Solutions #16: Push Back On Pride And “Conversion Therapy” Bans (TSCE #22)

1. Previous Solutions Offered

CLICK HERE, for #1: Offering something to the other side.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Canada should leave the UN entirely.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Dumping multiculturalism and feminism.
CLICK HERE, for #4: More births instead of replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Restore 1934 Bank of Canada Act
CLICK HERE, for #6: Abolish Human Rights Tribunals Entirely.
CLICK HERE, for #7: Abolish Gladue, fix underlying problems.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Banning (political) corporate welfare.
CLICK HERE, for #9: Putting a total moratorium on immigration.
CLICK HERE, for #10: How to do research, investigative journalism.
CLICK HERE, for #11: Have proper entry/exit border system.
CLICK HERE, for #12: Maintain spiritual foundation of the West.
CLICK HERE, for #13: Refusing forced vaccinations/medications.
CLICK HERE, for #14: Making more informed voting choices.
CLICK HERE, for #15: picking up on predictive programming in media

2. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

CLICK HERE, for #1: series intro and other listings.
CLICK HERE, for #2: suing for the right to illegally enter U.S.
CLICK HERE, for #3: the U.N.’s hypocrisy on sexual abuse.
CLICK HERE, for #4: fake refugees gaming the system.
CLICK HERE, for #5: various topics on subject.
CLICK HERE, for #6: Islamic sexual violence on women/children.
CLICK HERE, for #7: UNHCR party to S3CA, consultations req’d.
CLICK HERE, for #8: UN blurs line between smuggling/irregular.
CLICK HERE, for #9: more UNODC research into smuggling.
CLICK HERE, for #10: allowing illegals violates int’l treaties.
CLICK HERE, for #11: NGOs in court to open CDA’s borders.
CLICK HERE, for #12: the Zionist roots of Amnesty Int’l NGO.
CLICK HERE, for #13: Canadian Council of Refugees NGO.
CLICK HERE, for #14: NGOs coordinate illegal Roxham Rd. crossings.
CLICK HERE, for #15: Ex-Israeli Ambassador David Berger.
CLICK HERE, for #16: NGOs in court for decades to open borders.
CLICK HERE, for #17: reduced penalties for child sex crimes.
CLICK HERE, for #18: does CDN Gov’t support trafficking?
CLICK HERE, for #19: politicians deliberately keep border open.
CLICK HERE, for #20: Soros, lawfare, funding, population replacement.
CLICK HERE, for #21: DNA testing to spot smuggled/trafficked children.

3. Important Links

un.conversion.therapy.risks
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-8, ban on conversion therapy.
Bill.c8.ban.on.conversion.therapy
CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Criminal Code.
CLICK HERE, for CBC article on conversion therapy ban.

CLICK HERE, for followup on children w/gender dysphoria.
http://archive.is/yyJ99
CLICK HERE, for James Cantor on child GD followup.

4. Context For This Piece

This isn’t an attempt to make a religious argument on the SOGI (sexual orientation, gender identity) agenda. Instead, this is more of the effects — both intended and unintended — that this ideology causes. The primary focus is on changing one’s gender/sex, though the same issues apply (to a lesser degree), for sexual orientation.

Undeniably, having this issue promoted the way it is creates a few problems. First, there are a lot of physical and mental health issues that are still present. Second, genuine criticism and concern is frequently shut down under the pretense of bigotry. This can also lead to doxing and damaged careers. Third, it allows those with an agenda to essentially rewrite the laws for society as a whole. Fourth, the lives that get destroyed are often lost and ignored afterwards.

While the “conversion techniques” described in the UN report are barbaric and savage, this is not an effort to endorse SOGI. Trying to change one’s sex is not something that should become normalized or promoted. This is especially true among children.

Don’t get the wrong idea. There are serious issues that people face, and compassion is needed. However, the solutions that are promoted and pushed in society today are destructive and harmful, and need to be called out.

Consider this: instead of mangling and destroying your body, what if that peace could be achieved another way? Isn’t finding a way to be happy a better option?

5. Why Is Pride Even Needed?

Let’s just address this briefly: what is even the point of having Pride every year? If the goal was about legal equality, that has been achieved long ago. Even same sex marriage became legalized nationally in 2005.

Think it through. Once all of the major issues are resolved, then whatever is left is less and less important. Bake my cake? Wax my privates? Cater my wedding? Are these really the problems that are plaguing society?

Whether accidental or by design, the continued push by LGBTQ activists has the effect of causing people who were otherwise accepting of the movement to begin rejecting it. Purity spirals never end well.

6. UN Wants Ban On Conversion Therapy

83. Practices of “conversion therapy”, based on the incorrect and harmful notion that sexual and gender diversity are disorders to be corrected, are discriminatory in nature. Furthermore, actions to subject lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans or gender-diverse persons to practices of “conversion therapy” are by their very nature degrading, inhuman and cruel and create a significant risk of torture. States must examine specific cases in the light of the international, regional and local framework on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and/or punishment.

84. Perpetrators of abuse through practices of “conversion therapy” include private and public mental health-care providers, faith-based organizations, traditional healers and State agents; promoters additionally include family and community members, political authorities and other agents.

85. Under the conditions established by international human rights law and the international framework on torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, practices of “conversion therapy” may engage the international responsibility of the State.

86. Practices of “conversion therapy” provoke profound psychological and physical damage in lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans or gender-diverse persons of all ages, in all regions of the world.

87. In view of the foregoing, the Independent Expert recommends that States:
(a) Ban the practices of “conversion therapy” as described in the present report, including by:
(i) Clearly establishing, through appropriate legal or administrative means, a definition of prohibited practices of “conversion therapy”, and ensuring that public funds are not used, directly or indirectly, to support them;
(ii) Banning practices of “conversion therapy” from being advertised and carried out in health-care, religious, education, community, commercial or any other settings, public or private;
(iii) Establishing a system of sanctions for non-compliance with the ban on practices of “conversion therapy”, commensurate with their gravity, including in particular, that claims should be promptly investigated and, if relevant, prosecuted and punished, under the parameters established under the international human rights obligations pertaining to the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
(iv) Creating monitoring, support and complaint mechanisms so that victims of practices of “conversion therapy” have access to all forms of reparations, including the right to rehabilitation, as well as legal assistance;

un.conversion.therapy.risks

The report does list several forms of “conversion therapy” that are absolutely horrific, such as forced gang rape. These are inexcusable under any circumstances.

That being said, the UN findings take the position that SOGI should be normalized and accepted by everyone. It implies that even very young children should be able to engage in this sort of behaviour. It isn’t normal for very young children (or anyone for that matter), to want to change their gender, yet the UN report makes no mention of it. Instead, people should be accepted as they are.

The UN report leaves out many important details and topics which should be addressed. However, the report is clearly motivated by ideology, not compassion or truth.

7. Canada’s Bill C-8, Conversion Therapy Ban


Bill.c8.ban.on.conversion.therapy

Interestingly, Bill C-8 would list materials promoting conversion therapy to be materials corruption public morals in the Canadian Criminal Code.

As this Federal bill is just one example of this nonsense being pushed, consider the mental gymnastics needed for any of this to make sense. A father can’t stop his 11 year old child from starting a sex change, because it would be in the interests of the child. Yet, the Federal Government in 2018 watered down the criminal penalties for sex crimes against children. The also lowered the age of consent for anal sex, because that was supposedly a priority.

Various bills and laws are being considered across the world to ban conversion therapy. Now, some methods in the 3rd world are pretty savage, efforts should be made to determine if the person (especially a child) really wants to do this. The person should also be made fully aware of the consequences they are facing.

In 2019, the CBC wrote about the proposed ban, mentioning health risks depending on the type of conversion, but provided little concrete detail. Omitted was the harm that transitioning young children can cause.

8. Long Term “Aging Out” Research

A 2009 study of adolescents with gender dysphoria found that for the majority, this did not persist into adulthood. To be fair, a large part of the original sample group wasn’t available.

Steensma-2013_desistance-rates
A 2013 study found that 84% of adolescents who had gender dysphoria had their symptoms stop in adulthood.

An article was written in 2016 by Jesse Singal about what was missing from the discussion from trans-activists: regrets, and people wishing to change back.

James Cantor has a dozen studies listed in this article which followed on teens/adolescents with gender dysphoria

  • Lebovitz, P. S. (1972). Feminine behavior in boys: Aspects of its outcome. American Journal of Psychiatry, 128, 1283–1289
  • Zuger, B. (1978). Effeminate behavior present in boys from childhood: Ten additional years of follow-up. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 19, 363–369
  • Money, J., & Russo, A. J. (1979). Homosexual outcome of discordant gender identity/role: Longitudinal follow-up. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 4, 29–41
  • Zuger, B. (1984). Early effeminate behavior in boys: Outcome and significance for homosexuality. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 172, 90–97.
  • Davenport, C. W. (1986). A follow-up study of 10 feminine boys. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 511–517.
  • Green, R. (1987). The “sissy boy syndrome” and the development of homosexuality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Kosky, R. J. (1987). Gender-disordered children: Does inpatient treatment help? Medical Journal of Australia, 146, 565–569
  • Wallien, M. S. C., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2008). Psychosexual outcome of gender-dysphoric children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1413–1423.
  • Drummond, K. D., Bradley, S. J., Badali-Peterson, M., & Zucker, K. J. (2008). A follow-up study of girls with gender identity disorder. Developmental Psychology, 44, 34–45.
  • Singh, D. (2012). A follow-up study of boys with gender identity disorder. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
    Steensma, T. D., McGuire, J. K., Kreukels, B. P. C., Beekman, A. J., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2013). Factors associated with desistence
  • and persistence of childhood gender dysphoria: A quantitative follow-up study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 52, 582–590.

Plenty of available research suggests the overwhelming majority of youth with gender dysphoria eventually get past it. So why exactly the push to have younger and younger children participating and messing up their lives?

Does banning conversion therapy mean that this type of research will become banned? Will it be considered hate speech to talk about it? How does hiding the plentiful amount of study done help people suffering from this condition? Of course this doesn’t even get into the tons of comorbid conditions and the suicide rates.

Don’t Liberals routinely claim that they are the “party of science”? Or does that only matter when the science fits their preshaped agenda?

9. Gender Dysphoria/Autism Link?

While it may be too early to say definitively, research has been done into gender dysphoria and other conditions such as Autism and Aspberger’s. If there is any truth to it, giving hormone blockers to autistic people (especially autistic children) amounts to medical malpractice and child abuse.

10. Bill C-16 Already Silenced Debate

To a large degree, Bill C-16 has already cut off a large part of the debate at least regarding the trans issue. Both the Canadian Criminal Code, and the Canadian Human Rights Code were amended to make “gender identity or expression” a protected ground.

To start out: “gender identity or expression” is so vague that it could be applied to a lot of different things. It doesn’t just refer to people who are transgender. Nor does it prevent someone from demanding made up pronouns, or repeatedly changing their pronouns.

What most likely started off with good intentions is a disaster waiting to happen.

11. Society Shouldn’t Normalize This

Instead of condemning conversion therapy as horrible, realize that trying to make people content in their bodies should at least be considered. Rather than making mutilation the first option, it should be the last thing (the very last thing), considered by doctors and others in the field.

In contrast to the instinct to make the child happy, responsible parents should make every effort to find out what is wrong with the child and find a way to deal with it.

If someone has a legitimate condition and needs to find a way to deal it, fine. But society shouldn’t be making this sort of thing mainstream, or encourage others to do it.

The incessant, never-ending demands of activists make even many tolerant people stop caring, or become outright resentful.

TSCE #18: Does The Canadian Government Actually Support Human Trafficking?

(UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

CLICK HERE, for #1: series intro and other listings.
CLICK HERE, for #2: suing for the right to illegally enter U.S.
CLICK HERE, for #3: the U.N.’s hypocrisy on sexual abuse.
CLICK HERE, for #4: fake refugees gaming the system.
CLICK HERE, for #5: various topics on subject.
CLICK HERE, for #6: Islamic sexual violence on women/children.
CLICK HERE, for #7: UNHCR party to S3CA, consultations req’d.
CLICK HERE, for #8: UN blurs line between smuggling/irregular.
CLICK HERE, for #9: more UNODC research into smuggling.
CLICK HERE, for #10: allowing illegals violates int’l treaties.
CLICK HERE, for #11: NGOs in court to open CDA’s borders.
CLICK HERE, for #12: the Zionist roots of Amnesty Int’l NGO.
CLICK HERE, for #13: Canadian Council of Refugees NGO.
CLICK HERE, for #14: NGOs coordinate illegal Roxham Rd. crossings.
CLICK HERE, for #15: Ex-Israeli Ambassador David Berger.
CLICK HERE, for #16: NGOs in court for decades to open borders.
CLICK HERE, for #17: reduced penalties for child sex crimes.

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.

  1. Agreements like the UN Global Migration Compact
  2. Even terrorists allowed back into Canada
  3. Certain ideologies embraced as “diversity”
  4. Refusing to properly enforce national borders
  5. Allowing foreign NGOs to rewrite our border laws
  6. Reduced penalties for child sex crimes
  7. 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 minors, is still an indictable offence. Guess it’s not as bad when it happens to adults.

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?

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

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

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

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

2. Important Links

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

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

3. Context For This Piece

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

The agenda can be summarized as such:

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

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

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

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

4. Bill C-32 Introduced In November 2016

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

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

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

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

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

5. Bill C-75 Brought In March 2018

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

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

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

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

6. Bill C-75 Used Partly To Divert Attention

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Hybridization Of Offences Continues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Submissions In Bill C-75 Hearings

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Liberals All Voted For This

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

10. More Then Just Terrorism At Stake

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion: Why Pride is Obsolete

(We’re tolerant, except to police officers)

(Pride: lesbians v.s. transgenders)

(Brown and black added for “racial inclusion”)

Serious question: What is the ultimate goal of the LGBT movement?

  1. Achieving equality and acceptance in mainstream life
  2. Constantly viewing itself as a victim in need of protection
  3. Both (1) and (2)

We live in a country where gays and trans have full equality under the law, and have for many years.

So called “marriage equality” was settled in Canada back in 2005. That’s right, 14 years ago. There are also provisions in every Provincial human rights code to protect sexual orientation. And hate crime provisions have existed for many years in the Criminal Code.

We also live in a country where being trans is protected, and employers and schools are required to make accommodations. Bill C-16 seems to be both poorly written and overkill.

You would think all is great, but not so. Despite the very limited scientific knowledge on gender dysphoria, we are prohibited from questioning it, even in young children. Even in our children. Questioning if changing gender is possible will now net a hefty fine. Bake-my-cake-or-I’ll-sue is no longer just a punchline, at least in Colorado. And SOGI has creeped into elementary schools.

Note: The issues and concerns with how gender dysphoria is treated will be a topic for another post. Likewise with having young children transition.

The problem with advocacy groups is that they eventually run out of grievances to protest. And the need to celebrate a movement becomes less and less important.

If misgendering people, or suing over wedding cakes is the worst we have going on, then what genuine causes are left?

Answer: No serious causes.

Since LGBT people enjoy full rights, and equality under the law, why does this need to be flaunted in public every Spring/Summer? Isn’t the ultimate goal to live freely and without stigmatization as your true self? This is what activists don’t seem to realize.

And while a small march or parade seems harmless enough, some larger Prides are downright raunchy (Toronto is a specific example). Nudity and lewd behaviour do often happen, at sites where children are present. For the sake of readers, I’ll spare the details. What this does to promote equality is beyond me.

If LGBT people want to just go about their lives, nothing stops them. Legally, nothing can stop them, and the vast majority of people don’t care. Prides (and other such events) detract from this by bringing the issue up again and again, throwing it in the public’s face.

Yes, people had their rights violated in the past, but that ended decades ago. It doesn’t help to bring it up with people who had absolutely no involvement. It also doesn’t help when municipalities fund (all or in part) of these movements.

As an aside, LGBT activists often get triggered at the idea (often trolling) of a “straight pride”. Well, identity cuts both ways, doesn’t it?

Having equality is an important part of this nation, but your orientation or identity isn’t. It doesn’t need to be forced on the public. Rather, Canada should focus more on what built the nation, and what holds it together.

The question at the start seemed rhetorical, but is not. Activists want option (3).

Guys, you won. Go live your lives.

Morgane Oger Further Weaponizes Human Rights Codes, $55K Ruling

(BC “Human Rights” Commission Ruling)

(Morgane Oger Foundation)

(Proposed “Hate Map” Across Canada)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the ruling, Oger v. Whatcott.
CLICK HERE, for the BC Human Rights Code.
CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms.
CLICK HERE, for a prior review of Bill C-16.
CLICK HERE, for a prior review of “Hate Map”.
CLICK HERE, for a prior review on weaponizing human rights code.

Some Thoughts

Our favourite “serial-victim” Morgane Oger, is in the news again, this time for getting a $55,000 award ($35K for hurt feelings, and $20K in punitive damages). This was William Whatcott for calling Oger “a man”. (Oger is transgender).

A few interesting observations in reading the ruling:

(1) Morgane Oger seems perfectly content silencing William Whatcott’s free speech and right to religious expression in the name of gender identity.

(2) The BC Tribunal deliberately and repeatedly skirted the truthfulness of Whatcott’s claim that Oger is biologically male. Hormones, surgery and legal paperwork don’t change biology.

(3) The BC Tribunal awarded $35,000 in damages without any damages being proven. How exactly does one prove “hurt feelings and dignity”?

3. BC Human Rights Code

Discrimination and intent
2
Discrimination in contravention of this Code does not require an intention to contravene this Code.

Section 2 makes it very clear: absolutely no intent is required on the part of anyone in order to be found to violate someone’s human rights. For a “quasi-judicial” board, this is very disturbing. However, it seems to be the case with all provinces.

Discriminatory publication
7 (1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or that group or class of persons.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication, a communication intended to be private or a communication related to an activity otherwise permitted by this Code.

Oger claims that the publications were contrary to Section 7(1)(a) and (b) of the code.

Evidence
27.2 (1) A member or panel may receive and accept on oath, by affidavit or otherwise, evidence and information that the member or panel considers necessary and appropriate, whether or not the evidence or information would be admissible in a court of law.
(2) Nothing is admissible in evidence before a member or panel that is inadmissible in a court because of a privilege under the law of evidence.
(3) Despite section 4, subsection (1) of this section does not override an Act expressly limiting the extent to which or purposes for which evidence may be admitted or used in any proceeding.
(4) A member or panel may direct that all or part of the evidence of a witness be heard in private.

(4) flies in the face of an open inquiry, and doesn’t set any guidelines as to “when” it would be appropriate.
One of the problems Whatcott cited was the Commission refusing to hear all the evidence.

Remedies
37 (1) If the member or panel designated to hear a complaint determines that the complaint is not justified, the member or panel must dismiss the complaint.
(2) If the member or panel determines that the complaint is justified, the member or panel
(a) must order the person that contravened this Code to cease the contravention and to refrain from committing the same or a similar contravention,
(b) may make a declaratory order that the conduct complained of, or similar conduct, is discrimination contrary to this Code,
(c) may order the person that contravened this Code to do one or both of the following:
(i) take steps, specified in the order, to ameliorate the effects of the discriminatory practice;
(ii) adopt and implement an employment equity program or other special program to ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups if the evidence at the hearing indicates the person has engaged in a pattern or practice that contravenes this Code, and
(d) if the person discriminated against is a party to the complaint, or is an identifiable member of a group or class on behalf of which a complaint is filed, may order the person that contravened this Code to do one or more of the following:
(i) make available to the person discriminated against the right, opportunity or privilege that, in the opinion of the member or panel, the person was denied contrary to this Code;
(ii) compensate the person discriminated against for all, or a part the member or panel determines, of any wages or salary lost, or expenses incurred, by the contravention;
(iii) pay to the person discriminated against an amount that the member or panel considers appropriate to compensate that person for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect or to any of them.

In short, the BC Human Rights Code can award money if it rules that your feelings were hurt, or your dignity or self respect was hurt. No need to prove “actual” damages.

4. Section 2(b) Of Charter

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

5. From HRT Ruling

William Whatcott identifies himself as a Christian activist. When he learned of Ms. Oger’s candidacy, he resolved to stop her being elected. He was not a member of her riding, nor did he research her platform or the policies which she sought to advance. The sole basis for his campaign against her was that she is a transgender woman and therefore, in his view, unsuitable to hold public office. 

Very interesting choice of words. Whatcott “identifies” as a Christian activist, yet Oger “actually is” a woman.

Mr. Whatcott was not a resident in Ms. Oger’s riding. She came to his attention after he had decided there were no suitable political options within his own riding. He says that he had decided not to vote in the election at all, but then turned to prayer. He asked God how he could help in the election. He started researching the candidates across the province and, in this way, came across Ms. Oger. He learned that she had been active in lobbying for amendments to the Code to add the grounds of “gender identity and expression”, and in promoting education about sexual orientation and gender identity in schools. Most importantly, however, he was upset that the media and public at large were “pretending” that Ms. Oger was a woman. He fundamentally believes that gender is static and derived from the genitalia that a person has at birth. He believes that Ms. Oger is a man. He sees himself as the small boy in the fairy tale about the Emperor with no clothes the only one brave enough to speak the truth about Ms. Oger’s gender. He decided to focus his energies on her campaign. In doing so, he describes Ms. Oger herself as “incidental” and “small” within his larger fight for social order and freedom. 

The first part gets glossed over. Oger is trying help enact 2 policies that Whatcott is bothered by:
(A) Bill C-16, to add “gender identity” to the Criminal Code and Human Rights Code.
(B) Bringing SOGI (sexual orientation & gender identity) into schools and have it taught to young children.

In all fairness, “both” of the above issues rub a lot of people the wrong way.

[53] To the extent that s. 7 is unique, it is because it expressly and exclusively targets speech. Mr. Whatcott argues that, in doing so, it violates his Charter‐guaranteed rights to freedom of religion and expression ss. 2(a) and (b). In his final reply, he added an argument that it violates his right to life, liberty and security of the person, guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter.  

[54]This Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to apply the Charter: Administrative Tribunals Act, s . 45; Code, s. 32(i). I cannot find s. 7 of the Code unconstitutional, or that any of Mr. Whatcott’s Charter rights have been violated in the course of Ms. Oger’s human rights  complaint against him.

 

[55]There is no question, however, that this complaint engages Charter protections. In these circumstances, I must interpret and apply the Code in a manner that proportionately balances its purposes with those protections. The framework for this analysis has been set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in three cases: Doré v. Québec (Tribunal des Professions), 2012 SCC 12 [Doré]; Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12 [Loyola]; and Trinity  Western University v. Law Society of BC, 2018 SCC 32 [TWU]. 

While simultaneously claiming not to be able to apply the Charter, the Tribunal says it will balance the rights of the Charter v.s. the Code.

A. Factual context 
1. Discrimination against transgender people 
. This is a significant time for trans and gender diverse people. Their long fight for equality is bearing some fruit, as society begins to adjust its traditionally static and binary understanding of gender, and its tolerance for people to identify and express their gender authentically. One indicator of this progress is the 2016 amendment to the Code that added the grounds of gender identity and expression. 

[61] However, as this hearing made clear, the journey is far from over. Unlike other groups protected by the Code, transgender people often find their very existence the subject of public debate and condemnation. What flows from this existential denial is, naturally, a view that transpeople are less worthy of dignity, respect, and rights. In the hearing room for this complaint, we were witness to repeated, deliberate, and flagrant attacks on Ms. Oger based on nothing more than a belief that her very existence is an affront

(A) The Tribunal actually referred to this section as “factual context”, but then goes on to make a number of straw man arguments.
(B) It is not a fight for equality. That was never the issue.
(C)”Traditionally static and binary understanding of gender”? Actually, there has never been evidence that there are more than 2 genders. Simply passing a law does not erase science. A government could conceivably pass a law saying that dogs are cats, but it would not be based in reality.
(D) Gender identity and expression? Don’t these contradict reality? Merely expressing oneself or identifying oneself a certain way does not make it so.
(E) Questioning the reality of something not based on science is a hate crime now? Got it.

[62] And so, despite some gains, transgender people remain among the most marginalized in our society. Their lives are marked by “disadvantage, prejudice, stereotyping, and vulnerability”: F(C) v. Albert (Vital Statistics), 2014 ABQB 237 at para. 58; see also Rainbow  Committee of Terrace v. City of Terrace, 2002 BCHRT 26 at paras. 47-51. They are stereotyped as “diseased, confused, monsters and freaks”: Nixon v. Vancouver Rape Relief Society, 2002. 
BCHRT 1 at paras. 136137, overturned 2005 BCCA 601 (not on this point). Transpeople face barriers to employment and housing, inequitable access to health care and other vital public services, and heightened risks of targeted harassment and violence. The results include social isolation, as well as higher rates of substance use, poor mental health, suicide, and poverty: XY v. Ontario (Government and Consumer Services), 2012 HRTO 726 at paras. 164-166. For transgender children, antitrans bullying leads to higher rates of absenteeism and poorer educational outcomes, which then has ripple effects for their health and future prospects: Christophe Cornu (2016), “Preventing and addressing homophobic and transphobic bullying in  education; A human-rights based approach using the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child”, Journal of LGBT Youth, 13:1‐2, 6‐17 at pp 7‐8. 

(A) How are they marginalized? They have entire government bodies to fight specifically for their rights.
(B) Substance abuse, suicide, and mental health problems? Doesn’t that signify that there might be something seriously wrong with what they are doing?
(C) Children should not be transitioning. Period.

[64] Mr. Whatcott and the JCCF sought to rely on statistics about the poor health and social outcomes for transgender people as proof that – at best – the merits of being transgender was a matter for ongoing study and debate and – at worst –it was a bad lifestyle choice, whichought to be publicly discouraged. I agree with Ms. Oger that this is an illconceived attempt to “take the data about the consequences of being a victim of oppression, or the consequences of being marginalized, and turn that into the root cause of the issue”.  

[65] The poor health, economic, and social outcomes for many transgender people are not a signal of their inherent worth but rather of the significant degree to which they continue to face marginalization, stigma, and discrimination. They illustrate how much work remains to be done to make the Code’s objective of an equal society into a reality. 

(A) The Tribunal specifically states they will not consider statistical data. How very “scientific and reasoned” of them.
(B) Another straw-man argument. No one is saying these people are not worthy, but that there are very serious mental health issues that need to be addressed. Issues the tribunal has no interest in addressing.

[75] There is no dispute that a decision against Mr. Whatcott would limit his Charter right to freedom of religion. Ms. Oger concedes that Mr. Whatcott has a sincerely held religious belief that it is his duty to spread his views about transgender people: Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 at para. 65. This concession was appropriate. Mr. Whatcott identifies as Christian and describes himself as a “flawed Christian activist”. He says that his theology largely lines up with that of the Lutheran Church. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that Evangelical Christians, and I believe it is fair to count Mr. Whatcott as one, “carry their religious beliefs and values beyond their private lives and into their work, education, and politics”: TWU at para. 67. This is certainly true of Mr. Whatcott. For many years, he has manifested his religious beliefs through activism, beginning with antiabortion activism and then, in more recent years, in activism against the LGBTQ community. His beliefs about transgender people namely that they do not exist and are engaged in a falsehood  stem from his interpretation of the Christian Bible. He believes it is God’s will that he spread the Christian gospel and his views about the “morality” of being transgender. 

(A) Now we get to the heart of it. This would actually limit religious freedom.
(B) The Tribunal knows this, and will act against it anyway.

[77] There is similarly no dispute that a decision against Mr. Whatcott would limit his freedom to publicly express his views about transgender people generally, and Ms. Oger specifically. This engages his right to free expression. As I will discuss below, the scope of freedom of expression, and the significance of any possible infringement, varies according to the type of speech and the extent to which it furthers or detracts from the core values underlying the freedom. However, at this threshold stage, it is sufficient that the Flyer was a form of expression and that any decision restricting Mr. Whatcott’s right to distribute it publicly would limit his expressive rights to some extent. 

[78] With respect to Mr. Whatcott’s s. 7 Charter rights, I agree with the Attorney General that it would not be fair to consider that argument, which was raised for the first time in Mr. Whatcott’s final reply, after the hearing of this complaint had concluded. Regardless, the argument has no merit. A decision by this Tribunal would not restrict Mr. Whatcott’s life, liberty, or security of the person. The remedial jurisdiction conferred by s. 37 of the Code is in no way equivalent to penal consequences. It does not threaten Mr. Whatcott’s life or liberty. While I accept that individuals found to violate the Code may encounter, as a consequence, a degree of stigma and social disapproval, such consequences do not rise to a level of “serious  state imposed psychological stress

(A) No threat to his security? Try not paying the fine and see what happens.
(B) You also say the Commission “will” order the so-called bad behaviour to stop. And if it doesn’t, you’ll fine him again.
(C) Who cares if this is the first time the argument has been brought up?

Now a quote from the Supreme Court of Canada:

First and foremost, free expression is essential to the proper functioning of democratic governance. As Rand J. put it, “government by the free public opinion of an open society . . . demands the condition of a virtually unobstructed access to and diffusion of ideas”: Switzman, at p. 306. 
.
  Second, the free exchange of ideas is an “essential precondition of the  search for truth”: R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697, at p. 803, per  McLachlin J. This rationale, sometimes known as the “marketplace of ideas”, extends beyond the political domain to any areaof debate where truth is sought through the exchange of information and ideas. Information is disseminated and propositions debated. In the course of debate, misconceptions and errors are exposed. What withstands testing  emerges as truth. 
.
  Third, free expression has intrinsic value as an aspect of self‐realization for both speakers and listeners. As the majority observed in Irwin Toy, at p. 976, “the diversity in forms of individual selffulfillment and human flourishing ought to be cultivated in an essentially tolerant, indeed welcoming, environment not only for the sake of those who convey a meaning, uut also for the sake of those to whom it is conveyed”.  Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61 at paras. 4750; see also R v. Keegstra,  [1990] 3 SCR 697 [Keegstra], at paras. 87‐89; 

This is quite laughable, as the Tribunal has no interest in the factual basis of Whatcott’s claim (that Oger is male), nor in the statistical research and evidence regarding transgenders in general.

[119] I reject this proposition in the strongest possible terms. The question of whether transgender people exist and are entitled to dignity in this province is as valuable to ongoing public debate as whether one race is superior to another. This does not mean that all expression that criticizes or questions the existence of transgender people violates the Code. Here I distinguish between public debate about, for example, the scope of rights that different groups in society may be afforded, and commentary like that which is in the Flyer, which denies the very existence of transpeople. Understood in its proper context, it is simply not accurate to place this type of expression at the core of s. 2(b) values. 

(A) False equivalence. The reality of transitioning is not the same thing as racial supremacy.
(B) False equivalence. Questioning whether trans-people exist is not the same thing as saying a person should not have dignity.
(C) The flyer is inappropriate, but once again the Tribunal dodges the issue of “truth”.

[125] This argument confuses distinctions with discrimination. Efforts to increase the participation and representation of groups which have historically been excluded from political life serve the goals of achieving substantive equality and enriching Canada’s democracy. But to advocate against including those groups in politics is not the same thing as arguing for their deliberate inclusion. The law has long understood that identical treatment of groups is often the very source of serious inequality: Kapp at para. 27, citing Andrews. Put another way, “different treatment in the service of equity for disadvantaged groups is an expression of [substantive] equality, not an exception to it”: P. W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (5th ed. Supp. 2007), vol. 2, at p. 5553; cited with approval in Kapp at para. 37. It is simply not reasonable to equate efforts to increase the representation of disadvantaged groups in government with those which would seek to continue to exclude them. While I acknowledge that individual voters may choose to discriminate within the privacy of a ballot box, it does not further Canada’s democracy to suggest that a person’s connection with a historically disadvantaged group is a legitimate point on which to openly campaign against them. 

To summarize this word salad: ACTUAL equal treatment of people can be wrong, since it doesn’t take “historical marginalization” into account. Hence the idea of 15(2) of the Charter (affirmative action). This is essentially different rules for different groups in order to “increase representation”.

The decision is long one (100 pages), but this covers the main points. The Tribunal also goes on at length about Whatcott refusing to refer to Oger as “she” despite being repeatedly told not to.

While Whatcott comes off as a bit of a jerk, it is hard to come up with much sympathy for Oger, who is essentially a professional victim. The proposed “hate map” is essentially a doxing tool for opinions that they don’t agree with.

It is also disturbing to see the Tribunal so uninterested in fact or truth. Legitimate concerns about whether a person can transition are deemed hate speech. Further, the tribunal doesn’t care for evidence presented regarding statistics of trans-people. If anything, it is deemed as more of a reason to grant special status.

Whatcott “identifies” as a Christian activist, yet Oger “really is” a woman. The Tribunal is inconsistent in their own standards.

And as seems to be the case in all provinces, the “human rights” code stipulates that no intent is necessary for a finding against a person or group.

Will there be an appeal (in the form of an application for judicial review)? We will find out. But this sets a very bad precedent.

Morgane Oger Foundation Wants To Be Another Doxxing Site

(A concise, but accurate review of “Social Autopsy”)

CLICK HERE, for the Morgane Oger Foundation.
CLICK HERE, for MFO information on hate crimes.
CLICK HERE, for the GlobalNews article on MFO’s agenda
CLICK HERE, for Federal Liberals contemplating censorship under the guise of “removing extremist content”.
CLICK HERE, for Proud Boys lawsuit against SPLC.
CLICK HERE, for SPLC’s so called “hate-map”

What is the Morgane Oger Foundation?

Our Work…

The Morgane Oger Foundation is a small volunteer-driven organization entirely run and funded by people who care about justice and inclusion, like you. We focus on opportunities to reduce prejudice-driven inequality in Canada a few projects at a time and pride ourselves with a 100% success rate to date. We are working on several initiatives where we feel we can best help change things for the better..

Sounds harmless and well meaning enough. Let’s see some details.

“An advocacy organization says it wants to map hatred and discrimination across Canada in a move that is prompting warnings of caution from one civil liberties group.

The Vancouver-based Morgane Oger Foundation has issued a call for volunteers to help build the Canadian Atlas of Populist Extremism, to be known as CAPE.

Founder Morgane Oger said the mapping tool would tie together extremist groups and people regularly associated with them, and also map incidents involving hate across Canada.

The idea is to shed light on how hatred is propagated, she said, while being mindful that allegations can’t be tossed out willy-nilly.

“We can’t say someone is a murderer unless they are in fact a murderer, but maybe it would be interesting to see it’s always the same dozen people who are doing anti-trans advocacy in the (B.C.) Interior or the white supremacy groups are working with each other,” said Oger, a former provincial NDP candidate and a member of the party’s executive.

1/ Okay, nice to know they won’t make false accusations of being a murderer unless the person actually is one. However, that is where the reasonableness seems to end.

2/ The examples cited are vague at best.
(a) So called trans activists seem to think “everything” is transphobia. Express any doubt about transgender children, or the never ending demands for accommodation, and you’re a bigot.
(b) Also what white supremacist groups? To left wing activists, anyone opposing open borders or forced multiculturalism is a white supremacist apparently.

3/Serious question: will create this “hate network” lead to innocent people being doxed for no other reason than you have different opinions? Seem very intolerant.

4/ A call for volunteers? What screening will be put in place to ensure that these people don’t have malintent and are actually capable of distinguishing what is hate?

Some Canadian Laws

Criminal harassment
264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
Marginal note:
Prohibited conduct
(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of
(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;
(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

Definition
298 (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
Marginal note:
Mode of expression
(2) A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or irony
(a) in words legibly marked on any substance; or
(b) by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words.

Just a few laws this group might want to know if they are serious about starting up this “database”.

Here are 2 prior examples of doxxing gone wrong

(1) Southern Poverty Law Center

The Southern Poverty Law Center in the United States has a “hate map,” which lists 1,020 groups. They include 51 Ku Klux Klan chapters, 49 anti-LGBT groups, 11 radical traditional Catholic groups and a combined 412 black and white nationalist groups.
The centre doesn’t list individuals, only organizations, and uses a similar definition to the FBI for them. The law centre defines a hate group as “an organization that – based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities – has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.

(2) Candice Owens and “Social Autopsy”

Prior to getting a media makeover and coming out as a conservative, Candice Owens launched a website called “social autopsy”. This was billed as an anti-bullying database. But it relied on people making personal complaints and sending personal information on others. See above videos.

Does Morgane Oger Foundation Want To Be Like That?

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and Social Autopsy are just 2 of the more well known examples of attempts to dox people they disagree with.

Bad ideas should be countered with good ideas. They shouldn’t be doxxed, threatened, or otherwise bullied.