Category: Lawfare

Posted on

TSCE #8(F): Bit Of History, NGOs Trying To Open Canada’s Borders For Decades

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Why Canadians Should Care

It should worry Canadians greatly when there is a sustained effort to undermine and erode our borders. The overwhelming majority of people don’t know how far back this goes. Although efforts predate these cases, this is where we will start.

On the first attempt, the Canadian Council of Churches went to court to try to get certain new legislation thrown out. This legislation would have made it harder for people to enter Canada from the U.S. and claim asylum. It went to the Supreme Court, but ultimately, it was ruled the group did not have public interest standing.

3. Court History Over The Years

Again, many more attempts have been made in recent decades to erase borders, but this article will only focus on a few of them.

FIRST ATTEMPT: KILL “SAFE COUNTRY” DESIGNATION
(a) Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3

(b) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada,
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534

(c) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236
1992.SCC.Rules.No.Standing

SECOND ATTEMPT: KILL CANADA/US S3CA
(a) 2008 ruling S3CA has no effect
Docket: IMM-7818-05
S3CA Provisions Struck Down

(b) The 2008 ruling is overturned on appeal
Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada, 2008 FCA 229
Appeal granted, S3CA restored

THIRD ATTEMPT: TORONTO CASES TO STRIKE S3CA
(a) 2017, Prothonotary Milczynski considers consolidation
IMM-2229-17, IMM-2977-17, IMM-775-17
Milczynski Considers Consolidation

(b) 2017, CJ Crampton transfers cases to J. Diner
Crampton Transfers Consolidated Cases

(c) 2017, Justice Diner grants public interest standing
Citation: 2017 FC 1131
Amnesty Int’l, CDN Councils of Churches, Refugees

(d) 2018, Justice Diner grants consolidation of 3 cases
Citation: 2018 FC 396
Cases to be consolidated

(e) 2018, Justice Diner allows more witnesses
Citation: 2018 FC 829
2018.Diner.Calling.More.Witnesses

(f) 2019, Justice McDonald says no more witnesses
Citation: 2019 FC 418
2019.McDonald.No.More.Intervenors

4. 1992: SCC Rules No Standing

1992.SCC.Rules.No.Standing
The CanLII link is here.

Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3
.
Rouleau J. dismissed the application. His judgment reflects his concern that there might be no other reasonable, effective or practical manner to bring the constitutional question before the Court. He was particularly disturbed that refugee claimants might be faced with a 72-hour removal order. In his view, such an order would not leave sufficient time for an applicant to attempt either to stay the proceedings or to obtain an injunction restraining the implementation removal order.
.
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534
.
MacGuigan J.A. speaking for a unanimous Court allowed the appeal and set aside all but four aspects of the statement of claim.
.
In his view the real issue was whether or not there was another reasonably effective or practical manner in which the issue could be brought before the Court. He thought there was. He observed that the statute was regulatory in nature and individuals subject to its scheme had, by means of judicial review, already challenged the same provisions impugned by the Council. Thus there was a reasonable and effective alternative manner in which the issue could properly be brought before the Court.
.
He went on to consider in detail the allegations contained in the statement of the claim. He concluded that some were purely hypothetical, had no merit and failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action. He rejected other claims on the grounds that they did not raise a constitutional challenge and others on the basis that they raised issues that had already been resolved by recent decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal.
.
He granted the Council standing on the following matters raised on the statement of claim

Without getting too much into the technical details, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the Canadian Council of Churches, an organization, should be granted public interest standing to strike down all or part of the immigration laws. Ultimately, the ruling was no.

Disposition of the Result
.
In the result I would dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal on the basis that the plaintiff does not satisfy the test for public interest standing. Both the dismissal of the appeal and the allowance of the cross-appeal are to be without costs.
Appeal dismissed and cross-appeal allowed.
.
Solicitors for the appellant: Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto.
.
Solicitor for the respondents: John C. Tait, Ottawa.
.
Solicitors for the interveners The Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped and The Quebec Multi Ethnic Association for the Integration of Handicapped People: Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, Toronto.
.
Solicitors for the intervener League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith Canada: David Matas, Winnipeg, and Dale Streiman and Kurz, Brampton.
.
Solicitors for the interveners Women’s Legal Education and Action (LEAF) and Canadian Disability Rights Council (CDRC): Tory, Tory, DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto and Dulcie McCallum, Victoria.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court thought that a refugee, someone with actual standing (or something at stake) should be the one making the case.

Also worth noting, consider who some of the intervenors are in this case. A lot of people who want to make it easier to get into Canada.

5. 2008: S3CA, Parts Of IRPA Struck Out

S3CA, Parts of IRPA Struck

IT IS ORDERED THAT this application for judicial review is granted and the designation
of the United States of America as a “safe third country” is quashed.

Yes, the Canada/U.S Safe Third Country Agreement was actually declared to have no legal effect. However, this is not the end of it, as we will soon see.

IT IS DECLARED THAT:
.
1. Paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United
States of America are ultra vires and of no legal force and effect.
2. The Governor-in-Council acted unreasonably in concluding that the United States of
America complied with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the
Convention Against Torture.
3. The Governor-in-Council failed to ensure the continuing review of the designation
of the United States of America as a “safe third country” as required by
paragraph 102(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
4. Paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations and the operation of the Safe Third Country Agreement between
Canada and the United States of America violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are not justified under section 1 thereof.

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS are certified as serious questions of general
importance:
.
1. Are paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and
the United States of America ultra vires and of no legal force and effect?
2. What is the appropriate standard of review in respect of the Governor-in-Council’s
decision to designate the United States of America as a “safe third country” pursuant
to s. 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?
3. Does the designation of the United States of America as a “safe third country” alone
or in combination with the ineligibility provision of clause 101(1)(e) of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is such violation justified under section 1?

If the United States is not a safe country, then why do tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people try to apply for asylum there every year?

The Safe Third Country Agreement was meant to prevent “asylum shopping” from taking place, but that is exactly what this ruling would have allowed.

6. 2009: Previous Ruling Overturned

The impugned Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement are not ultra vires the IRPA. Subsection 102(1) of the IRPA gives the GIC the power to promulgate regulations governing the treatment of refugee claims which may include provisions designating countries that comply with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. This is a broad grant of authority intended to give effect to Parliament’s expressed intent that responsibility for the consideration of refugee claims be shared with countries that are respectful of their Convention obligations and human rights. The factors to be considered before designating a country are expressly set out in subsection 102(2) of the IRPA. The applications Judge’s misapprehended concern that the GIC would have the discretion to designate a country that does not comply with the Conventions led him to transform the statutory objective of designating countries “that comply” into a condition precedent.

The applications Judge adopted a hypothetical approach to the respondent organizations’ Charter challenge, i.e. that a class of refugees would be treated a certain way if they were to present themselves at a Canadian land border port of entry. This approach went against the well-established principle that a Charter challenge cannot be mounted in the abstract. There was no evidence that a refugee would have to bring a challenge from outside Canada. The respondent organizations’ ability to bring the Charter challenge depended on John Doe. As the latter never presented himself at the border and therefore never requested a determination regarding his eligibility, there was no factual basis upon which to assess the alleged Charter breaches. The applications Judge thus erred in entertaining the Charter challenge.

[14] On December 29, 2005, the respondents launched an application for leave and judicial review seeking a declaration that the designation of the U.S. under section 102 of the IRPA was ultra vires, that the GIC erred in concluding that the U.S. complied with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and further, that the designation breached sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. For purposes of clarity, it is useful to set out in full the issues set out in the judicial review application filed before the Court:

[130] In short, a declaration of invalidity of the STCA Regulations is not required in order to ensure that they are not applied to claimants for protection at the land border in breach of either Canada’s international obligations not to refoule, or the Charter.
.
D. CONCLUSIONS
.
[131] For these reasons I would allow the appeal

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Lower Court considered a hypothetical scenario, and wrongly applied it to a Charter challenge. Put simply, Charter challenges are supposed to be ground in fact, and not “what if” situations. The ruling was overturned, and the Safe Third Country Agreement was restored.

7. 2017-Present: Toronto Challenge

Chief Justice Paul Crampton transferred 3 related cases to Justice Diner for case management. This is the same CJ Crampton who ruled that private citizens wishing to oppose the destruction of the S3CA don’t have standing.

Justice Diner granted public interest standing to 3 NGOs: Amnesty International, Canadian Council for Refugees, and Canadian Council of Churches.

Justice Diner order the 3 cases to be consolidated and tried together because of the overlapping issues.

Note: also see here, for decisions from the Federal Court in the matter above.

The case is still pending.

8. So Who Are These NGOs?

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

B’nai Brith League For Human Rights
bblhr.01.bylaws
bblhr.02.change.registered.office
bblhr.03.amendments
bblhr.04.certificate.of.incorporation
bblhr.05.director.changes

B’nai Brith National Organization
bbno.01.director.changes
bbno.02.certificate.of.incorporation
bbno.03.change.registered.office
bbno.04.notice.of.financials

Bridges, Not Borders
Bridges Not Borders, Mainpage
Bridges Not Borders, About
Bridges Not Borders, Why They Cross
Bridges Not Borders, Media Page
Bridges Not Borders, Pro Asylum Shopping

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

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

Plattsburgh Cares
Plattsburgh Cares Main Page
Plattsburgh Cares, Humanitarian Support

Solidarity Across Borders
Solidarity Across Borders’ Homepage
SAB Supports Illegal Migrant Caravans
SAB Supports Sanctuary Cities For Illegals
SAB Calls To Open Up The Borders

These are of course not the only NGOs working to open up our borders (and other nations’ borders as well), but it does at least provide some insight.

Also, see the above links in Section #1 for other articles published on these NGOs.

9. Look At The Bigger Picture

Last fall, the story made the news that a challenge would be coming to Toronto to the Safe Third Country Agreement.

However, the Canadian media left out important information. Shocking.

First, it didn’t go into any detail on the groups lobbying for this. It wasn’t just some helpless “asylum claimants”, but an organized effort to help erase Canada’s border with the U.S.

Second, the full extent of the NGO meddling is not mentioned. True, some media DO reference the 2007 case, but not further. It doesn’t provide a complete picture of what is going on. Nor does it mention how these groups are pushing similar initiatives elsewhere. Amnesty International, for example, claims to have 7 million members pushing to bring more migrants (primarily) to the West. The Canadian Council for Refugees, as another example, spends considerable time and effort lobbying our Parliament for more refugee friendly laws.

Third, there seems little concern for the Canadian who would have their safety and sovereignty eroded should this pass. Instead, the focus is always on people coming to Canada and what their needs are.

This is lawfare: using our courts and legal system to open our borders.

Posted on

The Zionist Roots Of Amnesty International

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/safe-third-country-agreement/final-text.html
(2) https://nationalpost.com/news/court-to-hear-case-on-whether-asylum-agreement-with-u-s-violates-charter
(3) http://archive.is/R7JvO
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=3766&regId=536906
(5) http://archive.is/6Aaj2
(6) http://pinnaclepublicaffairs.com/experience.htm
(7) http://archive.is/1B3oJ

(8) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Benenson
(9) http://archive.is/0Vzub
(10) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flora_Solomon
(11) http://archive.is/mLYW8
(12) https://www.benensonsociety.org/
(13) http://archive.is/XfPd
(14) https://www.benensonsociety.org/campaign-archives
(15) http://archive.is/lpVwc
(16) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/peter-benenson-13233.html
(17) http://archive.is/w8KjQ
(18) https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/04/my-hero-flora-solomon-ben-macintyre
(19) http://archive.is/plnqO
(20) https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/name/peter-benenson-obituary?pid=3219284
(21) http://archive.is/Z7uql
(22) https://www.nytimes.com/1939/04/06/archives/grigori-benenson-noted-financier-former-owner-of-building-at-165.html
(23) http://archive.is/0FpCR
(24) https://www.jewishpress.com/news/israel/boycott/exposed-amnesty-internationals-obsessive-anti-semitic-anti-israel-hatred/2019/12/22/
(25) 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.

Posted on

TSCE #8: Who Is Using The Courts To Open Canada’s Borders? (Lawfare)

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.canlii.org
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2019/2019fc335/2019fc335.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2018/2018fc396/2018fc396.html
(4) http://archive.is/ySLE3
(5) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/safe-third-country-agreement/final-text.html

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.

Posted on

More On Foreign Interference: CIJA, Mozuud, Project Abraham, CPC Infiltration

1. Important Links

Previous Articles
(1) https://canucklaw.ca/foreign-interference-in-canadas-democracy-centre-for-israel-and-jewish-affairs/
(2) http://archive.is/wtNQ9
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/centre-for-israel-and-jewish-affairs-an-assault-on-free-speech-and-democracy-in-canada/
(4) http://archive.is/PyhKT
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/centre-for-israel-and-jewish-affairs-information-about-this-non-profit/
(6) http://archive.is/Oi65q

Corporate Documents
cija.01.directors
cija.02.directors
cija.03.director.changes
cija.04.Form4006
cija.05.Form4022.annual.return
cija.06.Form4006.changes.among.directors
cija.07.bylaws.and.governance
cija.08.certificate.of.continuance

Political Connections
cija.02.directors

2. Context For This Article

In the first piece, we looked at the extended pattern of political lobbying by CIJA, including Senators, and MPs in the House of Commons from all parties. Over 1200 “communications reports” took place over the last 20 years, or about 1 every 6 days.

Period (2019-09-01 to 2020-01-14)

The second article covered the agenda that CIJA was pushing. Beyond generic business interests, CIJA is pushing an anti-free speech agenda. “Hate speech” according to this group, is essentially anything Jews don’t like and can claim to be offended by.

In fact, CIJA has, for many years, been lobbying the Federal Government to make licensing of media personalities mandatory. This is so the Israeli lobby can claim “hate speech” to shut down people and views that they disagree with. It can also be used to silence those who speak uncomfortable truths.

The third article got into the “nuts and bolts” of the organization, including looking at its corporate documents. It’s the paperwork that typical corporations have, but that are not readily available if you don’t know where to look.

Now let’s get into the political and financial ties. While it is obvious that CIJA isn’t the only Jewish organization in play here, they do still play a prominent role.

3. Mozuud Freedom Foundation

mozuud.3rd.party.return
mozuud.directors
mozuud.certificate.of.incorporation
mozuud.form.4022

The Mozuud Freedom Foundation started out as a human rights organization that advocated for free speech, democracy, the rule of law and support of Israel. It recently decided to enter the political fray, mostly on the side of small-c conservative candidates and parties.

Salim Mansur’s name came up often in a telephone interview with Weisdorf. Mansur, a professor of political science at the University of Western Ontario and an immigrant from the Punjab region, is vying for a parliamentary seat in the riding of London North Centre for the People’s Party of Canada (PPC).

Mozuud is in the process of arranging an appearance in Toronto by PPC Leader Maxime Bernier, the former Conservative leadership candidate who left the Tories to create a new party.

“I don’t disagree with any of Bernier’s planks. His policies – I think he’s essentially on the right track,” Weisdorf said.

To get their message out, Mozuud will send email blasts, place ads on radio and in print, and employ other means to influence the campaign.

Weisdorf, who described himself as a “Harper Conservative,” said he’d like to see candidates address a number of issues, such as the BDS campaign against Israel, anti-Zionism on campus, which has morphed into anti-Semitism, the funding of UNRWA, the UN agency that has been accused of siding with Hamas, media subsidization, which Mozuud believes is anti-democratic, and M-103, the parliamentary motion condemning Islamophobia, which Mozuud believes restricts free speech.

This group was awarded third party status by Elections Canada, meaning that they are free to promote their “Israel first” agenda in Canadian politics.

Check out their 3rd Party financials
mozuud.3rd.party.return

If Salim Mansur is such a pro-Israel Muslim, it could explain why Muslim groups don’t want him around. They see him as an infiltrator.

Also interesting that they would be eager to see Maxime Bernier, who now “identifies” as a populist. You can’t be Canada-First and shill for Israel at the same time.

4. Project Abraham (Previously Mozuud)

<

Project Abraham, previously the Mozuud Resettlement and Support for Victims of Persecution, is a Jewish group aiming to being people to the West.

abraham.certificate.incorporation
abraham.director.change
abraham.initial.address.directors
abraham.name.change

5. Mozuud’s Political Preferences

Salim Mansur. London North Centre, Ontario (PPC)– Salim Mansur has been on the front line against extremists for many decades now. As a well-respected professor of political science at Western University, Dr. Mansur has written several books on the threat of Islamism including Islam’s Predicament: Perspectives of a Dissident Muslim and The Qur’an Problem and Islamism: Reflections of a Dissident Muslim. Dr. Mansur is an outspoken advocate for freedom of speech both on campus and in the public arena.

Chani Aryeh-Bain. Eglinton-Lawrence, Ontario (CPC)– Chani Aryeh-Bain is a school teacher, small business owner, community activist and life-long resident of Eglinton-Lawrence where she is raising five children along with her husband David. As a small business owner, Chani understands the important role small business play in bringing jobs and prosperity to out neighbourhoods. Through her work supporting local charities Chani is passionate about the need to increase affordability for families and seniors. With your support she hopes to be able to provide a voice for our community in Ottawa.

Garnett Genuis. Sherwood Park- Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta (CPC)– It is because of Garnett Genuis that a motion passed in parliament to recommend that the Islamic Republic’s Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) be declared a terrorist organization. Although the motion got bipartisan support, the IRGC has not yet been added to the list of terrorist organizations. The Islamic Republic is the world’s leader in state-sponsored terrorism, sent through the arms of the IRGC’s Quds Force. Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthi rebels in Yemen, militants in Nigeria, Bosnia, Sudan and elsewhere have been traced back to the Iranian regime’s ideological paramilitary organization. While some in the media are trying to push the “Iran Deal” and normalization of the Islamic Republic as apolitical good, MPs like Garnett Genuis are greatly needed.

Tahir Gora. Mississauga-Malton, Ontario (PPC)– Tahir Gora, a Muslim of Pakistani origin, has been one of the most important voices against Islamist extremists in Canada. He played an integral role in defeating Sharia courts in Ontario. From 2003-2006, when Ontario was debating whether or not to allow Sharia courts to set up inside the Muslim communities, it was Tahir and his TV station TAGtv that gave a voice to the moderates and liberals within the Muslim community, fighting back against the Islamist push to rule over them. For his work, Tahir has shown the resilience to stand up to multiple threats, including one from the Pakistani ISI made against him.

David Haskell. Cambridge, Ontario (PPC)– When Lindsay Shepard, a teaching assistant at Laurier University, was brought in front of a panel of far-Left inquisitors for the crime of showing a YouTube clip of Jordan Peterson’s appearance on public television, the entire faculty turned their back on her and free speech. All except David Haskell. Haskell was the only professor at Laurier to stand up for the value of free expression, despite the opposition of his peers. Canadian politics needs people willing to stand up for Canadian values, even if it makes them unpopular to certain elites.

Ghada Melek. Mississauga-Streetsville, Ontario (CPC)– Ghada Melek is currently under fire for the crime of criticizing Islamists. Certain organizations are mad that when the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) put up bus stop adds promoting the hijab, Melek offered the other point of view. This being, that the hijab is not a tool of female empowerment. In the Sharia state of Iran, women are beaten or imprisoned for the refusal to wear it. It is strange that no one motioned the questionable actions of the ICNA, like the fact that they endorsed Al Qaeda’s chief recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki up until 2010, and the fact that they currently have literature on their website promoting sexual slavery. http://icnacanada.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Syllabus-for-the-Month-of-March-for-MGAs-and-Workers.pdf

Pierre Poilievre. Carleton, Ontario (CPC)– Too often in politics an MP will back down at the slightest fear of media pressure from a fabricated “controversy”. When Poilievre stated the obvious, that terrorists were responsible for terrorism, not American society, as Justin Trudeau had suggested over the Boston Bombers being made to feel “left out of society”, he was attacked by the mainstream media. Instead of backtracking, he called out the “Liberal pseudo-intellectuals” who contrived this fake controversy against him. For quick proof of his point, could you imagine the reaction if someone said that the primary motivation for the terrorist in Christchurch who massacred the worshipers at the mosque, wasn’t the terrorist or his White Supremacist ideology, but instead New Zealand society for making him feel “left out”.

Interesting that this third party organization supports both CPC and PPC candidates, depending on their views. Can we assume that they are all very much pro-Israel and pro-Zionist?

6. Ex-PM Stephen Harper

Former prime minister Stephen Harper may be a fading star in Canadian politics, but when it comes to Israel, he’s still burning as brightly as ever. He was honoured on Nov. 6, at the official opening of the long-awaited Stephen J. Harper KKL-JNF Hula Valley Visitor and Education Center in the northern Galilee.

Speaking at the event, Harper quoted his late father, who told him that, “No group of people, for its size, has contributed as much (to) humanity, and in so many fields, as have the Jewish people.”

In 2013 the Jewish National Fund (JNF) of Canada thanked him for his unwavering support for Israel and the Jewish people at its annual Negev Dinner in Toronto. According to JNF Canada’s president, Wendy Spatzner, that event was the largest dinner honouring a Canadian prime minister in history. The event raised millions for the Hula Valley visitor centre.

Yes, Stephen Harper is so beloved in ISRAEL, that they built the “Stephen Harper Center” in his honour.

7. Piece By Times Of Israel

This piece by the Times of Israel is a good place to start. Let’s see who will shill for shekels and put Canada last.

The candidates to look out for in the Conservative Party include long-time MPs Peter Kent, Erin O’Toole, and David Sweet. All three have been supporters of Israel and the Jewish community throughout their tenures as MPs and I do not imagine they will stop their much-appreciated advocacy. All have made very positive statements regarding Israel, whenever there is a time that Israel is in some sort of conflict.

Additionally, Garnett Genuis has just served his first term as an MP, however, he also has been outspoken about his support for Israel and the need for peace in the Middle East as a whole. A brand new candidate to keep an eye out on is David Tordjman, who is running in Mount Royal. While he has no experience in federal political office (he does at the municipal level), he too understands the issues facing Israel and the Jewish community.

8. Top CPC Completely Supports Israel

From this B’nai Brith article, it seems that all of the main candidates in the 2016/2017 CPC leadership race all strongly supported Israel.

Even before the race began, and up until now, I have confidently answered that the topic of Israel has been approached by all CPC leadership candidates with uniform levels of support, and that members should focus on other areas of policy that interest them.

One could even argue that former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s staunch and unequivocal allegiance to Israel has now become a staple of the Conservative party. While Harper’s presence still looms large in areas such as fiscal responsibility and foreign affairs policy, the Conservative approach to Israel possesses a resounding permanence thanks to the historic steadfast support of its previous leader. Israel did come up a few times by candidates vying to replace Harper – but only in a way that mirrors his approach.

Of the top seven candidates – those who have the profile, financial backing and momentum in opinion polling that indicates some likelihood of winning this race – Kevin O’Leary, Maxime Bernier, Kellie Leitch, Andrew Scheer, Michael Chong, Lisa Raitt and Erin O’Toole have each expressed their support of Israel, albeit in different ways.

No real difference here. All of these CPC politicians are cucking for Israel. Did they forget that they are supposed to represent Canada?

  • Kevin O’Leary
  • Maxime Bernier
  • Kellie Leitch
  • Andrew Scheer
  • Michael Chong
  • Lisa Raitt
  • Erin O’Toole

9. John Baird: Director Of CIJA

This was addressed previously, but John Baird is currently a (non-voting) Director for CIJA. Sure, no conflict of interest here

10. Andrew Scheer

OTTAWA, Canada — Canada’s opposition Conservatives said Monday they would follow the US lead and recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel if they beat Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals in the next election in 2019.

“Canada’s Conservatives recognize the obvious fact that Israel, like every other sovereign nation, has a right to determine where its capital is located,” the party said on its website.

As such, a Tory government led by Andrew Scheer “will recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital when we form government in 2019,” it said.

CPC Leader Andrew Scheer also panders to Israel, saying he will support the embassy move if he won the 2019 election.

11. Maxime Bernier

Not very “populist”, is it?

12. Erin O’Toole

Ontario MP Erin O’Toole, a former party foreign affairs critic and MacKay’s rival for the leadership, wasted little time in staking out his position on the subject.

“Under Stephen Harper, Canada stood out as a resolute friend of Israel. Sadly, under Justin Trudeau this strong support has weakened. We need a principled Conservative leader who will make Canada a true friend of Israel once again,” O’Toole said in a statement posted to Facebook on the same day as MacKay’s tweet.

“I have been absolutely clear about this and my views have not changed. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The strong presence of the Jewish people there is thousands of years old. But the modern era of Israel – the Knesset is in Jerusalem, the Supreme Court, most of the foreign affairs and government ministries in West Jerusalem.

At a moment when it seemed unclear how much Peter MacKay would pander to Israel, Canada-Last candidate Erin O’Toole made it perfectly clear that Israel is his priority.

13. Peter MacKay

Canada’s Jewish community “knows that the Conservative Party stands shoulder to shoulder with them,” MacKay tweeted. He said that when he was minister of defence, “I made it clear (that) a threat to Israel is a threat to Canada. I will always stand with one of Canada’s closest allies.”

It will be important, MacKay went on, “to consult our diplomatic officials at our embassy in Israel to make the necessary preparations for the move.”

The statement seemed to signal a change of heart, as only the day before, the Montreal-based online publication the Post Millennial quoted MacKay as saying he needed to consult and learn more before deciding whether to move Canada’s embassy from Tel Aviv.

Yes, MacKay will also cuck for Israel, and put Canada last.

14. Garnett Genuis

Garnett Genuis is apparently well loved by the Canadian Jewish News. He called out the Liberals for not putting the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps), on the terrorism watch list.

In 2018, Genuis attended an 18 person delegation to Israel. And from that experience Genuis wrote:

I recently joined an 18-strong all-party delegation of the Canada-Palestine Parliamentary Friendship Group on a trip to the West Bank. We arrived on March 31st, the day after the first march on the Israel/Gaza border, so the trip was timely and important. The delegation included: Green Party leader Elizabeth May; former Bloc Québécois interim leader Mario Beaulieu; prominent New Democrat MPs Guy Caron, Ruth-Ellen Brosseau, and Peter Julian; a group of (more than usually) left-leaning Liberal MPs; and me – a self-identifying Zionist, the grandson of a Holocaust survivor, and a proud Conservative.

Genuis has also introduced a motion to condemn Iran, and previously introduced a motion to condemn Hamas.

Interesting that a Toronto media personality is supporting an unknown Alberta political candidate. Likewise that a Toronto corporate lawyer would show such an interest.

15. Salim Mansur

Salim Mansur is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario, Canada. He is a former columnist for the London Free Press and the Toronto Sun, and has contributed to various publications including National Review, the Middle East Forum and Frontpagemag. He often presents analysis on the Muslim world, Islam, South Asia and the Middle East.

This is why Muslim groups don’t want Mansur around: because they recognize that he is a Zionist working for Israel. Interesting to note: Middle East Forum, (and Gatestone Institute), are 2 outlets that also are bankrolling Tommy Robinson.

16. Tom Quiggin

Although Quiggin isn’t a politician, this deserves an honourable mention. One might wonder why a Zionist group would be supporting this terrorism expert. It’s not difficult to understand when you actually listen to his work. Quiggin is able to nail Islamists for what they do, but he AVOIDS criticising Israel in the process. One might wonder if he is just a puppet.

17. All Parties Shill For Israel

To be fair, it isn’t exclusively the CPC that shills and cucks for foreign nations. Other parties are guilty of betraying Canadians as well.

Indeed, one way to ensure you get your way is to control the opposition. That seems to be the case here.

18. None Will Stand Up For Canada

This is repulsive. Foreign nations (well, one anyway) have our politicians on strings. But this isn’t being talked about by the media.

See the full scale of CIJA lobbying in Canada.

Posted on

Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs #3: Information About This “Non-Profit”

1. Important Links

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/foreign-interference-in-canadas-democracy-centre-for-israel-and-jewish-affairs/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/centre-for-israel-and-jewish-affairs-an-assault-on-free-speech-and-democracy-in-canada/

(3) Corporations Canada Search
(4) http://archive.is/XBouH
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/clntCmmLgs?cno=111&regId=895791
(6) http://archive.is/czbFk
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=895791&blnk=1
(8) http://archive.is/NR9tZ

2. Context For This Article

In the first piece, we looked at the extended pattern of political lobbying by CIJA, including Senators, and MPs in the House of Commons from all parties. Over 1200 “communications reports” took place over the last 20 years, or about 1 every 6 days.

Period (2019-09-01 to 2020-01-14)

The second article covered the agenda that CIJA was pushing. Beyond generic business interests, CIJA is pushing an anti-free speech agenda. “Hate speech” according to this group, is essentially anything Jews don’t like and can claim to be offended by.

In fact, CIJA has, for many years, been lobbying the Federal Government to make licensing of media personalities mandatory. This is so the Israeli lobby can claim “hate speech” to shut down people and views that they disagree with. It can also be used to silence those who speak uncomfortable truths.

Now, let’s get into the nuts and bolts of this Federal “Non-Profit” Group which is waging war on free speech in Canada.

3. Corporate Documents & Filings

cija.01.directors
cija.02.directors
cija.03.director.changes
cija.04.Form4006
cija.05.Form4022.annual.return
cija.06.Form4006.changes.among.directors
cija.07.bylaws.and.governance
cija.08.certificate.of.continuance

By no means is this an exhaustive list of the documents available, but it should provide a good indication of what CIJA is, how it operates, and what its goals are.

4. By-Laws: Voting Members

Member Number of Memberships
The Atlantic Jewish Council 3
Calgary Jewish Federation 1
Jewish Federation of Edmonton 1
Hamilton Jewish Federation 1
Jewish Federation of Ottawa 3
The Jewish Federation of Victoria and Vancouver Island Society 1
Jewish Federation of Winnipeg Inc. 3
London Jewish Federation 1
the Montreal Federation 13
the Toronto Federation 15
UIAC 4
UIAC, in trust for the Jewish community of Regina* 1
UIAC, in trust for the Jewish community of Saskatoon* 1
UIAC, in trust for RJCO (excluding London and Windsor)* 1
the Vancouver Federation 4 Windsor Jewish Federation 1
TOTAL 54

Unsurprisingly, it is weighted so that larger areas like Toronto and Montreal get more voting power. This happens in many organizations.

Worth asking: do all of these branches support CIJA’s overall war on free speech? Do they all support the suppression of ideas they don’t like, and uncomfortable truths?

5. CIJA’s Agenda (Certificate Of Continuance)

cija.08.certificate.of.continuance

Now let’s take a look at the actual goals.

Straight from the source. CIJA’s goal (among others) is to influence political affairs in “its” version of what it views as hate speech and anti-Semitism. In other words, ban things that Jews don’t like.

From the first article, it was shown that CIJA had 1248 “communications reports” over the last 20 years. Could it be they have finally made some progress in clamping down on free speech in Canada?

6. Politicians In Bed With Israeli Lobby

Current candidate for leadership of the CPC, Erin O’Toole, openly shills for Israel. See here, and here for just a few examples.

When Maxime Bernier ran for the CPC leadership in 2016/2017, his main critique of the UN is that it was dysfunctional, and spends too much time condemning Israel. Really? For an ex-Foreign Affairs Minister, that is the best you can do?

Two non-voting Directors of CIJA are of a particular interest. One is John Baird, former CPC Cabinet Minister. The other is Dexter Darrell, former Premier of Nova Scotia.

cija.02.directors

Stockwell Day, ex-CPC Cabinet Minister was on CIJA BOD
Sheila Copps, ex-LPC Cabinet Minister was on CIJA BOD

Rafi Brass: Raphael (Rafi) Brass has been a government consultant at Bluesky Strategy Group since April 2015 and worked on Parliament Hill for two Liberal MPs. He will be joining the Board as a delegate from CIJA’s Young Leaders Circle.

Rafi Brass is an ex-staffer, for 2 Liberal MPs.
Now he’s a Director with CIJA.

Of course, these names here represent only a small portion of what actually goes on. More to come in a follow-up article.

7. Where Things Stand

CIJA is a lobbying organization that is extremely influential in Canada. It has political connections across party lines and spends an inordinate amount of time lobbying and promoting Jewish interests.

By itself, this may not be a problem. However, promoting the interests that this group does directly interferes with Canadian interests. A politician cannot be “CANADA FIRST” and be an Israeli shill at the same time. As the expression goes, a dog cannot have 2 masters.

This group is anti-Canada, and anti-free speech, to name just a few criticisms. Showing what it really does is important to educate the public.

Posted on

Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs #2: An Assault On Free Speech And Democracy In Canada

1. Important Links

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/foreign-interference-in-canadas-democracy-centre-for-israel-and-jewish-affairs/”
(2) https://cija.ca/
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=895791&blnk=1
(4) http://archive.is/NR9tZ
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/clntCmmLgs?cno=111&regId=895791
(6) http://archive.is/czbFk
(7) https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism
(8) http://archive.is/4tjCw
(9) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/section-13-20021231.html
(10) http://archive.is/lMLRz

2. Context For The Article

The last piece focused mainly on the extensive lobbying efforts that CIJA was involved in doing, namely who and when it was taking place.

Now we get to the “what”. What exactly is CIJA lobbying for, and what do they want? If an organization spends that kind of time and money, they must be serious about it.

3. CIJA’s Prolific Lobbying Efforts

As was covered in the previous article, CIJA, the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs has been heavily involved in lobbying the Federal Government for decades. Now, let’s take a deeper look into what they actually are lobbying for.

4. CIJA’s Stated Goals

What makes CIJA different from other Jewish organizations?
.
CIJA is the only registered lobbyist for the Jewish community. It is the sole advocacy agent of Canada’s Jewish Federations, focusing much of its work on communications with the non-Jewish community. Its approach to advocacy is strategic, based on research, polling, and analysis. CIJA is the only organization to bring – literally – hundreds of Canadian influencers and decision-makers to Israel on educational missions every year.

Based on information provided in the FAQ, CIJA openly states its goal is to influence policy, and states it brings hundreds of Canadians to Israel annually to help achieve that.

5. IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism

About the IHRA
The IHRA is the only intergovernmental organization mandated to focus solely on Holocaust-related issues, so with evidence that the scourge of antisemitism is once again on the rise, we resolved to take a leading role in combatting it. IHRA experts determined that in order to begin to address the problem of antisemitism, there must be clarity about what antisemitism is.

The IHRA’s Committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial worked to build international consensus around a working definition of antisemitism, which was subsequently adopted by the plenary. By doing so, the IHRA set an example of responsible conduct for other international fora and provided an important tool with practical applicability for its Member Countries. This is just one illustration of how the IHRA has equipped policymakers to address this rise in hate and discrimination at their national level.

The Working Definition of Antisemitism
In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism.

On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:

Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

And if this sounds too vague, don’t worry. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance will get much, MUCH more detailed in what fits this definition.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
-Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
-Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
-Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
-Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
-Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
-Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
-Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
-Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
-Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
-Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
.
Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
.
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
.
Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

Yes, this IHRA definition of anti-Semitism means any such behaviour listed above should be criminalized.

Also note: it has the wording “include, but not limited to”. This means that the extensive list of “anti-Semitic behaviour” may be expanded on as time passes.

Language that seems dehumanizing? That also is extremely vague, and seems ripe for abuse. And Jews are greatly overrepresented in government, academia, banking and the media. How is pointing out these facts considered bias?

Even questioning even the scale of the Holocaust is considered a hate crime according to these people?

And Israel DOES practice a double standard when it comes to managing its affairs. Israel has strong border walls, strict immigration, and is extremely ethno-centric when it comes to determining who it should allow to live there. But if you question the hypocrisy, you are an anti-Semite.

Is all of this an academic exercise? Hardly.

6. Pushing IHRA Definition on Others

CIJA has been successful in getting Westmount (Montreal), and Vaughn, and Toronto, to adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, which is basically anything Jews don’t like.

As a political tactic, this is proving to be very effective.

Looking at this in terms of silencing potential critics: how is this different from the Motion M-103 which Iqra Khalid previously got passed in the House of Commons? The effect is the same — using the claim of victimhood to silence free speech.

7. Changing Human Rights Code

Hate messages
13 (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Marginal note:
Interpretation

(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.
Marginal note:
Interpretation

(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.

CIJA wants to bring back Section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act, which was repealed in 2013. The idea is to make it easier to claim anti-Semitism by pointing to electronic communications.

8. (Internet) Hate Speech, Criminal Penalties

The previous section dealt with “online hate” via the Canada Human Rights Act, but here, CIJA wants to push for it to be “criminally punishable” as well. That’s right, not only would this be a human rights violation, but potentially a criminal offence as well.

Of course, CIJA supports the extremely broad and excessive definition of “anti-Semitism” as laid out by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Don’t worry, this won’t trample on your free speech or anything.

9. Deportations For “Hate Speech”

One of CIJA’s stated goals is to influence policy to make it easier to remove citizenship of Canadians for a variety of reasons, including what it calls: extreme promotion of hate.

Presumably — although it doesn’t specify — this would only apply to people who immigrate to Canada and later become citizens. One can also assume — but again, it doesn’t state — that after the citizenship is revoked the person would then be deported.

While removing people who commit terrorism and crimes against humanity is certainly a reasonable goal, it is disturbing to see “hate speech” included as well. This is especially true since CIJA doesn’t really believe in free speech to begin with.

It would be interesting (at least in some academic sense), to see how this plays out. Under Bill C-6, we no longer pull the citizenship of actual terrorists. Yet we are now supposed to do so for hate speech?

10. Holocaust Training Obligations

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance unites governments and experts to strengthen, advance and promote Holocaust education, research and remembrance and to uphold the commitments to the 2000 Stockholm Declaration.

The IHRA (formerly the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research, or ITF) was initiated in 1998 by former Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson. Today the IHRA’s membership consists of 34 member countries, each of whom recognizes that international political coordination is imperative to strengthen the moral commitment of societies and to combat growing Holocaust denial and antisemitism.

The IHRA’s network of trusted experts share their knowledge on early warning signs of present-day genocide and education on the Holocaust. This knowledge supports policymakers and educational multipliers in their efforts to develop effective curricula, and it informs government officials and NGOs active in global initiatives for genocide prevention.

Yes, this is very productive: constantly reminding Canadians that Jews are victims.

Interesting to note: IHRA wants to criminalize it (everywhere) to deny or even question the Holocaust, but it is only “this” one that is off limits. Every other alleged atrocity is fair game to dissect and analyse. Perhaps the cover story is falling apart after all these years, so the skeptics must be silenced.

11. CIJA And Durban II

From 20-24 April 2009, the Durban Review Conference took place in Geneva. It is also known as Durban II, a follow-up to the infamous “Durban I” World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in the late summer of 2001. At Durban I, an NGO Forum accepted what can be summed up as a declaration of war against Israel. Participating nongovernmental organizations adopted a strategy for the complete isolation of Israel through boycotts, divestment, and sanctions.

The Durban I is seen as waging war on Israel. So CIJA is trying to lobby Canada and other nations to act as a counter-weight against future proposals or movements.

12. CIJA Behind Media Licensing Req

Period (2012-05-10 to 2012-07-19)

Period (2015-02-02 to 2015-06-10)

Period (2016-03-01 to 2016-03-18)

Period (2017-06-15 to 2017-08-04)

Period (2019-09-01 to 2020-01-14)

Do you get the picture? For years, the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs has been lobbying the Federal Government about the issuances of broadcast licenses.

This is not a one time thing, but has been going on for several years, at least. Any wonder why we now have a government that openly calls for all media outlets (regardless of size), to be regulated? This is a deliberate attempt to give control to the government to deplatform anyone who is deemed to be anti-Semitic, or involved in hate speech.

That is correct. The ISRAELI group has spent years lobbying the CANADIAN Government over how media licenses should be issued. This is straight up foreign interference in our affairs.

The CRTC has recently made many recommendations, including forcing those in the media to get licenses. Understandably, the Minister, Steven Guilbeault, and the Federal Government are taking a lot of flak over this. People may have believed it to be the Islamic groups that led to this, and that certainly is a reasonable suspicion. However, the fact is that CIJA has lobbying specifically for this for many years.

13. More Than Just Free Speech

Of course, there are many other things CIJA advocates for.

One is increasing markets for kosher food, that is food killed in barbaric and inhumane ways (much like Islamic halal). Looks like animal rights don’t matter as long as it is cloaked in culture and diversity.

This group also pushes for increased trade and for changes to the tax code that presumably Jews would personally benefit from.

CIJA also wants to see more immigration with easier pathways. But of course, this only applies to people coming to Canada. Israel can remain an ethno-state. CIJA further wishes to entangle Canada in its military and political obligations.

So there is no denying that this group — which has filed 1248 “communications reports” has been busy trying to change Canada’s laws. But the worst one in the eyes of many is its continuous assault on free speech in Canada.

White Westerners are told that identity politics is evil and wrong. But CIJA, and groups like it, endlessly play JEWISH identity politics in order to get their way. Seems hypocritical.