights
  • Sikhs can bring knives to school
  • Taxpayer funded narcotics is a human right
  • Muslims can conceal their faces while testifying
  • Laws changed to make sex work safe
  • Ex-pats with citizenship allowed to vote
  • Criminals allowed to vote while in prison

The above rulings of course are just a small piece of what has been happening in Western countries. While Christianity (the foundation of the West) is being stripped away, other groups are able to come in and use the courts to impose their ideologies.

Another important one to list is marriage being redefined. While it is arguable how much harm this causes, the gay rights movement has proceeded to demand that institutions such as churches host their weddings, and that bakers make their cakes. So much for not imposing on others.

What is obviously the best option is to stop the ever increasing demands for accommodation. Alternatively, Christians need to start militarizing the courts to have their interests protected. Being passive about it will only lead to their destruction.

Simply being tolerant and accepting of other groups does not work when they seek to replace your way of like with theirs. This is what multiculturalism brings: eventually the host(s) get replaced by the foreigners who are allowed in.

What is the consequence of laws and rulings that strip away the founding religion of the country? Eventually you end up with a group, (despite being a majority), have no real rights. And when they become a minority — as demographics shift — they will become targeted.

7. Churches Shut Down During “Planned-Emic”

Government across the West are ordering religious congregations to stope while the alleged “pandemic” is putting everyone in danger. However, it is nice to see that some are willing to defy what are illegal and unconstitutional orders. This is in the U.S., but things are starting to happen in Canada as well.

Having such incidents videotaped and splashed across the internet causes headaches for the police, who come across looking heavy handed and fascistic. It also creates problems for politicians who claim to support freedom of religion and be religious themselves.

If the court can’t or won’t act to defend these fundamental freedom, then perhaps good old fashioned shaming and humiliation will do the trick.

8. Fighting For Freedom Of Religion

Now let’s get into the Charter a little bit:This is going to be a bit out of order, though done intentionally. The purpose is to go through the mental process of standing up for your rights

Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

These are the fundamental freedoms that any modern society would have. The content of section 2 is very similar to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Without these fundamental freedoms, you are essentially living in a dictatorship. There are 2 provisions in the constitution which will help

Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances

Primacy of Constitution of Canada
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.
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).

If your rights are being violated, you can cite one of — or both — Sections 24 and 52. Section 24 states that you have the right to seek a remedy in court, and section 52 states that laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no effect. (Note: The Charter is a subset of the Constitution as a whole). But, it is not quite as simple as that, and here is why:

Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Section 1 is very important here. Plainly put, it says that the government must be able to justify any Charter violation it causes in any of the further sections. While a difficult burden, it’s often not impossible to meet.

If you believe that these forced church closures violate your Section 2 rights (fundamental freedoms), you can go to court to assert that. Should you be able to prove it, the burden then shifts to the Government to establish that these violations are justified under Section 1.

Interestingly, these prohibitions seems almost exclusively aimed at Christians. Most likely, Muslims would react violently if treated the same way.

Now, would a court find that these restrictions are reasonably justified? The answer is not as clear cut as many would like. It would largely depend on information coming from the Office of Public Health, and laws such as the Quarantine Act or Emergencies Act.

Let’s ignore for the time being that this pandemic is a hoax, and that the courts are politically stacked. Let’s assume it were to play out in a fair way.

9. Quarantine & Emergencies Act

Quarantine station
6 (1) The Minister may establish a quarantine station at any place in Canada.
Marginal note:
.
Provision and maintenance of area or facility
(2) The operator of a facility in which a customs office, within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Customs Act, is located shall, when required in writing by the Minister, provide and maintain free of charge any area or facility, along with its fixtures, that the Minister considers necessary for establishing a quarantine station

Quarantine facilities
7 The Minister may by order designate any place in Canada as a quarantine facility and amend, cancel or reinstate the designation.

Well, so much for properties rights if any place in Canada can simply be deemed a quarantine station by the Minister, with no say so by the owners or tenants.

Duty to provide
8 (1) Any person in charge of a place shall, at the request of the Minister, provide that place to the Minister if, in the opinion of the Minister, the temporary use of the place as a quarantine facility is necessary to protect public health.
Marginal note:
Deeming
(2) The place is deemed to be designated as a quarantine facility.
Marginal note:
Compensation
(3) The Minister may compensate any person for the Minister’s use of the place.
Marginal note:
Consultation
(4) The Minister shall consult with the provincial public health authority of the province in which the place is situated before taking possession of it.

The Minister “may” compensate the owners for property that is seized and used but they don’t have to. Also, while the Province must be consulted, it doesn’t say they have to agree.

Arrest without warrant
18 A peace officer may, at the request of a screening officer or quarantine officer, arrest without a warrant and bring to a quarantine officer any traveller who the peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe has refused to be isolated or refuses to comply with a measure under subsection 15(3).

Offence committed intentionally
67 (1) Every person is guilty of an offence if they cause a risk of imminent death or serious bodily harm to another person while wilfully or recklessly contravening this Act or the regulations.
Marginal note:
Punishment
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both; and
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $300,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.

The problem is that so much in this Quarantine Act is discretionary, and leaves citizens with no real rights. The act is too long to cover in a single article, but the link is provided.

National emergency
3 For the purposes of this Act, a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that
(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or
(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada
and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.

Declaration of a public welfare emergency
6 (1) When the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, that a public welfare emergency exists and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures for dealing with the emergency, the Governor in Council, after such consultation as is required by section 14, may, by proclamation, so declare.
Marginal note:
Contents
(2) A declaration of a public welfare emergency shall specify
(a) concisely the state of affairs constituting the emergency;
(b) the special temporary measures that the Governor in Council anticipates may be necessary for dealing with the emergency; and
(c) if the direct effects of the emergency do not extend to the whole of Canada, the area of Canada to which the direct effects of the emergency extend.

Orders and regulations
8 (1) While a declaration of a public welfare emergency is in effect, the Governor in Council may make such orders or regulations with respect to the following matters as the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, are necessary for dealing with the emergency:
(a) the regulation or prohibition of travel to, from or within any specified area, where necessary for the protection of the health or safety of individuals;
(b) the evacuation of persons and the removal of personal property from any specified area and the making of arrangements for the adequate care and protection of the persons and property;
(c) the requisition, use or disposition of property;
(d) the authorization of or direction to any person, or any person of a class of persons, to render essential services of a type that that person, or a person of that class, is competent to provide and the provision of reasonable compensation in respect of services so rendered;
(e) the regulation of the distribution and availability of essential goods, services and resources;
(f) the authorization and making of emergency payments;
(g) the establishment of emergency shelters and hospitals;
(h) the assessment of damage to any works or undertakings and the repair, replacement or restoration thereof;
(i) the assessment of damage to the environment and the elimination or alleviation of the damage; and
(j) the imposition
(i) on summary conviction, of a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both that fine and imprisonment, or
(ii) on indictment, of a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding five years or both that fine and imprisonment,
for contravention of any order or regulation made under this section.

There are some problems with the Emergency Act, and they are much the same as with the Quarantine Act. The Act allows the Government broad, sweeping powers, with little in the way of oversight.

How does having entire cities in lockdown, and shutting down religious services make the public safer? The government knows so little about this virus, that it is cutting off the well being and livelihoods of people in the name of scaremongering.

Both the Emergency Act (1985) and the Quarantine Act (2005), have been on the books for a long time. Would invoking either of them be a reasonably justified used of limiting people’s fundamental freedoms, which are guaranteed under Section 2 of the Charter? Would the circumstances allow the infringement to be justified under Section 1?

Most people would say no. And most wouldn’t want important things — such as weekly services — shut down for such vague reasons. However, if Government agents were to CLAIM there is an ever present threat, they may be able to get away with it for a time.

While there is little interest in packed grocery stores (although that is changing), religious services need to be shut down almost entirely. This is not about public safety, but about control.

If the public officials are acting on the orders from near dictatorial politicians, and the courts are unable or unwilling to intervene, what options do we have?

10. Tips On Fighting Back

First, understand that according to Pintea v. Johns (2017), court officers now have a legal obligation to go the extra mile to ensure that self represented people get a fair hearing. It isn’t option.

Second, in most cases (criminal court) there will be a duty counsel that you can speak to — for free — to get general information on how to proceed.

Third, legal research is within the grasp of most everyone with decent reading skills. My favourite is https://www.canlii.org/en/, where there is a wealth of free information. The skill involved is a combination of searching Google and Wikipedia.

Fourth, all of the rules you need to know are freely available online. This includes the Canadian Criminal Code (if applicable), and the Rules for Civil Procedure in your Province.

This experience will be frustrating, but standing up for your rights is within the grasp of most people. You can always pay for a lawyer later if need be.

People who do get arrested, or who are ticketed for practicing their faith (or some other harmless activity) should fight back. Contest the ticket, and fight any charges. If it’s something you and you family are comfortable with, publish the incident, and feel free to out the police officer or by-law officers.

While this does seem daunting, the overwhelming majority of these cases will be quietly dismissed. Why? Because the authorities don’t want a lingering public headache.

But think it through before making a hasty decision.

11. Demographic Replacement Of Christianity

About 20% of Canada’s current population was born in some other country. With such a large presence, immigrants have had a substantial impact on Canada’s religious landscape (as in the United States, where immigrants – including those who are unauthorized – make up an estimated 13% of the total population.)

In the 1970s and 1980s, Canada’s foreign-born population was smaller, largely European and overwhelmingly Christian. In recent years, however, rising numbers of immigrants – nearly half of Canada’s immigrant population – have come from Asia, Africa and the Middle East. In the U.S., by comparison, three-in-ten of all foreign-born residents have come from these three regions.

In Canada, disaffiliation has increased markedly within some generations as they have aged. For example, one-in-ten Canadians born between 1947 and 1966 had no religious affiliation in 1981, but one-in-five are unaffiliated as of 2011. Even Canada’s older adults (those born in 1946 or earlier) have experienced gradual increases in disaffiliation; their rate of disaffiliation has gone from the single digits in the 1970s to double digits in recent years. In the U.S., by contrast, the share of people with no religious affiliation has been fairly stable within each generation over time (though disaffiliation has ticked up slightly among American Baby Boomers – those born between 1946 and 1964 – and Gen Xers – those born between 1965 and 1980).

As the geographic origins of Canadian immigrants have shifted, so has their religious makeup. A majority of immigrants (56%) who arrived during the 1970s were either Catholic or Protestant, while about a quarter were affiliated with other religious traditions, including Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, and Judaism. Since 2001, about four-in-ten (39%) new Canadian immigrants have belonged to these religious minorities, the same as the share of new immigrants (also 39%) who identify as either Catholic or Protestant. Because immigrants comprise more than a fifth of Canada’s population, the rising share of immigrants who belong to religious minorities has had a substantial impact on the religious composition of the overall population.

This 2013 report from Pew Research details Canada’s changing religious landscape over recent decades. It correctly points out that huge amounts of immigration is in fact changing the overall landscape.

12. Pop’n Replacement Is Spiritual Replacement

This seemingly absurd statement makes sense when you put it into context. Every year, Canada is bringing in large numbers of people from countries that are of a very different religious makeup. Consequently, there is a large demographic shift going on.

(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18, 19 of the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19, 20 of the 2007 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 21, 22 of the 2008 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)

(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)

(1) 2004 Annual Report to Parliament
(2) 2005 Annual Report to Parliament
(3) 2006 Annual Report to Parliament
(4) 2007 Annual Report to Parliament
(5) 2008 Annual Report to Parliament
(6) 2009 Annual Report to Parliament
(7) 2010 Annual Report to Parliament
(8) 2011 Annual Report to Parliament
(9) 2012 Annual Report to Parliament
(10) 2013 Annual Report to Parliament
(11) 2014 Annual Report to Parliament
(12) 2015 Annual Report to Parliament
(13) 2016 Annual Report to Parliament
(14) 2017 Annual Report to Parliament
(15) 2018 Annual Report to Parliament
(16) 2019 Annual Report to Parliament

Note: this by no means it everyone who enters Canada in those years. In particular, it leaves out large numbers of students and temporary workers.

Nonetheless: look at who is actually staying in Canada. Each year we bring in people from India (Sikh and Hindu), China (Communist, Atheist), and various Middle Eastern and African nations (Islam). While the people coming in are not monolithic, these trends do have a significant impact on the religious demographic changes in Canada.

Interestingly, there doesn’t seem to be much of a difference in Liberal and Conservative immigration policies. Neither care about maintaining the demographic or founding ideologies of the West. Of course if you bring any of this up, you will be called a bigot.

All they focus on is:
(a) Singing the praises of diversity
(b) Perceived economic growth — ie cheap labour

13. Spiritual Replacement Is Genocide


Consider the UN Convention on preventing and punishing genocide.

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

1948.UN.Convention.Genocide.Prevention.Punishing

Despite the West being founded on Christianity, our “leaders” see nothing wrong with bringing hordes of other ideologies over. They are given free reign and protected status, while Christians must become more secular and accommodating. I wonder how tolerant these other groups will be as their numbers grow. This is all while “conservatives” crow about how tolerant they are.

Just like with replacing ethnic groups, replacing religious groups also qualifies as genocide under the 1948 UN Convention.

14. Foreign Religions Taking Over

At the Al-Quds Festival, Muslim man bragging that demographic change will lead to Sharia Law replacing Canadian Law at some point. He cites Pew Research data that suggests Muslims will have a plurality — be the biggest individual group — by 2060.

This man isn’t kidding about Islam becoming the biggest religious group. The goal is world domination, and they are breeding their way to get it. These findings, from Pew Research.

Babies born to Muslims will begin to outnumber Christian births by 2035; people with no religion face a birth dearth.

More babies were born to Christian mothers than to members of any other religion in recent years, reflecting Christianity’s continued status as the world’s largest religious group. But this is unlikely to be the case for much longer: Less than 20 years from now, the number of babies born to Muslims is expected to modestly exceed births to Christians, according to new Pew Research Center demographic estimates.

Muslims are projected to be the world’s fastest-growing major religious group in the decades ahead, as Pew Research Center has explained, and signs of this rapid growth already are visible. In the period between 2010 and 2015, births to Muslims made up an estimated 31% of all babies born around the world – far exceeding the Muslim share of people of all ages in 2015 (24%).

The current age distribution of each religious group is an important determinant of demographic growth. Some groups’ adherents are predominantly young, with their prime childbearing years still ahead, while members of other groups are older and largely past their childbearing years. The median ages of Muslims (24 years) and Hindus (27) are younger than the median age of the world’s overall population (30), while the median age of Christians (30) matches the global median. All the other groups are older than the global median, which is part of the reason why they are expected to fall behind the pace of global population growth.

He’s not wrong at all. Pew Research is predicting exactly that. Muslims will become the biggest religious group in a short time.

Of course, the fact that they murder: Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, gays, blasphemers, apostates, and different sects of Islam “might” have something to do with those changing demographics. They aren’t exactly tolerant.

How is Canada, or any nation for that matter, supposed to retain its heritage when it allows large numbers of people annually from completely different backgrounds who will soon outbreed their hosts?

Muslims maintain their religion and culture. Westerners give it all up in the name of being “diverse and tolerant”. But when push comes to shove, the stronger and more cohesive group will win, especially should civil war break out.

15. Time To Reverse This Trend

The government imposed closing of churches and other religious institutions is an attack on religion itself. None of this is necessary for public health. Instead, this is a show of force, and a show of how much contempt it holds in general for faith.

While the Quarantine Act and Emergency Act are seriously overreaching. There are ways to fight back. And the fighting back must happen. This “pandemic” is a thinly veiled attempt at seizing money and power, and was never about public safety.

Beyond this though: Christianity has been under attack in the West for a very long time. Most overtly, the population replacement agenda has led to the importation of large numbers of people (each year), who have nothing to do with Christianity. Worse still, Liberals and Conservatives (basically the same thing) see nothing wrong with bringing people — like Muslims — who are openly hostile to Christianity.

It’s beyond cliché at this point, but modern Conservatives conserve absolutely nothing. Preserving the spiritual foundations of the Western world is no exception. It’s disturbing how much pride they take in proclaiming that “we don’t play identity politics”, and that “We’re not socially conservative. We support freedom”.

It is group identity and cohesion that is the basis for a society. If Christians (or related denominations) don’t do it, they will be replaced by groups that are cohesive. Islam being an obvious example.

TSCE #12: The Zionist Roots Of Amnesty International

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

CLICK HERE, for #1: series intro and other listings.
CLICK HERE, for #2: suing for the right to illegally enter U.S.
CLICK HERE, for #3: the U.N.’s hypocrisy on sexual abuse.
CLICK HERE, for #4: fake refugees gaming the system.
CLICK HERE, for #5: various topics on subject.
CLICK HERE, for #6: Islamic sexual violence on women/children.
CLICK HERE, for #7: UNHCR party to S3CA, consultations req’d.
CLICK HERE, for #8: UN blurs line between smuggling/irregular.
CLICK HERE, for #9: more UNODC research into smuggling.
CLICK HERE, for #10: allowing illegals violates int’l treaties.
CLICK HERE, for #11: NGOs in court to open CDA’s borders.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for National Post article on S3CA challenge.
http://archive.is/R7JvO
CLICK HERE, for Amnesty Int’l Federal lobbying efforts.
http://archive.is/6Aaj2
CLICK HERE, for Pinnacle Public Affairs, Titch Dharamsi.
http://archive.is/1B3oJ

CLICK HERE, for Peter Benenson, founder of Amnesty International.
http://archive.is/0Vzub
CLICK HERE, for Flora Solomon (Benenson), mother of Peter Benenson.
http://archive.is/mLYW8
CLICK HERE, for the Benenson Society, named for Peter Benenson.
http://archive.is/XfPd
CLICK HERE, for the Benenson Society archives.
http://archive.is/lpVwc
CLICK HERE, for UK Independent obituary on Peter Benenson.
http://archive.is/w8KjQ
CLICK HERE, for Guardian article on Flora Solomon (Benenson).
http://archive.is/plnqO
CLICK HERE, for legacy.com article on Benensons/AI.
http://archive.is/Z7uql
CLICK HERE, for NY Times on Grigori Benenson (Paywall)
http://archive.is/0FpCR
CLICK HERE, for Jewish Press article on AI.
http://archive.is/WfdT4

3. Why Should Canadians Care?

Amnesty International operates in countries across the world, including Canada. It is one of the groups attempting to further open Canada’s borders, by getting the Safe Third Country Agreement struck down in Federal Court.

2018.Diner.Cases.To.Be.Consolidated
2018.calling.more.witnesses
do.we.need.more.intervenors
2019.McDonald.No.More.Intervenors

Hypocrisy from Prothonotary Milczynski and Chief Justice Crampton
Milczynski.Consolidates.Cases
Crampton.Transfers.Consolidated.Cases

While that is obviously a very serious case, let’s look at some other instances of Amnesty International trying to weaponize the Canadian Courts. While striking down the S3CA (and effectively allowing open borders) is a huge issues, it is not at all the only things Amnesty does.

4. AI Lawfare In Canadian Courts

Amnesty International Canada v. Canada (Chief of the Defence Staff), 2008 FC 336 (CanLII), [2008] 4 FCR 546

Amnesty International Canada v. Canada (Chief of the Defence Staff), 2008 FCA 401 (CanLII)

Amnesty International Canada v. Canadian Forces, 2007 FC 1147 (CanLII)

Amnesty International Canada v. Canadian Forces, 2008 FC 162 (CanLII)

Canada (Attorney General) v. Amnesty International Canada, 2009 FC 426 (CanLII)

Canada (Attorney General) v. Amnesty International Canada, 2009 FC 918 (CanLII), [2010] 4 FCR 182

Gitxaala Nation v. Canada, 2015 FCA 73 (CanLII)
Choc v. Hudbay Minerals Inc. et al., 2013 ONSC 998 (CanLII)

Choc v Hudbay Minerals Inc., 2013 ONSC 1414 (CanLII)

Garrick v. Amnesty International Canada, 2011 FC 1099 (CanLII), [2013] 3 FCR 146

Isakhani v. Al-Saggaf, 2006 CanLII 42605 (ON SC)

Jacobson v. Atlas Copco Canada Inc., 2015 ONSC 4 (CanLII)

Mohammad v. Tarraf, 2019 ONSC 1701 (CanLII)

Prophet River First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 120 (CanLII)

Tanudjaja v. Attorney General (Canada), 2013 ONSC 1878 (CanLII)

Tanudjaja v. Attorney General (Canada) (Application), 2013 ONSC 5410 (CanLII)

This is of course no where near the entire list, but Amnesty International has been quite busy using Canada’s courts for its own political goals.

Strange that they are granted “public interest standing” to do these things, but ordinary citizens are not. This of course refers to not allowing Canadian citizens standing to close the loophole in the Safe 3rd Country Agreement.

5. Amnesty International Lobbying Efforts

Although it’s record in the Federal lobbying registry is brief, it is there. Amnesty International has been lobbying the Government with respects to the International Convention on Human Rights.

A more interesting story is on the lobbyist Titch Dharamsi:

Titch Dharamsi, Principal
Titch Dharamsi brings over 15 years of senior public sector and government relations experience to your cause. He has served as lead consultant to a number of major national and international organizations in areas as diverse as tax policy, mining, and international trade. He has an established an impressive record of success in meeting client objectives.
.
While in national government, Titch served as the Senior Policy Advisor and Executive Assistant to a senior federal Cabinet Minister. Prior to that he was a consultant in the corporate finance division of an international consulting company, where he advised on public-private partnerships. Titch also served in the Ontario government as an aide to various Ministers and the Premier, and as an Executive Council Member of a provincial agency.
.
Titch concluded his post-graduate studies at Cornell University, where he was appointed a Fellow of the Institute for Public Affairs and where he founded and edited a prominent public policy journal.
Titch has also contributed to numerous community activities. He has served as Chair of Medical Education for South African Blacks (MESAB – Canada), Secretary of the Ontario Liberal Party, and President of the Madope Development Corporation, which established agricultural and human development projects in rural Tanzania.
.
Associates
In delivering the results crucial to your organization, Pinnacle engages senior associates from numerous sectors, including leading economists, international trade consultants, and former senior public officials.

He was an influential member of both the Federal and Ontario Liberal parties. Good to know he is “really” independent from the people he lobbies.

6. Canadian Chapter Corporate Documents

2017 Director Changes
Notice Of Financials
Organization By-Laws
Certificate Of Continuance

Amnesty International does have a legitimate branch registered in Canada. Problem is, Amnesty International Canada isn’t Canadian. Instead, it is part of a globalist organization to help open the borders of other nations.

7. Peter Benenson Founded Amnesty Int’l

The Benenson Society is named after the now deceased man, and claims to be carrying out more humanitarian work. The archives of the society list many causes around the world. And indeed, many of them sound great.

Problem is: Amnesty International (Benenson’s legacy) still is devoted to helping masses of people around the world cross borders, often without much concern as to whether it is legally or illegally.

For some perspective, A foundation started by a Russian Zionist Jew is helping FOREIGNERS enter other nations, and seems to care little about the legality of it.

8. Benenson’s Obituary (UK Independent)

Peter Solomon (Peter Benenson), barrister and human-rights campaigner: born London 31 July 1921; married first Margaret Anderson (two daughters; marriage dissolved 1972), second 1973 Susan Booth (one son, one daughter); died Oxford 25 February 2005.

Peter Benenson founded Amnesty (later Amnesty International) in 1961 and thereby became the creator of a human-rights movement which now counts more than a million members in 150 countries. His warmth and generosity of spirit gained him friends round the globe. His modesty was such that decades later many, even at Amnesty, did not realise he was the founder of the organisation.

The Benensons were a Russian Jewish family and Peter Benenson’s maternal grandfather, Grigori Benenson, earned a fortune in Tsarist times from banking and oil. The family left Russia at the time of the Revolution. In London Grigori’s daughter Flora met and married Harold Solomon, a member of a City stockbroking family who had risen to Brigadier-General in the First World War. Their only child, Peter Solomon, was born in London in 1921.

Despite the family riches, his was not a happy childhood. In 1920 Harold was attached to the staff of Sir Herbert Samuel, High Commissioner in Palestine, and they went to live in Jerusalem, an entrancing development for the passionately Zionist and untiringly party-mad Flora.

Awaiting the demobilisation which eventually came in 1947 Benenson studied law, preparing himself for a career as a barrister. He joined the Labour Party and the Society of Labour Lawyers. Without success, he tried three times to win a seat in the Commons despite the help given by such as Clement Attlee, Roy Jenkins and Anthony Wedgwood Benn.

According to the obituary, Peter Benenson, from his mother’s side, was wealthy due to successes in banking and oil. His mother, Flora, was a proud and unabashed Zionist. The family was made up of Russian Jews.

Interestingly, Peter goes by his mother’s maiden name (Benenson), and not his birth name, Solomon. One has to wonder why that is.

9. Guardian Article On Flora Solomon

The Guardian also pushed a piece, on Flora Solomon, mother of Peter Benenson (Solomon). She was very proud of her Russian roots, and Jewish ancestry.

A legacy.com publication outlines the family heritage and comments that:

Born July 31, 1921, Benenson was the grandson of Grigori Benenson, a Russian-Jewish banker, and the son of Flora Solomon, who raised him alone after the death of her husband, British army Col. John Solomon.

In fact, there are several mainstream outlets and blogs outlining who Peter Benenson’s family really was, and his Russian/Jewish heritage. And several claim that Flora has long been a proud Zionist.

10. Grigori Benenson, Peter’s Maternal Grandfather

Russian-Jewish banker who made his fortune in oil. The family left Russia at the time of the Revolution.
.
«BENENSON. On April 4, 1939, at Quenn’s Gate, London, W.1, Grigori Benenson, beloved father of Flora, Fira and Manya, and much-loved grandfather of Mira.” (The Times (London, England), Thursday, Apr 06, 1939; pg. 1; Issue 48273.)

Source: Find A Grave

The New York Times, of all places has information on Grigori Benenson and his wealth. Unfortunately, all of it is behind a paywall. But Grigori Benenson was a Russian Jew who made a fortune in oil and banking. Hence, Peter Benenson was set to go from the start.

Ancestry confirms that Peter Benenson (or Solomon) is the maternal grandson of Grigori Benenson, and that Flora is Peter’s Mother.

Some of the blogs have written that Grigori Benenson was actually related to the Rothschild Family. While that is possible, and quite likely, I haven’t independently verified it. If true, it would certainly explain at least in part how he initially became wealthy.

11. Amnesty Int’l Blurs The Line: Legal/Illegal

Who is a migrant?
.
There is no internationally accepted legal definition of a migrant. Like most agencies and organizations, we at Amnesty International understand migrants to be people staying outside their country of origin, who are not asylum-seekers or refugees.
.
Some migrants leave their country because they want to work, study or join family, for example. Others feel they must leave because of poverty, political unrest, gang violence, natural disasters or other serious circumstances that exist there.
.
Lots of people don’t fit the legal definition of a refugee but could nevertheless be in danger if they went home. It is important to understand that, just because migrants do not flee persecution, they are still entitled to have all their human rights protected and respected, regardless of the status they have in the country they moved to. Governments must protect all migrants from racist and xenophobic violence, exploitation and forced labour. Migrants should never be detained or forced to return to their countries without a legitimate reason.

Although not explicitly stated, it is implied that Amnesty International sees international migration as a human right. Again, little to no concern over the legality of these measures.

12. Jews Accuse AI Of Anti-Semitism

Talk about “eating your own”. In this submission from JewishPress.com, Amnesty International is accused of anti-Semitism for criticizing Israel’s expansion into Palestine.

However, according to the report titled “Amnesty International – From Bias to Obsession,” Amnesty has employed people with “open pro-terrorist sympathies, crucially relying on them to provide information upstream that shapes opinion.”

One Amnesty consultant was found to be tweeting support for a terrorist group and sharing advice about hiding the truth to protect what he termed as the “resistance,” a euphemism for terrorist organizations. Another was found advising “factions,” another term for terrorist groups, not to publicly identify “martyrs,” terrorists killed in action, as belonging to terrorist groups.

Amnesty Consultant Hind Khoudary referred to two Islamic Jihad terrorists as “heroes”.

Nadine Moawad, MENA Communications Manager for Amnesty International, referred to Israel as the “Zionist entity” and called for a “full disbanding” of the Jewish state.

“Amnesty’s arsenal is turned towards Israel. All of its departments appear to allocate disproportionate resources to attack Israel. The cumulative effect results in what can only be termed as a never-ending obsession,” Collier wrote.

He also notes “the alignment between Amnesty’s anti-Israel campaigns and the aims of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment & Sanction) movement, which leave little room for doubt that it is coordinated rather than coincidental.
The report said that Amnesty “displays a symbiotic relationship with BDS” and thus concludes that “elements within Amnesty International actively seek to promote the destruction of the Jewish state.”

Because there is a religious aspect to some of the Amnesty content detailed in the report, the report concludes that “the cumulative effect of the organization’s unnatural hostility towards Israel is anti-Semitic.”

Perhaps they never got the message who actually founded Amnesty International. But then again, an awful lot of Jews will cry “anti-Semitism” whenever their BEHAVIOUR is criticized. Still, enjoyable to watch. And there are many such articles on this subject.

13. Nothing Grassroots About A.I.

Amnesty International was founded by Peter Benenson, grandson of Grigori Benenson. Grigori was a Russian tycoon due to his successes in oil and banking. Peter’s mother, Flora, was a proud Zionist.

Despite attempts to portray Amnesty as some sort of grassroots campaign funded on very little money, the truth about its founder speaks volumes.

Amnesty is an NGO, whose purpose (among others) is getting “migrants and refugees” from Country A to Country B. From its own website, it appears to blur the line between people entering legally v.s. illegally.

In an amusing twist, Israelis accuse Amnesty of anti-Semitism for its repeated criticism of what goes on in the West Bank. Interestingly, many of the people at AI don’t give Israel a pass for their behaviour.

Amnesty has also been trying for many years to weaponize the Canadian Courts, and is one of the players currently involved in attempting to have the Safe 3rd Country Agreement struck down. It’s yet another example of trying to open OTHER countries’ borders.

TSCE #11: Who Is Using The Courts To Open Canada’s Borders? (Lawfare)

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

CLICK HERE, for #1: series intro and other listings.
CLICK HERE, for #2: suing for the right to illegally enter U.S.
CLICK HERE, for #3: the U.N.’s hypocrisy on sexual abuse.
CLICK HERE, for #4: fake refugees gaming the system.
CLICK HERE, for #5: various topics on subject.
CLICK HERE, for #6: Islamic sexual violence on women/children.
CLICK HERE, for #7: UNHCR party to S3CA, consultations req’d.
CLICK HERE, for #8: UN blurs line between smuggling/irregular.
CLICK HERE, for #9: more UNODC research into smuggling.
CLICK HERE, for #10: allowing illegals violates int’l treaties.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for CanLII home page.
CLICK HERE, for Court can’t treat “safe country” refugees differently than others.
CLICK HERE, for challenge to Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
http://archive.is/ySLE3

3. Dropping Names

  1. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
  2. B’NAI BRITH
  3. CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF REFUGEE LAWYERS
  4. THE CANADIAN COUNCIL OF CHURCHES
  5. THE CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES
  6. CENTRE FOR ISRAEL AND JEWISH AFFAIRS

Note: these are not, by any means, all of the immigrant/refugee groups operating in Canada. Nor are these all of the groups who have an agenda. However, they are the main players waging war against Canadians in our courts.

4. Amnesty International

ai.01.certificate.of.continuance
ai.02.bylaws
ai.03.changes.in.directors
ai.04.notice.of.financials

Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 7 million people who take injustice personally. We are campaigning for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all.

We are funded by members and people like you. We are independent of any political ideology, economic interest or religion. No government is beyond scrutiny. No situation is beyond hope.

Few would have predicted when we started that torturers would become international outlaws. That most countries would abolish the death penalty. And seemingly untouchable dictators would be made to answer for their crimes.

While this all sounds noble, let’s get specific. Let’s address their attitudes towards migrants and refuges (whom they often blur together).

What is Amnesty’s position on migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers?
.
We campaign for a world where human rights can be enjoyed by everyone, no matter what situation they are in. Amnesty has championed the human rights of refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants for decades.
.
We campaign to make sure governments honour their shared responsibility to protect the rights of refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants. We condemn any policies and practices that undermine the rights of people on the move.

And in case you thought it was hyperbolic to claim that Amnesty International blurs the line between refugees and migrants, consider the following:

Who is a migrant?
.
There is no internationally accepted legal definition of a migrant. Like most agencies and organizations, we at Amnesty International understand migrants to be people staying outside their country of origin, who are not asylum-seekers or refugees.
.
Some migrants leave their country because they want to work, study or join family, for example. Others feel they must leave because of poverty, political unrest, gang violence, natural disasters or other serious circumstances that exist there.
.
Lots of people don’t fit the legal definition of a refugee but could nevertheless be in danger if they went home. It is important to understand that, just because migrants do not flee persecution, they are still entitled to have all their human rights protected and respected, regardless of the status they have in the country they moved to. Governments must protect all migrants from racist and xenophobic violence, exploitation and forced labour. Migrants should never be detained or forced to return to their countries without a legitimate reason.

5. B’Nai Brith

bblhr.01.bylaws
bblhr.02.change.registered.office
bblhr.03.amendments
bblhr.04.certificate.of.incorporation
bblhr.05.director.changes

bbno.01.director.changes
bbno.02.certificate.of.incorporation
bbno.03.change.registered.office
bbno.04.notice.of.financials

The Canadian Chapter will tell you what goes on here.

​Established in 1875, B’nai Brith Canada is Canadian Jewry’s most senior human rights advocacy organization and is the only national, independent voice of Jewish Canadians.

Its dedicated volunteers and professional staff are engaged in strong pro-Israel advocacy, as well as combating anti-Semitism, bigotry, and racism in Canada and abroad. B’nai Brith Canada’s wide-ranging educational and social programming, community and volunteer services, housing, and human rights initiatives span coast to coast and reflect the organization’s commitment to “People Helping People.”

B’nai Brith Canada’s Chief Executive Officer Michael Mostyn has guided the organization since taking over in 2014. In 2007, Embassy Magazine, Canada’s highly acclaimed foreign policy weekly, named B’nai Brith Canada the major Jewish non-governmental organization (NGO) with influence in the foreign policy field.

Just as B’nai Brith Canada has grown and evolved over the years in response to changing needs, so has Canadian Jewry undergone many transformations. Throughout, B’nai Brith Canada has employed its successful advocacy model of strong community and results-oriented grassroots activism.

6. Canadian Association Of Refugee Lawyers

carl.01.directors
carl.02.change.of.office
carl.03.bylaws.2015
carl.04.notice.of.return
carl.05.certificate.of.continuance

Yes, there is an entire organization devoted to helping refugees into Canada, and they are lawyers.

Founded in 2011, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL) serves as an informed national voice on refugee law and the human rights of refugees and forced migrants, and promotes just and consistent practices in the treatment of refugees in Canada. CARL carries out its work promoting the human rights of refugees in the courts, before parliamentary committees, in the media, among its membership via bi-annual conferences, and elsewhere in the public sphere.

CARL’s membership includes over 300 lawyers, academics and law students from across Canada. Relying on the broad experience of this membership, CARL has a mandate to research, litigate and advocate on refugee rights, forced migrants and related issues. CARL recognizes that climate change is a major contributor to forced migration.

Wow, climate refugees.
What complete nonsense.

7. Canadian Council Of Churches

And here is a link to their main page.

It’s not really clear why Christians would be trying to facilitate the mass importation of people from cultures who would kill them for being Christians. But maybe this is Darwinism at work.

8. Canadian Council For Refugees

ccr.01.2019.director.changes
ccr.02.bylaws
ccr.03.bylaws.from.2014
ccr.04.certificate.of.continuance
ccr.05.annual.return

They list some 200 organizations that the CCR partners with.

9. Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs

CIJA: Foreign Interference In Canada’s Democracy
CIJA’s Assault On Free Speech In Canada
CIJA: Information About This Non-Profit

This was covered in previous articles, but is worth an honourable mention. Although working in the political sphere, CIJA has become very influential in Canadian law, including immigration and refugee law.

In the interests of fairness, we cannot also omit the lobbying efforts of various ISLAMIC groups trying to engage in “Hijrah” (conquest by immigration). Plenty of foreign actors who do not have Canadians’ best interests at heart.

10. Know Your Enemies

These are just some of the players in the war to open Canada’s borders and to replace our population, society, culture, and heritage.

While to some, it may seem honourable what they do, don’t dismiss the long term impacts.