Lawfare Archives - Page 9 of 11

June 18, 2020June 19, 2024

Claim That Masks, Other Restrictions, Violate Religious Beliefs

(This is Doug Ford in April 2020 telling the public that he thinks masks are beneficial, but won’t say or do anything without the approval of the Health Department. Not like he’s Premier of Ontario or anything.)

(This is Doug Ford in October 2018 telling the public that respecting civil rights and religious freedoms is more important than public safety. Apparently the laws of gravity don’t apply since the turban is religious.)

1. Previous Solutions Offered

A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.

2. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

As of the time of writing this, the “planned-emic” series has 23 pieces in it, including efforts to shift the culture, in order to make mask wearing the new normal. Lots of detail in the series.

3. Helmets Mentioned In Previous Article

The topic of letting motorcycle riders evade health and safety regulations was mentioned on this site nearly 2 years ago. While it seemed absurd at the time, perhaps there is a silver lining to this double standard.

Whatever faith you may belong to, it doesn’t matter. But know that from this day on: your religious beliefs don’t allow you to wear a mask in public. Forcing you to do so will violate your conscience and beliefs.

4. Resisting The “Culture Shift”

This was brought up in the last coronavirus piece but worth repeating. There is a deliberate, conscious, and planned effort to make mask wearing normalized and mandatory throughout the world. In parts of the West, this is not so much being imposed, but by attempts to “shift the culture”, to make this the new way of life. It’s time to fight back against it.

There aren’t criminal penalties in the West for not wearing masks — yet. But that doesn’t mean that it won’t happen at some point in the future.

5. BC Exemption On Helmets For Sikhs

“Point in Time” Regulation Content
Motor Vehicle Act
Motorcycle Safety Helmet Exemption Regulation
B.C. Reg. 237/99
Section 1 BEFORE amended by BC Reg 62/2017, effective March 1, 2017.
Exemption
1 The following persons are exempt from the requirements of section 221 of the Motor Vehicle Act:
(a) a person who
(i) practices the Sikh religion, and
(ii) has unshorn hair and habitually wears a turban composed of 5 or more square meters of cloth.

BC has given Sikhs an exemption on wearing helmets when riding a motorcycle since 2017.

6. Alberta Exemption On Helmets For Sikhs

Overview
Sikhs who wear turbans are exempt from:
.
the Vehicle Equipment Regulation helmet requirement in the Traffic Safety Act
the Off-highway Vehicle Regulation helmet requirement in the Traffic Safety Act
.
This means:
drivers and passengers who are over 18 and are bona fide members of the Sikh religion who wear a turban can ride a motorcycle without using a helmet
.
drivers and passengers who are bona fide members of the Sikh religion who wear a turban can ride an off-highway vehicle without using a helmet
.
Turbans are an integral part of the Sikh identity. This decision allows them to ride without having to remove their turban.
Alberta is the third jurisdiction in Canada to allow this exemption, alongside British Columbia and Manitoba.

In March 2018, Alberta gave Sikhs and exemption on helmets.

7. Manitoba Exemption On Helmets For Sikhs

Motorcycle-handbook.manitoba

The following persons are exempt from wearing a helmet:
• persons riding motorcycles in a legally-authorized parade
• bona ﬁde members of the Sikh religion

On page 8 of the handbook, it clearly states that Sikhs are exempt from wearing helmets, as are people taking part in a parade.

8. Ontario Exemption On Helmets For Sikhs

Despite obvious safety concerns with letting some people ride motorcycles without helmet, Ford seems to think that religious freedom is a much more important virtue.

9. Quebec Hypocrisy On Face Coverings

(This is Quebec Premier Francois Legault in 2019 saying that he will use the “Notwithstanding Clause” if needed to ban religious symbols — which include face coverings — from people in government positions. Many countries have banned the Muslim face veil as a security risk.)

(This is Francois Legault in 2020 saying that he strongly recommends everyone wearing face masks in public. Apparently it’s in order to help protect public health.)

10. CHRC – Duty To Accommodate

Employers and service providers have an obligation to adjust rules, policies or practices to enable you to participate fully. It applies to needs that are related to the grounds of discrimination. This is called the duty to accommodate.

The duty to accommodate means that sometimes it is necessary to treat someone differently in order to prevent or reduce discrimination. For examples, asking all job applicants to pass a written test may not be fair to a person with a visual disability. In such cases, the duty to accommodate may require that alternative arrangements be made to ensure that a person or group can fully participate.

What is Undue Hardship?
It is also important to consider that there is a reasonable limit to how far your employer or service provider has to go to accommodate your needs. Sometimes accommodation is not possible because it would cost too much, or create health or safety risks. This is known as undue hardship. Your employer or service provider can claim undue hardship as the reason why certain policies or practices need to stay in place, even though they may have a negative effect on you. They will need to provide sufficient evidence.

Would a service provider be required to make an exception for this planned-emic? Difficult to say how it would play out in court, or at a human rights tribunal. That said, this tactic can definitely be a “boot on the neck” to getting around any requirements in most cases.

11. Mask Objections: Specific Religions

If you are a Muslim (or just “identifying” as one) remind the person that in the Middle East, the headscarf and face coverings are used to subjugate and enslave women. It’s not a sign of religious freedom, but one of being a prisoner. If the service provider doesn’t take a hint, you can always can them a sexist and Islamophobe.

If you are Jewish (or just “identifying” as such) remind the person that attempts to erase your people have been made throughout history. If the service provider doesn’t take the hint, remind him/her that 6 million people died in the Holocaust. If the person still doesn’t get it, feel free to start dropping the term anti-Semite.

There are other religions of course. Feel free to find a scripture that helps your case, no matter how weak or flimsy, to justify your refusal. Reminder, passages can always be quoted out of context, and store clerks probably won’t know the difference. Should that fail, just gaslight the person as a bigot.

12. Alternative: Get A Medical Note

An alternative to this is going to a walk in clinic to get a medical note to attest to the fact that you have a medical condition (such as asthma) that will make wearing a mask unhealthy. There will probably be a fee to pay, but it may be worth it to you.

A further alternative is to just create your own doctor’s note. With Photoshop, and many similar applications, the average computer user can generate a realistic looking note in minutes. No need to prove anything, since doctor-patient confidentiality is grounded in law.

13. Reject Masks, Vote With Your Wallet

If you have a variety of places to shop from, one option is to stop patronizing places which require masks. This avoids the confrontation aspect, but in numbers it sends the message that people won’t shop at such a place.

14. Masks Are About Asserting Control

Does it make sense that a Quebec town would change the law to require masks be worn in public, but not have it kick in for another month? How about Brampton announcing they will be mandatory on transit, in another month? Or Toronto requiring them for transit riders — in another 2 weeks? Make no mistake. This is all about asserting control and domination over you.

But there is a solution. Remember, your religious beliefs do not allow you to wear face coverings. Governments, employers and service providers have a duty to accommodate. While a few may push back and claim it is an undue burden, most will not. This is especially true if you happen to be filming them and suggest it will be posted online.

Never forget: your well being, and the well being of your family members come first. If it means putting a “foot on the neck” of someone just following orders, then so be it. That excuse didn’t work for the Nazis either.

June 8, 2020July 29, 2024

Media Culture Shift Well Underway To Accepting Wearing Mandatory Masks

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. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public

Truth is essential in society, but the situation in Canada is worse than people imagine. In Canada (and elsewhere), the mainstream media, periodicals, and fact-checkers are subsidized, though they deny it. Post Media controls most outlets in Canada, and many “independents” have ties to Koch/Atlas. Real investigative journalism is needed, and some pointers are provided.

2. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. See the lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. There is a lot more than most people realize. For background, check this and this article. The Gates Foundation finances many things, including: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies.

3. Important Links

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.

June 1, 2020November 30, 2021

TSCE #10d: George Soros & Open Society: Smuggling; Lawfare; Population Replacement

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://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/
(2) https://realisticobserver.blogspot.com/2017/04/fyi-206-us-organizations-funded-by.html
(3) http://archive.is/qTXUo
(4) https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/who-we-are/financials
(5) http://archive.is/NwmN7
(6) ttps://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2016/9/57e0e2784/canada-unhcr-open-society-foundations-seek-increase-refugee-resettlement.html
(7) http://archive.is/tqdRc
(8) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/private-refugee-sponsorship-soros-un-1.3769639?cmp=rss
(9) http://archive.is/zvvNx
(10) https://thegoldwater.com/news/9164-Soros-and-Clinton-Organisations-Both-Donated-1-75-Million-to-Antifa
(11) http://archive.is/ZnuYs
(12) https://www.pueblosinfronteras.org/
(13) http://archive.is/UGX8N
(14) https://www.wnd.com/2018/04/border-caravan-call-it-the-george-soros-express/
(15) http://archive.is/p0KKw

See section #8 for links to the various groups that George Soros and the Open Societies are financing. This will give insight as to what the motivations are.

3. Context For This Article

Knowing who funds an organization is important to knowing its real goal, especially if it is something other than profit. Money speaks louder than words. This review looks at the various Open Society groups headed by George Soros, and where the money is going. The Open Society funds a variety of causes, but the goal is the same: collapse of Western Civilization.

Some examples include:

Open borders NGOs are funded in order to advance policies of loosening immigration rules. This means funding political candidates who share these views
Cultural Marxist groups are funded since their goal is upending social norms. They claim that others are being oppressed, and are anti-white, in particular anti-white men. Note: these groups often share open borders ideals.
So-called “anti-hate” groups are funded, whose objective is to silence legitimate criticism of multiculturalism and mass migration.
Open Society funds scholarships of foreign students often leads to them permanently settling in the West, especially with the diversity laws on the books. As such, student visas are a form of backdoor population replacement.
Open Society partners with the Canadian Government (and other Governments) on refugee relocation programs
Open Society indirectly finances court challenges to strike down, amend or otherwise weaken our borders

To put it mildly, this is a convoluted mess of connections and financing. This critique in no way covers everything that is going on. However, it is meant to shed light on how bad the problem is.

4. Review By Civilian Intelligence Network

The corruption of higher education by the Soros cabal was covered by Civilian Intelligence Network in this earlier article. In depth and with a lot of detail, it is worth a long read. This will not be a rehash of the CIN piece, but rather some different coverage brought to George Soros.

5. Open Society Group Tax Records

https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/

OPEN SOCIETY FUND INC.
EIN: 13-3095822
open.society.fund.2016
open.society.fund.2017
open.society.fund.2018

OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE
EIN: 13-7029285
open.society.institute.1.2016
open.society.institute.1.2017
open.society.institute.1.2018

OPEN SOCIETY POLICY CENTER
EIN: 52-2028955
open.society.policy.center.2016
open.society.policy.center.2017
open.society.policy.center.2018

FOUNDATION TO PROMOTE OPEN SOCIETY
EIN: 26-3753801
foundation.to.promote.open.society.2016
foundation.to.promote.open.society.2017
foundation.to.promote.open.society.2018

SOLIDARITY FOR OPEN SOCIETY INC.
EIN: 45-4209345
No tax returns yet, just determination letters

INSTITUTE FOR OPEN SOCIETY IN MIDDLE EAST
EIN: 46-5635908
No tax returns yet, just determination letters

FUND FOR AN OPEN SOCIETY
EIN: 52-1035144
fund.for.open.society.2016
fund.for.open.society.2018

ALLIANCE FOR OPEN SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL
EIN: 81-0623035
international.alliance.open.society.2016
international.alliance.open.society.2017

There isn’t a single Open Society Group. Rather, it is a series of charities available for tax-exempt status. The above records are available with this link, and searching the IRS.

6. Michael Ignatieff VP Open Society Fund

Michael Ignatieff is the rector and president of Central European University in Budapest. A university professor, writer, and former politician, Ignatieff served for three years as the Edward R. Murrow Professor of the Practice of Politics and the Press at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, where he was the director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy from 2000 to 2005.

Ignatieff earned his doctorate in history at Harvard University, and has taught at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto; Kings College, Cambridge; the London School of Economics and Political Science; and the University of British Columbia. Active in Canadian politics from 2006 to 2011, Ignatieff was a member of parliament and leader of the Liberal Party. An author and journalist, he is widely published, including Fire and Ashes: Success and Failure in Politics (2013) and The Ordinary Virtues: Moral Order in a Divided World. In 2019, he was awarded The Dan David Prize for the defense of democracy.

Does that last name look familiar? It should. Michael Ignatieff used to be the head of the Canadian Liberal Party, from early 2009 until mid 2011. Only the biggest defeat in Liberal history kept him from becoming Prime Minister. He is now on the Board of the Open Society Foundation.

Ignatieff crashed and burned in the May 2011 Federal election. However, Soros would get a Liberal Prime Minister as a puppet in the very next session. As a bonus, Chrystia Freeland would also get elected, and get chosen for Foreign Affairs Minister.

7. Areas Open Society Finances

CATEGORY	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020
DP	$76.5M	$102.9M	$113.9M	$99.3M	$140.5M
ECE	$18.6M	$20.7M	$21.9M	$21.3M	$22M
EGA	$76.7M	$127.4M	$146.2M	$131.7M	$136.7M
EAD	$75.8M	$82.4M	$80.2M	$85.3M	$111.5M
HR	$47.3M	$58.8M	$50.1M	$46.8M	$47.2M
EDU	$26.0M	$19.5M	$52.2M	$85.3M	$63.7M

DP = Democratic Practice
ECE = Early Childhood Education
EGA = Economic Governance & Advancement
EAD = Equality & Anti-Discrimination
HR = Health & Rights
EDU = Higher Education

For the entire list that Open Society discloses.

8. Groups Open Society Helps Fund

For a glimpse into what groups Open Society sees as worthy of funding, consider this 2016, 2017, and 2018 returns, and the names that are on it. There are a lot of NGOs and civil societies who receive Soros money.
EIN: 52-2028955

GROUP	YEAR	AMOUNT GIVEN
American Civil Liberties Union	2016	$170,000
Advance Carolina	2016	$112,500
Alliance San Diego Mobilization	2018	$150,000
America’s Voice	2018	$575,000
American Immigration Council	2016	$190,000
American Immigration Council	2017	$190,000
American Immigration Council	2018	$35,000
American Jewish World Service	2017	$150,000
Amnesty International USA	2016	$350,000
Amnesty International USA	2017	$350,000
Amnesty International USA	2018	$250,000
Arizona Wins	2016	$75,000
Arizona Wins	2017	$425,000
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center	2016	$300,000
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center	2018	$650,000
Bend The Arc Jewish Action	2018	$200,000
Beyond The Choir	2018	$140,000
Catholic Legal Immigration Network	2016	$80,000
Catholic Legal Immigration Network	2017	$80,000
Center For American Progress	2018	$240,000
Center For A New Economy	2016	$120,000
Center For Community Change Action	2016	$1,475,000
Center For Community Change Action	2017	$2,500,000
Center For Community Change Action	2018	$1,060,000
Center For International Policy	2018	$125,000
Center For Popular Democracy	2016	$1,030,000
Center For Popular Democracy	2018	$700,000
Color Of Change	2018	$350,000
Engage Cuba	2017	$750,000
Every Voice	2016	$475,000
Institute For Asian Democracy	2016	$25,000
J Street	2017	$25,000
J Street Action Fund	2017	$25,000
Maine People’s Alliance	2016	$400,000
Mercy Corps	2016	$150,000
Mercy Corps	2017	$150,000
MoveOn Org Civic Action	2016	$25,000
National Ass’n Latino Elected	2016	$55,000
National Security Archive Fund	2016	$55,000
New Left Acceleration	2016	$250,000
Planned Parenthood	2018	$1,000,000
Pretrial Justice Institute	2016	$50,000
Pretrial Justice Institute	2017	$50,000
Project On Middle East Democracy	2017	$90,000
Retain A Just Nebraska	2016	$500,000
San Diegans For Voter Participation	2016	$200,000
Sierra Club	2016	$125,000
Sixteen Thirty Fund	2016	$481,000
Sixteen Thirty Fund	2017	$2,257,000
Sixteen Thirty Fund	2018	$3,837,000
Taxpayers For Sentencing Reform	2016	$500,000
The Aspen Institute	2018	$65,000
The Constitution Project	2016	$50,000
Tides Advocacy	2018	$1,760,000
Tides Center	2016	$20,000
Tides Center	2018	$22,500

America’s Voice claims to track hatred and racist media. Consider it a form of the ADL, or the Canadian Anti-Hate Network

The Alliance San Diego Mobilization Fund, sells itself as a voter empowerment group, but is really concerned with pushing for the “rights” of people in the country illegally.

The American Immigration Council effectively wages lawfare against the United States by challenging existing laws and regulations as unconstitutional.

The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center is a group trying to mobilize younger people, in an effort to get more liberal policies voted into law.

This group, Bend The Arc Jewish Action, is a group trying to mobilize Jews into a political force. The goal allegedly is to defeat white supremacy and give power to marginalized people.

The group Beyond The Choir looks at different marketing strategies for how to promote and advance liberal causes in the West. Also touts an openly anti-Trump agenda.

The Center For American Progress Action Fund contains many Democrats in high ranking positions. It’s an openly partisan group trying to get Donald Trump out of office.

The Center For Popular Democracy is a group that promotes every marginalized group under the sun, claiming that they are all oppressed.

The group Color Of Change calls itself a “racial justice” group, and is trying to build real power for black communities, whatever that means.

Community Change Action is a group trying to get more people voting for pro-immigration policies, and focuses on potentially close political races.

Sixteen Thirty seems to be missing, (was it taken down?) but according to critics, it was used to influence politicians towards liberal leaning causes.

The Aspen Institute is a think tank which promotes global solutions to a variety of world problems. Interesting list of members.

The Tides Foundation promotes and funds a variety of environmental and social justice causes around the world.

Of course this is nowhere near all of the groups who receive some funding from the various Open Society groups. But it does help illustrate the types of institutions that George Soros and his people would be interested in financing.

9. Open Society & Higher Education

GROUP	YEAR	AMOUNT GIVEN
John Hopkins University	2017	$15,000
Fellows Of Harvard College	2016	$50,000
University Of Maryland	2017	$49,000
Fellows Of Harvard College	2016	$196,000
Various Scholarships (12)	2016	$717,000
Various Scholarships (12)	2017	$717,000

The above listings are just a small sample of what the various Open Society groups offer.

This has been addressed many times on this site. However, the typical Canadian is completely unaware of just how many students and temporary workers are being let into the country. While this is sold to the public as forms of “temporary” migration, the reality is that there are many pathways to stay longer.

10. Open Society Pushes For More Refugees

UNITED NATIONS/NEW YORK CITY, September 19, 2016 – The Government of Canada, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the Open Society Foundations have agreed to launch a joint initiative aimed at increasing private sponsorship of refugees around the world. Research demonstrates that privately sponsored refugees tend to have relatively early, positive integration and settlement outcomes, thanks in part to the social support provided by sponsors.

This announcement came from the UN High Commission on Refugees.

In September 2016, a partnership was announced between the Canadian Government, the UN High Commission on Refugees and the Open Society, to bring more refugees to Canada.

Interesting side note: despite all the attention that the UN Global Migration Compact gained in 2018, few people seemed to care about its predecessor, the New York Declaration, which was adopted in September 2016.

11. UNCHR Party To Canada/U.S. Border

CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;

ARTICLE 8
(1) The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
(2) These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
(3) The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.

Source is here. Serious question: why have Canada and the United States signed an agreement that quite clearly gives the UN a seat at the table?

Few people know this, but the UNHCR is legally speaking, a party to this agreement. It is not a bilateral pact between 2 countries, but includes at least 3. Yet this detail isn’t spoken about in the media.

In fact, Canada hasn’t had true border security since 2002 (when the Safe 3rd Country Agreement was signed), if it ever did at all. This is addressed in Part 7 of the series.

12. Open Society Finances Lawfare In Court

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
rel=”noopener” target=”_blank”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

Since 1989, NGOs have made at least 3 major attempts to have portions of our laws struck down. This would make it easier for fake refugees to enter from the United States. This has been addressed elsewhere in the series, such as in Part 16.

But an interesting piece of the puzzle was left out: who’s funding this? Who is the source of financing for the lawyers who want to strike down Canadian Borders?

GROUP	YEAR	AMOUNT GIVEN
Amnesty International USA	2016	$350,000
Amnesty International USA	2017	$350,000
Amnesty International USA	2018	$250,000

This of course is the American counterpart, but Amnesty International works in similar ways across Western nations. Obviously, Amnesty International has many donors. However, the Open Society does contribute to groups who take Governments to court to allow refugees easier access.

13. Soros Allegedly Funding Civil Unrest

A disclaimer to start out with: given that these are still not proven fully at this point, the qualifier “allegedly” will be used here. It has been alleged that the Center For Community Change has helped finance and coordinate Antifa riots and other violent demonstrations, with money from the Open Society and other such groups.

GROUP	YEAR	AMOUNT GIVEN
Center For Community Change Action	2016	$1,475,000
Center For Community Change Action	2017	$2,500,000
Center For Community Change Action	2018	$1,060,000

This data is available from the 2016 to 2018 tax returns for the Open Society Policy Center (EIN: 52-2028955). From the information presented, Open Society clearly does fund the group Center for Community Change Action. However, the group obviously doesn’t publicly admit to staging violence.

15. Caravans Facilitating Illegal Entry

Pueblo Sin Fronteras is a transborder organization made up of human rights defenders of diverse nationalities and immigration statuses that promotes accompaniment, humanitarian assistance, leadership development, recognition of human rights, and coordination of know-your-rights training along migrant routes, as well as monitoring and raising awareness of human rights abuses against migrants and refugees in Mexico and the United States. Our accompaniment does not end at the border, it continues in the immigration detention centers of the United States and the communities in Mexico and the US.

This NGO openly admits that its agenda is getting people across the border from the United States into Mexico. The name, PUEBLO SIN FRONTERAS, loosely translates to “Town Without Borders”. It openly supports illegal waves of people (called Caravans) coming up north to the U.S.

WASHINGTON – Hundreds of Central American migrants demanding asylum at the U.S. border with Mexico Sunday may be poor, but they have support of major foundations, corporations and billionaire George Soros for their well-organized caravan-style invasion.

The caravan is organized by a group called Pueblo sin Fronteras. But the effort is supported by the coalition CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project, which includes Catholic Legal Immigration Network, the American Immigration Council, the Refugee and Immigration Center for Education and Legal Services and the American Immigration Lawyers Association – thus the acronym CARA. At least three of the four groups are funded By George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, WND has confirmed

Pueblo Sin Fronteras is a member of the National Day Laborer Network, which is affiliated with United for Justice and Peace, Caravan Against Fear and Freedom Road Socialist Organization. The connections run deep between left-wing activism and corporate and foundation sponsorship.

The Democratic Party links are also in strong evidence. Earlier this month, Oregon’s Democratic Governor Kate Brown accepted a contribution to her re-election campaign from Soros – his first direct involvement in that state’s elections. Three days later, Brown announced the Oregon National Guard would not be participating in President Trump’s effort to get the Guard providing border security.

The online site WND has reported that some of the groups behind the Pueblo Sin Fronteras movement have been receiving funds from the Open Society. They cite these following organizations:

American Immigration Council 52-1549711
American Immigration Lawyers
Catholic Legal Immigration Network 52-1584951
Refugee & Immigration Center For Education And Legal Services

https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/
EIN: 26-3753801
EIN: 52-2028955

GROUP	YEAR	AMOUNT GIVEN
American Immigration Council	2016	$190,000
American Immigration Council	2017	$190,000
American Immigration Council	2018	$35,000
Catholic Legal Immigration Network	2016	$80,000
Catholic Legal Immigration Network	2017	$80,000

The American Immigration Council and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network are both unquestionably being partially funded by the Open Society. It’s quite possible that one or both of the others are being funded through an intermediary.

GROUP	YEAR	AMOUNT GIVEN
Mercy Corps	2016	$150,000
Mercy Corps	2017	$150,000

Worth a mention is the NGO called Mercy Corps, which helps bring large numbers of refugees to the West. Soros is a large supporter of them as well.

16. Trudeau Foundation Media Swamp

Why doesn’t the Canadian media do any real investigating into George Soros, the Open Society (any of those groups), or any of the money flowing to various globalist NGOs? Why aren’t MSM outlets doing much more to inform the public as to what is really going on?

It was addressed in this piece before, that there are many prominent members of the Canadian media who also belong to the Trudeau Foundation. This is likely why (or at least part of the reason) that the coverage is so limited.

The connections between Soros and many nefarious groups is not difficult to piece together, yet the main media heads in Canada simply won’t do it. Refusing to cover a story, or only giving it superficial coverage, is an indication of being controlled opposition.

By contrast, Civilian Intelligence Network actually went into great length about Stephen Toope, the first President of the Trudeau Foundation. The group laid out his many globalist links. This is an example of how investigative journalism SHOULD be done.

17. Open Society Attacks In Many Ways

The Open Society (and groups like it) are waging a war against the West. They do this by funding and coordinating a number of events — both legal and illegal — meant to bring about our destruction. Some examples include:

Financing lobby groups to invert social order
Financing “education” to warp public opinion
Financing scholarships to bring more foreign students over
Lobbying to install open borders politicians into office
Financing groups that challenge immigration/refugee laws in court
Financing groups that facilitate illegal mass entries
Financing groups that cause violence in public

Why aren’t these seditionist actions detailed in the mainstream media? Two main reasons are: (a) the MSM is financially dependent on government handouts; and (b) many members are part of the Trudeau Foundation, and similar groups. These conflicts of interest make it impossible for them to act effectively.

In 2018, there was a $595 million bailout of unprofitable media in Canada. This left many outlets in the awkward position of being dependent on the very government they are supposed to hold to account.

There isn’t just a single avenue that Soros or the Open Society groups take. This is a multipronged approach to attacking our civilization. The details need to be shared.

Make no mistake: these groups are our enemies.

May 20, 2020October 28, 2022

TSCE #10: Politicians Deliberately Keep Border Open In 2017/2018 Hearings

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

CLICK HERE, for 42nd Parliament on illegals entering Canada.

Committee.Evidence.Sept.28.2017
Committee.Evidence.Oct.3.2017
Committee.Evidence.Oct.5.2017
Committee.Evidence.may.3.2018
Committee.Evidence.may.29.2018
Committee.Evidence.July.24.A.2018
Committee.Evidence.July.24.B.2018
Committee.Evidence.July.24.C.2018

3. Context For This Article

IN 2017 and 2018, the Federal Parliament held many hearings for illegal crossings into Canada. Politicians use weasel words like “irregular” to water down the language.

Far from being productive, the parties acted as if they were helpless to do anything. They also behaved as if securing the border were somehow a war crime. This was a pitiful display of going through the motions of appearing to address border security in a meaningful. Not addressing border security, but “appearing to address” border security.

The hearing will be quoted, and some short video clips added. To summarize, it was incredibly frustrating to watch elected officials acting in bad faith to ensure these crossings don’t happen.

True, at the time of writing this, the problem has been “fixed”. By that it means that crossing between border ports is now illegal, but fake refugees coming from the United States can gain entry via normal ports. Furthermore, Roxham Road has been converted into a regular border port.

Also worth pointing out, that politicians and the media are incredibly misleading when they talk about immigration in Canada. They frequently talk about the number of PERMANENT RESIDENCIES that are handed out, not the total number of people ENTERING THE COUNTRY, with pathways to stay. Assuming the numbers are even accurate (which is doubtful), it doesn’t even come close to painting the complete picture.

It’s a nice little bait-and-switch which prevents Canadians from fully grasping what is going on.

How many of these people remain? That has been addressed before, but there is no accurate count. There are a number of options to remain legally, and we don’t actually track people leaving to go anywhere except the U.S.

The main focus of this article, however, are the 2017/2018 hearing on people crossing illegally into the country. All parties are committed to just going through the motions.

4. Quotes From 2017/2018 Hearings

This timely scheduling of eligibility interviews is crucial because in order to apply for an open work permit, an asylum seeker must first have their initial eligibility interview, have their claim referred to the IRB, and undergo an immigration medical examination.
.
To also help ease pressures, IRCC has begun to fast-track all work permit applications across Canada from asylum claimants with a commitment to process these within 30 days. In most cases, asylum claimants become eligible for interim federal health program, IFHP, coverage only after an officer has determined that their claim is eligible to be heard before the IRB. IFHP coverage is now available to asylum seekers who enter Canada between ports of entry in Lacolle, and are being processed on or after June 1, for those who have not yet had an eligibility interview.
.
To date, more than 5,600 persons have been issued this interim federal health program coverage under this special provision.
.
In closing, Chairs, IRCC, with the CBSA and all other partners in the federal family, continue to address irregular migration in accordance with Canadian and international law and in keeping with our values of an open and welcoming country.

Keep in mind that this was September 28, 2017 when this testimony was given, so the numbers are now much, MUCH higher.

Joanne Crampton
In terms of someone crossing the border between the ports of entry, the RCMP would intercept the person or persons. We then advise them that they are breaking the law under the Customs Act by crossing the border between ports of entry. The persons are then detained. Their possessions are searched to ensure there is no contraband or other illegal items. Their person is searched, because they are under arrest under the Customs Act. We then verify their identification. We do background checks and local indices checks, as well as international indices checks. If there is no noted criminality or concerns for national security and, once we have interviewed them and had a lengthy discussion as to where they came from and what their intentions are, if nothing negative comes as a result of that, we pass the individual over to Canada Border Services for further processing.
.
Mr. Jacques Cloutier:
At this point, for the CBSA, we receive the individual from the RCMP, as well as the information collected by the RCMP. We proceed with fingerprinting, taking of biometric information, and a cursory interview to elicit additional information. We verify identity. In those cases where we are satisfied that there are no immigration-related issues from an admissibility perspective, these individuals would be released on the terms and conditions and given an appointment to complete their eligibility interview. In cases where issues are discovered, several actions are taken immediately, including completing the interview for eligibility in its entirety, or proceeding with detention if the person is deemed to pose a risk to the public.

People coming into Canada illegally are briefly detained, and often released into the country on a promise to appear at a later date for a hearing.

Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Thank you.
Earlier this week there was a CBC article stating that Nigerian asylum claims were wanting to come to Canada because they’re aware of the “pipeline”. What additional measures is IRCC taking to outreach into the broader international community that the asylum claim system is not a, quote, “free ticket” to Canada?
.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
We did several things. The first was to look at our communications and outreach plan and determine the best way to reach the Nigerian diaspora population here as well as in the United States as well back in Nigeria itself.
.
Second, we are also liaising and working with our American colleagues. We have a mission overseas, as do other allied partners, so we’ve also gone back to our immigration program overseas to try to look for ways and ideas to reach populations
.
Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Thank you.
Over to Mr. Maguire.

Does this sound like someone who is actually opposed to illegals strolling into Canada?

Ms. Jenny Kwan:
I’m interested in the comment about the United States that everything is good on the safe third country agreement piece, yet we do know, for example, that Mr. Seidu Mohammed, who crossed over the in the dead of winter, and lost digits as a result of it. His claim was rejected in the United States, and yet when he came to Canada, his claim was accepted. This is an outed LGBTQ man from Ghana.
.
Amnesty International also did a study, if you will, though informal, and the people they interviewed indicated that they don’t feel safe in the United States. That’s why they are crossing over. There seems to be some discrepancy in terms of the reality, at least from the IRCC’s perspective and the government’s perspective, versus what people are experiencing on the ground, which I think is very important to note.
.
There was a large influx in the last year, I would say, and yes it peaked in the summer for Quebec. It peaked in Manitoba in the winter, so there are different periods of time when it peaked.
.
Do I understand correctly that these cases have been referred to the IRB, and that the vast majority of them have not been heard? What are the wait times for people waiting for their cases to be heard? How does that compare with previous times? In the meantime, in terms of the resources for these individuals, who is providing resources to house them? Is it the province, and has the government provided additional resources to the province to support these asylum seekers? Regarding the NGOs that are on the ground doing this work, are they provided with additional resources as well, and if so, how much?

Mr. Michael MacDonald:
The federal government does not provide direct support to provinces for asylum seekers awaiting their claims. The support comes at the permanent resident granting determination process, afterwards. That being said, we have taken various measures to help the provinces and to help asylum seekers by expediting across Canada all work permit applications and trying to—
.
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
If I may interrupt then, how many work permit applications have been processed and approved?
.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
About six or seven weeks ago, we had over 6,000 work permit applications for all asylum seekers across Canada in our inventory. That is now almost eliminated, and we are processing in under 30 days any new asylum seeker’s work permit that is coming in from across Canada. We are doing those in well under 30 days. The idea is to help people get into the work force quicker.

Again, still trying to speed up the work permits for illegals into the country. And NGOs that are on the ground? Aren’t these people at all concerned that NGOs are helping with people illegally coming into Canada?

Mr. Chair, Canadians can be assured that we’ve been monitoring the situation for many months and putting in place the necessary plans. Although it’s far from a routine situation that we’re facing, it’s one that we’ve been able to manage responsibly, effectively, and professionally. I’d like to take the opportunity to thank my department officials and officials in all the different agencies involved for how they’ve been able to rise to the challenge and respond with the utmost professionalism, nimbleness, speed, and ingenuity.

I’ll now outline the concrete ways in which we’re responsive. When we saw the numbers of irregular migrants begin to increase at the Lacolle border crossing, we were able to quickly mobilize in order to reassign staff and set up additional office space so that we could keep up with the volume and process asylum seekers quickly for their eligibility hearings. In fact, these efforts have enabled us to bring the eligibility processing timelines of from five to seven months down to from five to seven days.

We figured out a way to fast-track work permit applications from asylum claimants across Canada in order to alleviate the pressure on the social assistance budgets of provincial governments. This is an issue that was raised by the Government of Quebec, and we moved quickly to establish a new 30-day service standard for work permit applications so that asylum seekers may support themselves and become self-sufficient while they await the final decision on their claims. This minimizes the impact they have on provincial social assistance programs.

Similarly, we have built in flexibility to ensure that asylum seekers are covered under the interim federal health program immediately after background checks are completed, but while they are awaiting their initial hearing. This is important because we want to ensure that public health is protected, that asylum seekers have access to basic care, and that there is no undue burden on hospital emergency rooms and provincial health care budgets.

Mr. Chair, all of these are great examples of how we have been responding to an uncommon situation in an effective manner. At the same time, we’ve been working to dispel the false information that has prompted many to embark on a journey to cross our border. We know this situation is, in part, fuelled by misinformation on various social media outlets and other channels suggesting that certain groups of individuals will receive preferential treatment or be given status in Canada. This is, of course, incorrect, and all claimants have been and will continue to be treated according to existing laws.

We’ve taken a number of steps to dispel false information and inform people in Canada and the United States of the facts regarding the asylum process in Canada. In recent weeks, two of our colleagues, multilingual members of Parliament, travelled to the United States to help counteract this false information among different diaspora communities.

So Hussan is sending people to the United States to combat this false information. Has the Government met with American officials about closing the loophole in the Safe 3rd Country Agreement?

Michelle Rempel
I’m not asking you to comment on that, but rather on the following question. Has the government broached the topic of amending the safe third country agreement to cover claims made by people entering Canada through unofficial points of entry with the new American administration, especially as we renegotiate NAFTA? I think it could be argued that it would be hypocritical for the Americans to ask Canada to improve border security if they’re not willing to reciprocate.
.
Or, is the government content to allow the new administration a convenient option to encourage people to self-deport to our country with a minimum amount of American resources involved?
.
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
I’d like to just begin by saying that we in no way encourage irregular migration. If your question is about Canada becoming sort of like a second option for people who have exhausted their options or feel that they’ve exhausted their options in the United States….
.
Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Just to clarify, my comment is whether or not the government has broached with the Americans the renegotiation of the safe third country agreement.
.
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
We haven’t done that.
.
Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Thank you

The Immigration Minister at the time hadn’t even approached the Americans with regard to fixing the obvious loophole in the agreement.

video width=”640″ height=”360″ mp4=”https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/CIMM-Meeting-No.-112-12-16-45.Hussans.Nigerian.Visits.mp4″][/video]

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Scarborough—Rouge Park, Lib.):
.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
At the outset to both ministers, I’d like to thank you for your continued efforts in this and finding the appropriate balance in ensuring that Canada meets its international obligations under the refugee convention, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the convention against torture, and other international instruments. I think the manner in which both of your departments have handled this is extraordinary, and I’m quite proud to see this in action.
.
Also, Commissioner Lucki, it’s a pleasure to have you here. The historical shoes that you’ve put on are not lost on us and thank you for that.
.
I want to start, Mr. Hussen, with respect to your visit to Nigeria. Could you outline what specific engagements you had there, and what messaging you had for the Nigerian community?

Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
Thank you very much.
My visit to Nigeria was very productive. I visited the capital city of Abuja, as well as the commercial capital city of Lagos. In Abuja I met the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Interior, and on the same day I met the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Nigeria. I was able to indicate to both officials what we were facing. I made it very clear that, overall, the number of Nigerians coming regularly to Canada is actually high. There are a lot of visitors and tourists as well as international students and people who come through the express entry system, as well as the provincial nominee program.

In fact, the number that is coming irregularly is smaller than the regular numbers. However, it is an issue, and I emphasized to them the need for that government to co-operate closely with Canada on the issue of reiterating the message that we are always making, which is that we welcome newcomers, but we want people to come through regular migration.

The second request I had of the Nigerian government was that they should work closely with us to expedite the issuing of travel documents for Nigerian nationals who have exhausted the procedures and are set to be removed from Canada. On both of those requests, the Nigerian government officials I met, including the foreign minister, were clearly supportive and indicated very clearly that they will work with us on both those issues.

Very quickly, I also met representatives of various media outlets in Nigeria to, again, make the point that we value the contributions that Nigerian Canadians have made to our country, but that irregular migration is an issue. I also met civil society organizations who were very kind to let me know some of the challenges, some of the misinformation that was being fed to some of these officials.

How much more obvious does it have to be that these asylum claims are bogus? Hussan visits with Nigeria, and he works with their government to get replacement travel documents. Plenty of Nigerians come as tourists, as students and are admitted into the Provincial Nominee Program, yet there is a refugee crisis?

Hon. Michelle Rempel (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC):
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On May 23, in the Stanstead Journal, the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie was quoted as saying, “We had [a lot of] calls from local businesses last year telling us they would gladly go pick them up there and hire them,” since Canada is short on manpower and the influx of people entering illegally through Roxham Road is welcomed by a lot of people.
Do the ministers share the opinion of their colleague?

Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
The fact of the matter is that the issue of issuing work permits to asylum seekers was something that was brought to us through the intergovernmental task force on irregular migration. It was brought forward by the Province of Quebec. They felt that it was important for the federal government to help the Province of Quebec and other provinces expedite the issuing of work permits so that asylum seekers can support themselves as opposed to relying on provincial social services, and we’ve done that.

Hon. Michelle Rempel:
I would argue that planned, orderly migration, where we anticipate economic migration and match it to labour force needs would be a better management of Canada’s immigration system, especially since Quebec and Ontario have both expressed that some of the people who are illegally crossing the borders need to be diverted to other places in the country.
I will ask the minister very bluntly. Does he actually want to stop people from illegally entering the country at the Roxham Road border?
.
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
The question is important because it gives me an opportunity to talk about the things that we are doing. We have consistently said that there is no free ticket—
.
Mr. David Tilson:
How about yes or no?
.
Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Just in the interest of time, I’d like a yes or no answer. Does the minister want to stop the vast influx of people illegally crossing the border at Roxham Road from the United States?
.
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
Yes.

Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Does the minister then share the opinion that his minister colleague expressed that it is acceptable for businesses to go and pick up people at the Roxham Road crossing, and does he feel that this sentiment perhaps incents people to illegally cross the border?
.
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
We have a clear set of immigration rules and procedures, including rules and procedures dealing with asylum seekers. That is specifically dealt with in section 133 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and we have an obligation to ensure that the law is enforced, and that’s what we try to do in every case.
.
Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Thank you.

Hussan explicitly states that he wants to see the illegal crossings into Canada stop. However, the tone and urgency seems to be non-existent here. Hard to stop it when obviously bogus claims are from the United States are allowed through.

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP):
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the ministers.
My first question is for the Minister of Immigration. He mentioned that his officials are engaging in a discussion with the United States about the modernization of the safe third country agreement. I’m wondering whether, in those discussions, the government has the raised the issue of the problem being the United States itself. Every time the President utters or tweets some anti-immigrant, anti-refugee rhetoric, it creates a situation and there’s a reaction related to that. I wonder whether that has been brought up at the table with our U.S. counterpart.

Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
The discussions with respect to the safe third country agreement are in the early days. There are no formal negotiations—
.
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
Sorry, I’m just going to interrupt here.
My question is whether the minister has raised the issue on the asylum seekers crossing over to Canada as a result of the behaviour of the President of the United States.

Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
There are no formal negotiations with respect to the safe third country agreement. The discussions are essentially on opportunities to modernize the agreement.
.
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
Has there been informal discussion brought up from this government about the issue resting with the behaviour of the President of the United States?
.
[Expand]
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
As I said earlier, the discussions have basically looked at the possibility of modernizing the agreement, as any 14-year-old agreement would be ripe for modernization.

Ms. Jenny Kwan:
That wasn’t my question to the minister. The minister fails to understand.
I’m trying to see whether the government has raised the issue, gone to the core of the issue. The core of the issue is not so much about the asylum seekers crossing over but what causes them to do that. Frankly, my view rests with the U.S. administration, and most particularly with the President himself. Has that been brought to the table?
Perhaps Minister Goodale can answer that question. Has his ministry, or his ministry officials, brought that forward?
.
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
There was no misunderstanding of the question. I understood your question. We just have a different perspective on asylum seekers and how they should claim asylum. We have a UN-supported position—
.
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
Sorry, my question was to Mr. Goodale.

Hon. Ralph Goodale:
I’d make two observations in response to that, Ms. Kwan.
The first is that the beginning of this issue took place before there was a change in administration in the United States. There’s not a specific correlation that’s identifiable, because the numbers began before the government changed in the United States.
.
Secondly, we have raised with American officials, a concern that if they change policy with respect to the status of persons who have been given temporary protected status in the United States, that could have an impact on border management with Canada. We have encouraged the Americans, in every case, to give as much advanced notice as possible of their intention to make a status change, so that we can be prepared to deal with the consequences of that. Since we made that request to the Americans quite some time ago, they have adopted a practice of giving 18 to 20 months’ notice before an established change would come into effect.
.
We have observed that status changes in the United States could have an impact on the border. We have requested that they give advance notice if they have a status change in mind, and they have complied with that request. Now consistently, in every case I believe, they give us at least 18 months’ notice that they might have a status change in mind.

Yes, apparently the flood of “refugees” coming from the United States is the fault of the U.S. President. Canada is expected to act as a dumping ground for illegal migrants who don’t like Trump’s rhetoric.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC):
Thank you.
Minister Goodale, we have literally thousands of kilometres of highway that are enforced by the RCMP, which reports to you. Do we have RCMP eyes on every hundred metres of that highway in order to enforce those laws?
.
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
Not all the time.
.
Hon. Pierre Poilievre:
Thank you. That does answer my question.
You’ve mentioned that we cannot enforce the safe third party agreement across the entire Canadian border because we cannot have eyes on the entire Canadian border at all times. In other words, you’ve said that because we could not afford—and you’re right—to put officials on every square inch of the Canadian border, we could not possibly enforce the safe third country agreement across that space.
.
You rightly acknowledged, though, that the RCMP is able to enforce traffic laws and traffic rules, right across the thousands and thousands of kilometres of highway that we already have in existence. What would stop the government, then, from simply applying the safe third party agreement to the entire border for the purposes of illegal border crossings?

Hon. Ralph Goodale:
Mr. Poilievre, I mentioned at least three difficulties with that particular proposal.
One is the requirement for officers, which you in your question have acknowledged, and, I gather, agreed with, that makes that type of border enforcement rather impractical.
.
The second part of it is that if you have a border port of entry that is 9,000 kilometres long, you need to have, correspondingly, cooperation from the United States on the other side of the border—which they are, I think it’s fair to say, not likely to do. You have no counterpart.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre:
Have you asked?
.
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
It is an international boundary.
.
Hon. Pierre Poilievre:
Have you asked?
.
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
I have not asked that specific question.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre:
Wait a second here. You have not—
.
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
Mr. Poilievre, I would be delighted to—
.
Hon. Pierre Poilievre:
Excuse me, you just answered my question.
.
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
—and I’ll be very quick to report their answer to you.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre:
You just answered my question. You know, you’ve continually claimed that you can’t enforce the safe third country agreement because we can’t have eyes on every square inch of the border, but you admit that we enforce rules all the time in places where we don’t have law enforcement constantly observing. Secondarily, you have said that we cannot enforce the safe third country agreement because we do not have agreement from the United States of America. Now you admit that you haven’t even sought such agreement, which really does raise the question of whether or not you’re looking for a solution—

Hon. Ralph Goodale:
Yes, indeed, Mr. Poilievre—
.
Hon. Pierre Poilievre:
—or if you’re perfectly comfortable with the situation we have right now, where thousands of people are crossing illegally into this country.
.
My next question is this. Do the Americans automatically turn away every single…? Excuse me, do the Americans apply the safe third country agreement to anybody who enters outside a recognized point of entry? Yes or no?
.
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
That would be a question for IRCC to respond to.
Would you like to repeat it for Mr. MacKinnon?
.
Hon. Pierre Poilievre:
Do the American apply the safe third country agreement to anybody crossing from Canada into the United States of America between official, recognized ports of entry?
.
Mr. Paul MacKinnon:
No. The U.S. applies the safe third country agreement in exactly the reciprocal fashion that we apply it for south-north traffic.

Ahmed Hussan was asked this question in October 2017, and then Ralph Goodale is asked in July 2018. The Liberals claim that there is nothing they can do to fix the loophole in the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, which allows fake refugees from the U.S. to enter Canada. Goodale and Hussan also admit the Government hasn’t asked.

5. Conservatives Are Controlled Opposition

According to the CPC Policy Declaration, converting temporary workers into permanent residents is listed (Article 139), and so is erasing the borders with CANZUK (Article 152). Hard to be serious about border security when those policies are on the books.

At the 2:00 mark of the CANZUK video, Erin O’Toole explicitly talks about expanding CANZUK to other nations. He is not the only one to call for doing so. The 4 party set-up (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom), seems to be just a starting point.

One might wonder why Pierre Poilievre has relatively tame criticism of the Government’s open border policies, and why more isn’t done. He’s clearly aware of the issues around Canada’s border. One should also ask why he prominently flies an Israeli flag in his office during the “virtual Parliament”.

And one may question why the then-Immigration “Shadow Minister” seems so tepid about the vast scale of people entering the country (both legally and illegally). Here are some of her recent tweets.

Yes, that is the face of modern conservatism is this country. Mass migration of people into Canada who will work for less, and drive down the wages of Canadians. Forget about the tens of billions sent off due to remittances, or the impact of the reduced supply of jobs for Canadians. Forget about all of the problems that diversity and multiculturalism bring.

6. All A Dog-And-Pony Show

Canadians concerned about their borders should be outraged by what is going on. This Parliamentary system is one where parties go through the motions of trying to secure the border, but have no intention of actually doing so.

Recently, Trudeau announced a temporary stop to illegal crossings into Canada. This shows that the Prime Minister had the power — all along — to stop illegal entries. These hearing were a farce because it was completely unnecessary. All of this has been an act played out in front of the public.

Watch all of the clips if you can. But it will make your blood boil.

May 16, 2020December 9, 2020

TSCE #9(B): Does The Canadian Government Actually Support Human Trafficking?

(UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for UN Review On Smuggling Migrants.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention On Transnational Crime.
http://archive.is/q0XqK
CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol Against Human Trafficking.
http://archive.is/cjnJt
CLICK HERE, for UN Opt. Protocol On Rights Of The Child.
http://archive.is/onmrr
CLICK HERE, for UN Global Initiative To Fight Trafficking.
http://archive.is/Fjuv6
CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol To Prevent/Punish Trafficking.
CLICK HERE, for UN Rights Of The Child, Sale, Prostitution, Porn.
http://archive.is/onmrr
CLICK HERE, for Eliminate Worst Forms Of Child Labour.
http://archive.is/OZQM
CLICK HERE, for the Rome Statute, Int’l Criminal Court.
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s antitrafficking strategy, 2019-24.
http://archive.is/15ov0

3. Context For This Piece

There was a story in the mainstream media today about the Trudeau Government has cut funding for the victims of trafficking and exploitation, forcing 9 centers across Canada.

For someone who repeatedly brags about being a “feminist” the hypocrisy is mind boggling. Trudeau will shovel out money (borrowed from the international banking cartel), for just about any cause, but not to help women and girls who really need it.

Beyond the shame and hypocrisy, there is a question that genuinely needs to be asked: does this government actually support human trafficking and sex trafficking in Canada? Consider some things that have happened in recent years.

Agreements like the UN Global Migration Compact
Even terrorists allowed back into Canada
Certain ideologies embraced as “diversity”
Refusing to properly enforce national borders
Allowing foreign NGOs to rewrite our border laws
Reduced penalties for child sex crimes
Cutting funding for help for victims

The pattern this government has shown can be described as:

[A] Come off as unserious, pandering, or overly compassionate; and
[B] Divert attention away from the real objective

All of these events in isolation “could” be viewed simply as extremely incompetent governing. It may be seen as excessive pandering and virtue signalling. However, what if these events were in fact connected? Could all of these inexplicable policy moves be to promote the same goal?

To avoid confusion, let’s distinguish two things:

[I] SMUGGLED people are accomplices who willingly cross illegally
[II] TRAFFICKED people are prisoners who are brought somewhere

Much of the information has been addressed in earlier parts of the TSCE (trafficking, smuggling, & child exploitation) series above. References will be made, but feel free to go back through the individual stories for more information. The actions made by our government seem to facilitate both trafficking and smuggling.

4. Global Migration Agreements

(There is a connection between smuggling and “irregular migration”)

(UN High Commission on Refugees)

unhcr.guidelines.exceptions
UNCHR.advice.for.illegal.crossings

Objectives for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration
(1) Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence-based policies
(2) Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin
(3) Provide accurate and timely information at all stages of migration
(4) Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation
(5) Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
(6) Facilitate fair and ethical recruitment and safeguard conditions that ensure decent work
(7) Address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration
(8) Save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants
(9) Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants
(10) Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration
(11) Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner
(12) Strengthen certainty and predictability in migration procedures for appropriate screening, assessment and referral
(13) Use migration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
(14) Enhance consular protection, assistance and cooperation throughout the migration cycle
(15) Provide access to basic services for migrants
(16) Empower migrants and societies to realize full inclusion and social cohesion
(17) Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to
shape perceptions of migration
(18) Invest in skills development and facilitate mutual recognition of skills, qualifications and
competences
(19) Create conditions for migrants and diasporas to fully contribute to sustainable development in all countries
(20) Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants
(21) Cooperate in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as sustainable reintegration
(22) Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits
(23) Strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships for safe, orderly and regular migration
Also, consider the fact that the United Nations has studied the connection between illegal immigration and human smuggling. This is from a 2011 study released.

un.global.migration.compact

#4: Ensure proof of identity? That might make it easier to help get falsified documents, either from a government or a private party.

#5: Enhancing pathways for migration? Both from a legal and illegal point of view it seems open to abuse.

#9: Even though the Global Migration Compact claims to oppose human smuggling, it explicitly states (see above picture), that people who are part of smuggling won’t be prosecuted. Remember, smuggling is voluntary, unlike being trafficked.

#10: Despite wanting to monitor “irregular” routes — which are ILLEGAL entries, the UNHCR openly encourages people to enter Canada illegally, and even provides advice on how to do it. Seems pretty unhelpful to condemn human trafficking and smuggling, but then offer advice on how to circumvent local laws.

#13: Detention only as a last resort. It won’t help to deter people from bringing others in (legally or otherwise) if there are no real penalties.

#17: Sensitizing the media and promoting “proper language”. There is also a provision for pulling the funding for media deemed to be hateful. Could lodging valid criticism of human trafficking and smuggling be considered hateful?

#20: Faster, safer and cheaper remittances and “financial inclusion”? Could also double as a way to launder money out of the country, or help finance the next group of people to bring over.

2.1 Smuggling of migrants and the concepts of irregular migration and trafficking in persons
2.1.1 Irregular migration
The relationship between irregular migration and smuggling of migrants has been discussed in the literature, with most authors acknowledging the crucial role of smuggling of migrants in facilitating irregular migration.

In looking at the relationship between the two concepts, Friedrich Heckmann stresses that smuggling of migrants plays a crucial role in facilitating irregular migration, as smugglers may provide a wide range of services, from physical transportation and illegal crossing of a border to the procurement of false documents.

Yes, this seems very obvious, but let’s hammer it home. Smuggling of people across borders is directly connected to the “irregular migration” that occurs at the end. It is the end result of these actions which show no respect for national borders or sovereignty. The UN review is rather blunt on the subject.

While the UN agreements Canada signs (the 2018 Global Migration Compact is just one) are “claiming” that respect for borders is important, the truth is that they do a lot to undermine national borders. And weak borders make for easy smuggling and trafficking.

5. Repatriation Of Terrorists To Canada

Early in Trudeau’s first mandate, Bill C-6 was introduced. It prevented dual national convicted of terrorism or treason from having their Canadian citizenship stripped and being deported. While it’s true that the UN supports terrorists being able to remain (or return) to any country they hold a passport for, this government supported doing it anyway.

Beyond terrorists themselves, the government supports a continued replacement migration from areas of the world where women and girls don’t have equality rights, and abuse it rampant.

One has to ask why though. It may be to appear compassionate in the eyes of others. It may also be to bring back or normalize an ideology that has a very different idea about what it means to be an adult. In other parts of the world, women and children have little to no rights. Remember, it’s not exploitation if it’s cloaked as multiculturalism.

6. Embracing Incompatibles As “Diversity”

True, all politicians pander to get votes. However, our current government takes that issue much farther, and embraces the globohomo agenda. The current LGBTQ movement, lacking real issues to address, has gone down the path of sexualizing children. Even former supporters are abandoning the movement. Breaking down any sense of normality is not healthy for society, but this government supports it.

Several associates of Justin Trudeau are known pedophiles. True, one shouldn’t be judged by the company they keep, but there is a limit to that philosophy. Trudeau himself has had many bizarre claims levelled against him. (For the sake of limiting liability, let’s leave it at that.)

The government’s love of promoting (and financing) abortion at home and abroad is creepy. There’s something Satanic about the eugenics of children.

What is the real agenda behind pushing for the sexual liberation of children, or at least the ones who aren’t aborted? Is there some more heinous shoe yet to drop?

7. Lack Of Genuine Border Enforcement

When Federal politicians are seriously discussing the ideas of expedited work permits and health care for illegals, they aren’t serious about border security. In a similar vein, when amnesty-for-illegals pilot programs are starting up, or sanctuary cities are allowed, how does that secure the border? When we don’t have a proper entry/exit system tracking people across the border, how are we more secure?

Beyond the politicians refusing to implement real border security, NGOs like: (a) Bridges not Borders; (b) Plattsburg Cares; (c) Solidarity Across Border, and others, coordinate in helping to smuggle illegal aliens across the border. The information is easy to find, yet the authorities do nothing.

There are many theories as to why the powers that be are standing down. It could be a globalist agenda. It could be open borders. It could be to import cheaper labour.

But there is another possibility. If a group of people wanted to smuggle (or traffic) young and vulnerable people across the border, what better way to do it? Would it not be much easier to move people across the border if there is no real border control?

8. Foreign NGOs Writing Our laws

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), have been trying to effectively erase the Canada/U.S. border for a long time. They do it by going lobbying Parliament to rewrite our laws, and they do it by going to court and challenging our laws as “inhumane”. Here are 3 attempts that have been made in about the last 30 years.

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

The above notes are from part 16 of the series, and outline 3 attempts in Federal Court that NGOs have made to eliminate the Canada/U.S. border. This is by no means all the attempts that have been made, nor is the only border that these groups try to dissolve. Note: if a border cannot effectively stop people from entering, then it ceases to exist.

With the last attempt to strike down the Safe Third Country Agreement, the Government decided instead to just let “refugees” from the United States enter anyway through regular ports of entry.

Also worth noting is that the same NGOs who go to court for “refugee rights” and “immigrant rights” are the same ones who lobby politicians against having effective borders and tight immigration rules. The lawfare is waged both in Court, and in Parliament.

Since the Federal Government seems onboard with the open borders agenda, one has to ask why. Is it a misguided gesture of compassion to the entire world? Or is it a way to reduce barriers to letting certain people in?

9. Reduced Penalties For Child Sex Crimes

In 2016, the Liberals introduced Bill C-32, which would have lowered the age of consent for anal sex from 18 to 16. This would mean striking Section 159 from the criminal code. After public outrage, the bill was allowed to die. However, the idea was simply stuffed into Bill C-75, which also reduced the potential criminal penalties for many serious crimes.

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 280(1): Abduction of child under age 16
Section 281: Abduction of child under age 14
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

Bizarrely, Sections 279.02(2), and 279.03(2), which related to adults, is still an indictable offence. Guess it’s not as bad when it happens to minors.

While reducing the terrorism penalties is a messed up decision, the inclusion of these other charges largely passed unnoticed by the public. Even this website initially missed it. If it really was about pandering to Muslims (who disproportionately commit terrorism), why add these offenses in as well?

Was the focus on the terrorism offences a means to divert attention away from the watering down of child sex crimes? Is this a way to water down the penalties for people getting caught, but without making it obvious that it was the case?

10. Cutting Funding To Victims’ Shelters

The Government of Canada brags about how much it takes the matter seriously. Yet, a recent news story reported that several groups which help victims can’t get their funding renewed.

The London Abused Women’s Centre (LAWC) said programs that help over 600 women and girls who are victims of human trafficking are being cancelled after the federal government denied funding.

LAWC, in addition to other organizations, was receiving funding through the Measures to Address Prostitution Initiatives (MAPI) fund, a five-year program that ended in March 2020.

MAPI provided funding for women and girls at risk of trafficking and those who were trafficked.

While in operation, the program helped a total of 3,107 trafficked, prostituted, sexually-exploited and at-risk women and girls in London. This included individual long-term, trauma-informed service to 650 trafficked and sexually exploited women and girls, 939 at-risk women and girls who attended groups, 173 family members from across Canada looking for their missing daughters, and 1,343 at-risk women and youth through community outreach.

However, the government recently declined to renew funding for several institutions devoted to helping trafficked victims. This was particularly bitter considering how Trudeau routinely markets himself as a feminist. Despite the recent spending spree, the Federal Government doesn’t have the money available for them.

There is another way to look at this. What organizations loudly advocate for victims though? Which groups want to see this issue pushed more in the media? What people are most likely to try to track down identities of perpetrators involved? And unlike some portions of law enforcement, who is ideologically driven to put a stop to it?

One way to help keep trafficking alive in Canada is to bankrupt institutions that are devoted to fighting this injustice. Intentional or not, that is the effect.

11. Connecting The Dots

How else would one explain the series of events as described in the above section? If not a coordinated effort to facilitate human smuggling and trafficking, then what are they? Just coincidental?

Although agreements like the UN Global Migration Compact explicitly state they oppose human smuggling, the text elsewhere says otherwise. The document objects to smuggled people to be prosecuted; it demands free social services, even for illegals; pensions and social benefits are rights; access to identity documents is a right; detention of illegals is to be minimized; and so on. The compact invites people to come to the West illegally, because of the rewards it offers. And smugglers will take advantage of it.

Our government believes that anyone with Canadian identity documents should be allowed back into Canada, regardless of what crimes they may have committed abroad. Since we’re “repatriating” Canadians, maybe they’ll bring back a child or two as well.

The globohomo agenda has gotten even more bizarre, where things like drag queen story hour are becoming normalized. Sex Ed. is being pushed on ever younger children, and younger children are being encouraged to transition. Is this a deliberate plan to desensitise the public?

Our politicians (all parties) do not take border security seriously. They allow people to come illegally, and be released into the public almost immediately. Successive governments have also failed to implement a genuine entry/exit system to track people crossing. Cities like Toronto and Hamilton are “sanctuary” cities, meaning illegals can reside there and get social benefits. Is this incompetence, or does not having border security make it harder to track smuggled and trafficked people?

Not only do our politicians and courts fail to act in the interests of Canadians, they allow NGOs (often foreign ones) to rewrite our laws. Foreign NGOs are given “public interest standing” to challenge our border laws in court. Those same groups are able to legally “lobby” Canadian public officials into supporting legislation to weaken existing laws, or just not enforce current laws. Consequently, our leaders work for outsiders, not for us.

While most people were focused on the reduced terrorism penalties in Bill C-75, many offences against children were listed as well. Why would a government not want such heinous crimes to be severely punished?

Despite repeatedly professing to support women and girls (especially when they’re in need), the Federal Government recently declined to continue funding groups to aid victims of trafficking. There’s money to spend on everything, but not on groups who would fight for these victims.

If the Government doesn’t support human trafficking, what else could explain this? Or is it all unrelated?

May 13, 2020July 18, 2024

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.

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/canadas-bill-c-75-watering-down-penalties-for-terrorism-rioting-weapons/
(2) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=8587634
(3) http://archive.is/p1AqH
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-75/royal-assent
(5) http://archive.is/QYxr0
(6) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/
(7) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10210275
(8) http://archive.is/efXwo

1. Previous Solutions Offered

2. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

3. Helmets Mentioned In Previous Article

4. Resisting The “Culture Shift”

5. BC Exemption On Helmets For Sikhs

6. Alberta Exemption On Helmets For Sikhs

7. Manitoba Exemption On Helmets For Sikhs

8. Ontario Exemption On Helmets For Sikhs

9. Quebec Hypocrisy On Face Coverings

10. CHRC – Duty To Accommodate

11. Mask Objections: Specific Religions

12. Alternative: Get A Medical Note

13. Reject Masks, Vote With Your Wallet

14. Masks Are About Asserting Control

Share this:

Like this:

1. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public

2. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

3. Important Links

4. Following Content Involves Speculation

5. Why Cover This Subject?

6. Real Reason Tam Flip Flopped

7. Culture Shift Is A Major Goal

8. Provinces Jump On Board

9. Alberta Begins Mask Program

10. Quebec “Strongly Recommends” Masks

11. New Brunswick & Mandatory Masks

11. Cities Implementing Mask Use

12. Mandatory Masks On Travel

13. Anthony Fauci Flip Flops On Masks

14. Press Briefings Are Hoax

15. Worthless Computer Modelling

16. Shift To Race Riot Psy-Op

17. Tam Supports Protest, Wear A Mask

18. Protesting Exemption For Racism

19. Make Public Submission Easy/Affordable

20. Parallel With Islamic Head Coverings

21. Consequence Of Mask Refusal

Share this:

Like this:

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Important Links

3. Context For This Article

4. Review By Civilian Intelligence Network

5. Open Society Group Tax Records

6. Michael Ignatieff VP Open Society Fund

7. Areas Open Society Finances

8. Groups Open Society Helps Fund

9. Open Society & Higher Education

10. Open Society Pushes For More Refugees

11. UNCHR Party To Canada/U.S. Border

12. Open Society Finances Lawfare In Court

13. Soros Allegedly Funding Civil Unrest

15. Caravans Facilitating Illegal Entry

16. Trudeau Foundation Media Swamp

17. Open Society Attacks In Many Ways

Share this:

Like this:

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Important Links

3. Context For This Article

4. Quotes From 2017/2018 Hearings

5. Conservatives Are Controlled Opposition

6. All A Dog-And-Pony Show

Share this:

Like this:

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Important Links

3. Context For This Piece

4. Global Migration Agreements

5. Repatriation Of Terrorists To Canada

6. Embracing Incompatibles As “Diversity”

7. Lack Of Genuine Border Enforcement

8. Foreign NGOs Writing Our laws

9. Reduced Penalties For Child Sex Crimes

10. Cutting Funding To Victims’ Shelters

11. Connecting The Dots

Share this:

Like this:

1. Bill C-32 Introduced In November 2016