Category: Lobbying

Posted on

CV #4: Gates Foundation Lobbied Trudeau (Using Proxies) Into Accepting Vaccine Agenda

(Bill Gates predicts no more mass gathering until vaccine developed.

(See 1:30 mark in this, or original video)

1. Context For This Article

Recently, PM Trudeau has echoed Bill Gates’ sentiments that mass vaccination of people is necessary for any sense of normalcy to return. While there has been speculation about this link, there has so far been no proof of collusion between Gates and Trudeau.

It’s true that there has been collusion. However, Gates did not (directly) lobby the Canadian Government. The used proxies to do this. Specifically, here are the connections:

(a) The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation helped found GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance in 1999. The foundation donated $750 million at the time, and continues to fund it regularly.

(b) GAVI sought the services of a lobbying firm called Crestview Strategy. Crestview used 2 of their employees, Jason Clark, and Zakery Blais, for the assignment.

(c) Clark and Blais have lobbied the Canadian Government on at least 19 occasions since 2018 on various “health” matters, on behalf of GAVI. One more was conducted by Jennifer Babcock, who appears to have left the firm. All of this can be immediately verified by looking up the records in the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner.

(d) Clark and Blais have connections to the Liberal Party of Canada. Clark volunteered in 2015 for Ottawa area Liberal candidates, and Blais is a former assistant to the (now) Attorney General David Lametti.

2. GAVI Funded By Gates Foundation

This is probably the most well known link in the chain. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation helped found GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance in 1999, and has made regular contributions to it. The foundation essentially runs the show.

The Global Vaccine Alliance, as the name suggests, is an organization devoted to pushing vaccinations on the public all across the world. Bill Gates has long been a proponent of mass vaccinations.

3. GAVI Lobbying CDN Gov’t Since 2018

If you go onto the Lobby Canada website, you can see what lobbyists have been talking to which government officials, who they work for, when they spoke, and what the business was. This is laid out “communications reports”

Dates of Communications Reports
(1) 2018 March 8
(2) 2018 March 9
(3) 2018 March 9
(4) 2018 October 9
(5) 2018 October 9
(6) 2018 October 9
(7) 2018 October 10
(8) 2018 October 10
(9) 2018 October 10
(10) 2019 June 11
(11) 2019 June 11
(12) 2019 June 11
(13) 2019 June 12
(14) 2019 June 12
(15) 2019 June 12
(16) 2020 January 28
(17) 2020 January 29
(18) 2020 January 29
(19) 2020 January 29
(20) 2020 January 30

No, these aren’t duplications. The registry indicates multiple reports on these dates.

These are just the 20 reports that are on file with the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner. It’s fair to assume that there have been many, many more talks that aren’t documented.

4. Crestview Strategy Lobbies For GAVI

Crestview Annual Return (1)
Crestview Registered office & Directors (3)
Crestview.Certificate.Of.Amalgamation (2)
crestview.directors.change.2019

Crestview Strategy effectively represents the interests of corporations, not-for-profits and industry associations to achieve results with governments around the world.

Across Canada and around the world, the rules that govern the government relations industry are changing. The new higher standard that regulates access to information and political contributions have fundamentally changed the public policy dialogue and improved how citizens, companies and associations advocate their interests to elected representatives.

No longer is a winning outcome based on ‘who you know’ or the ‘magic meeting’. It is about contributing to the policy process, presenting a case that is supported by authentic community voices, verified impact and compelling insight. And getting in front of the right decision makers and opinion leaders to make that case.

This is in the government relations page of Crestview Strategy. At least they are open about trying to influence governments and public policy.

5. Crestview Lobbyist Zakery Blais

Zakery Blais is a Consultant with Crestview Strategy. With a focus on Canada-U.S. relations and international development, Zakery services clients globally.

His experience spans both the public and private sectors. He previously worked as a Legislative Assistant to a Canadian Member of Parliament, providing strategic political and communications advice. Prior to joining Crestview Strategy, Zakery also worked in various capacities in public affairs, including as an analyst focused on the energy and natural resources sectors.

That is from his profile on the Crestview Strategy webpage.

Fun fact: Blais was an assistant for David Lametti, a former Parliamentary Secretary, and currently the Attorney General of Canada. While Crestview CLAIMS it doesn’t operate on a who-you-know basis, the current lobbyist pushing this is the Attorney General’s former assistant. Not exactly arms length, is it?

6. Crestview Lobbyist Jason Clark

Prior to joining the Crestview Team, Jason has worked in public policy development and advocacy and engagement campaigns, most recently for Engineers Without Borders Canada. Since arriving in Ottawa he has worked work a wide range of Canadian Non-profit organizations on international development and trade issues. Previously, Jason managed one of the largest public engagement campaigns on climate change, energy and sustainability in Great Britain, working in partnership with all levels of government, business, industry and trade associations, the public sector and civil society. Jason has also worked with female entrepreneurs and social enterprises in Lesotho, Africa.

[Jason Clark] volunteered for several Ottawa-area Liberal Party of Canada candidates during the 2015 election campaign.

That is from his profile page with Crestview Strategy.

7. Rob Silver, Katie Telford’s Husband

Liberal strategist and former pundit Rob Silver said Monday he has left the government relations firm he helped create, citing his wife’s position as Justin Trudeau’s chief of staff.

“Effective Dec. 31, 2015 I am no longer a shareholder or employee of Crestview Strategy,” Silver said in an email Monday afternoon.

Silver was a partner in the Toronto- and Ottawa-based public affairs agency that, among other things, lobbies the federal government on behalf of clients.

Rob Silver, husband of Katie Telford, Trudeau’s Chief-of-Staff, helped start up Crestview Strategy, the lobbying firm that GAVI hired to push the vaccine agenda. Also, see this $800 million grant from the Canadian taxpayers, instigated by Crestview.

8. Lobbying Has Netted Results

Canada is pledging $600 million to the third replenishment of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and committing $47.5 million annually over four years to support the Global Polio Eradication Initiative’s end-game strategy.

Quick facts
Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, is a global health partnership representing stakeholders in immunization from both private and public sectors. Since 2000, Gavi has supported the immunization of 760 million children and saved more than 13 million lives.

Since 2002, Canada has provided more than $1 billion in funding to Gavi, including $500 million for the current period from 2016 to 2020.

The Global Polio Eradication Initiative was established in 1988; since then, 2.5 billion children have been vaccinated as a result. The world has never been closer to eradicating polio, but the job is not done. With continued transmission in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we cannot afford to be complacent.

The funding announced today is part of Canada’s renewed commitment to global health as announced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the Women Deliver Conference in June 2019. The Government of Canada committed to raise its funding to $1.4 billion annually by 2023 to support women’s and girls’ health around the world.

Let’s keep that pharma money coming, shall we? Canada makes another announcement to keep those pharma dollars rolling in.

9. Gates Foundation Lobbying Canadian Gov’t

Neither Bill Gates personally, nor his Foundation may have their name on the efforts to lobby the Canadian Government, but they are behind it. GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance, is funded by the Gates Foundation, and they have the same ideological goals.

GAVI is using Crestview Strategy to lobby on their behalf, and both main lobbyists, Jason Clark and Zakery Blais, have ties to the Liberal Party of Canada. Clark volunteered in 2015 for Ottawa region candidates, and Blais worked for the (current) Attorney General, David Lametti.

Gates is using GAVI (and LPC operatives-turned-lobbyists) to push the vaccine agenda.

It doesn’t get much more obvious than this.

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/mastercard-is-the-final-boss-review/
(2) https://www.gavi.org/operating-model/gavis-partnership-model/bill-melinda-gates-foundation
(3) http://archive.is/DHNXn
(4) https://www.crestviewstrategy.ca
(5) http://archive.is/aFSsx
(6) https://www.crestviewstrategy.ca/zakery-blais
(7) http://archive.is/q3Jzh
(8) https://www.linkedin.com/in/zakery-blais-13a76b118/
(9) https://www.crestviewstrategy.ca/jason-clark.
(10) http://archive.is/nkiou
(11) https://www.crestviewstrategy.ca/government-relations
(12) http://archive.is/Vss4p
(13) https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2020/05/minister-gould-announces-funding-for-global-vaccinations.html

Posted on

Ontario’s Bill 168: Doug Ford To Ban Criticism Of Jews Under Guise Of “Anti-Semitism”

1. Important Links

(1) bill.168.antisemitism
(2) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-4.html
(3) https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-1/bill-168
(4) http://archive.is/PPk8V
(5) https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/
(6) http://archive.is/FMY3i
(7) https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
(8) http://archive.is/In7MJ

2. Context For This Article

Free speech is under attack again, and this time it comes from the Zionists, trying to push their version of anti-Semitism laws. Iqra Khalid was heavily criticized for pushing her Islamophobia motion, M103 a few years ago, but this gets a pass from the media and from public scrutiny. Both are horrible pieces of legislation,

3. Criminal Law Exclusively Federal

Under Section 91(27) of the Constitution, criminal law is exclusively the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. This means that the Ford Government couldn’t actually criminalize criticism of Jews, even if they wanted to. Still, it’s pretty chilling to put this on the books in Ontario, even if it is meant to be symbolic.

This is address the elephant in the room: jurisdiction in the event of potential criminal law changes.

4. Text Of Bill 168

Will Bouma and Robin Martin, the sponsors for Bill 168, which was actually a private member’s bill.

Bill 168 2019
An Act to combat antisemitism
Preamble Antisemitism is a multi-faceted problem that requires a multi-faceted strategy, encompassing a range of ministries and agencies. For that reason, it is desirable to require the Government of Ontario to implement a whole-of-government approach in combating antisemitism. As part of that approach, it is desirable to apply a consistent interpretation of Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism. Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:
.
Interpretation
1 In interpreting Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism, the Government of Ontario shall be guided by the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016. Legislation Act, 2006 amendment
.
2 Section 87 of the Legislation Act, 2006 is amended by adding the following definition: “antisemitism” has the meaning set out in the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016; (antisémitisme”) Commencement
.
3 This Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent. Short title
.
4 The short title of this Act is the Combating Antisemitism Act, 2019.
.
______________
.
EXPLANATORY NOTE The Bill requires the Government of Ontario to be guided by the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it, adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016, when it interprets Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism. The Bill also amends the Legislation Act, 2006 to adopt that working definition.

The text is pretty clear. Ontario (if this law passes) is to be guided by the working definition of anti-Semitism as provided by the IHRA. Interestingly, the bill doesn’t say what that definition is. So let’s take a look for ourselves.

What is it exactly that Ontario will be signing up for?

5. IHRA Definition Of Anti-Semitism

On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:
.
Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
.
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Don’t worry. While this sounds pretty vague, it is about to get much, MUCH more detailed in what exactly counts as anti-Semitism.

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

  • Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
  • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
  • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
  • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
  • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
  • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
  • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
.
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
.
Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

Just reading the definition provided, it has to be asked: what DOESN’T make the list? What ISN’T anti-Semitism according to these people?

When it refers to anti-Semitic acts as criminal, is that in indication that criminalization of “anti-Semitism” is where they intend to go with this?

6. Status Of Bill 168

It’s already had its second reading. Not too far to go. Considering Ford has a majority government, he should encounter little resistance in getting Bill 168 passed and signed into law.

7. CIJA Lobbied For Bill 168

CIJA, the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (the Israeli lobby), is found in the Ontario Lobbyist Registry as attempting to influence the Ford Government to pass Bill 168.

8. Double Standard For Islamophobia Motion

A few years back, there was a huge public stink when Iqra Khalid, a Pakistani Muslim and “paper Canadian”, got M-103 passed at the Federal level. This was a (supposedly non binding) motion to combat Islamophobia, but without defining what it actually was.

Why no media outrage over this? Is it because of the Jewish influence and power in the media that the story is buried? I guess that’s anti-Semitism to ask that.

Should this ever come to pass, what’s to stop the Feds (or any court) from using it as a precedent to push binding anti-Semitism laws? This is a scary step to take.

Posted on

Pierre Beaudoin: Bombardier Chairman; Power Corporation Director

1. Important Links

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/desmarais-power-corp-canadas-globalist-politicians-bombardier-loblaws/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/desmarais-power-corp-linked-to-air-canada-agenda-2030-trudeau-foundation/
(3) https://www.powercorporation.com/en/governance/board-directors/#pierre-beaudoin
(4) http://archive.is/PBros
(5) https://www.bombardier.com/en/about-us/management/biography-page.bio-pierrebeaudoin.html
(6) http://archive.is/W4jJ2
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=344715&regId=862759
(8) http://archive.is/U0LbK
(9) https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/at-least-20-people-including-bombardier-head-donated-maximum-allowed-to-both-liberals-and-conservatives-in-2018
(10) http://archive.is/1jUEf
(11) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/who-canadas-ten-most-generous-political-donors-have-contributed-to/article26793752/
(12) http://archive.is/M52l7
(13) https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/conservative-government-covered-expenses-for-top-ceos-travelling-with-stephen-harper-on-china-tour
(14) http://archive.is/ThMon
(15) https://globalnews.ca/news/3346938/trudeau-bombardier-aid-executives/
(16) http://archive.is/Xhb0v

2. Beaudoin Lobbies As Bombardier Chair

Subject Matter Details
.
Grant, Contribution or Other Financial Benefit
Obtain financial support from Canada with respect to various research and development initiatives.
Obtain financial support from Industry Canada under the Strategic Aerospace and Defence Initiative for research and development.
.
Grant, Contribution or Other Financial Benefit, Policies or Program
Management of ongoing projects reated to various research and development initiatives.
.
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution
Enhance research and development tax incentives under the Income Tax Act, including Investment Tax Credits (ITC)
Obtain support from Export Development Canada (EDC) with respect to transportation equipment procurement.
.
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution, Policies or Program
Tax legislation and policies affecting the innovation and manufacturing of global firms operating in Canada.
.
Policies or Program
Canada’s participation in the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation Development consensus financing guidelines pertaining to sales financing framework.
Canada’s support for the development of standard for rail technology.
Canada’s support for the development of the rail industry.
Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft Program with regard to procurement of aircraft.
Define appropriate levels for aircraft certification at Transport Canada.
Economic and trade agreements with respect to equal market access with other countries.
Establish appropriate regulations for export permits and controlled goods.
Expansion of various air services agreements under Canada’s Blue Sky Policy.
Obtain support from Canada to enable Export Development Canada (EDC) to provide customer financing of aircraft.
The protection and promotion of Canada’s access to global markets.
.
Policies or Program, Regulation
Canada’s participation in potential plurilateral discussions around the WTO on aerospace and ways to strengthen them.
Canada’s support for the development of a skilled workforce.
.
Regulation
Changes to the civil aviation regulations with respect to private operators.

Government Institutions
Bank of Canada
Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions
Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)
Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC)
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)
Export Development Canada (EDC)
Finance Canada (FIN)
Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
House of Commons
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Infrastructure Canada (INFC)
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
National Defence (DND)
National Research Council (NRC)
Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Privy Council Office (PCO)
Public Safety Canada (PS)
Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC)
Transport Canada (TC)
Treasury Board Of Canada Secretariat (TBS)

Please note: that Bombardier has been lobbying the Federal Government a lot longer than Beaudoin himself has been registered as a lobbyist. However, since 2015, he has gotten his own hands dirty with it.

While Beaudoin himself is listed 18 times (18 communications reports) with the Federal Government and Federal officials, Bombardier itself is listed in 809 communications reports.

3. Anthony Graham: Bombardier/Power Corp

Anthony Graham is a Director at Power Corporation, at Bombardier. He shares the same conflict of interest that Pierre Beaudoin has. Graham is also the Vice Chairman of Whittington Investments (busy man), which owns the Weston Loblaws Group.

4. Beaudoin Donates To Both LPC/CPC

In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for the Liberals highlighted the “growing success” of their grassroots fundraising and emphasized the implementation of transparency rules around the party’s fundraising events.

A spokesperson for the Conservative party said if someone “chooses to donate to multiple parties, they’re within the rules to do just that.” He said due to the volume of donations the party receives, the number of dual-party donors was not particularly notable.

People who max out their individual donations to both parties are “hedging their bets” ahead of the fall election, according to Duff Conacher, the head of Democracy Watch, an ethics watchdog.

“With those donations, they are able to at least buy access to the top people in the parties, and having that access gives them a chance to have influence over their decisions,” Conacher said.

An article by the National Post highglighted how many wealthy and influential people were donating to both the Liberals and Conservatives. The rationale being, that regardless of who wins, those donors will have access to the politicians at the top.

The National Post isn’t wrong about their claim. Looking up “election financing” on the Elections Canada website confirms the allegations.

While it was nice of the National Post to bring this issue up, they missed the chance to do a spectacular piece of investigative journalism by not going further and publishing all of their findings. Oh well.

5. Beaudoin Always Playing Both Sides

And in the year 2019, Beaudoin donated the same amount to both the Conservative Party, and the Liberal Party. In 2017, Beaudoin again donated to both parties. In fact, he did so on the same day. Playing both sides it seems.

Notice the pattern here? Beaudoin routinely donates to both major Federal parties. It’s almost as if he expects access and favours, regardless of who wins.

Note: There are several Pierre Beaudoins but this will focus on the one I believe is him. (Disclaimer: he may be using multiple addresses in the donations). This is under the address of WESTMOUNT QC H3Y1K8.

Date Amount $ Received
2006 Feb 21 $2000 CPC
2006 Apr 30 $2500 LPC
2006 Sep 29 $1000 Bob Rae
2006 Sep 29 $1000 LPC
2008 Oct 07 $1100 CPC
2009 Mar 03 $1000 CPC
2010 Apr 06 $1000 CPC
2011 Sep 09 $1100 CPC
2012 Mar 16 $1200 CPC
2013 Feb 01 $1200 CPC
2013 Mar 11 $600 J. Trudeau
2013 Dec 28 $1197 LPC
2014 Nov 26 $1200 CPC
2014 Nov 27 $1178 LPC
2015 Apr 10 $1500 CPC
2015 Apr 17 $1200 LPC
2015 Oct 02 $300 LPC
2015 Oct 02 $1500 LPC
2016 Feb 19 $1500 CPC
2016 Feb 23 $1500 LPC

Again, there are other Pierre Beaudoins (who may be him) with different postal codes. However, all of the above donations came from a single postal code.

6. Donations From Desmarais Family

This chart ONLY includes Helene Desmarais, wife of Paul Desmarais Jr. and Chair of the Montreal Economic Institute.

Date Amount $ Received
2004 Jun 09 $5000 CPC, Vernier
2004 Jun 30 $5000 LPC
2005 Jan 20 $5000 CPC
2005 Jan 31 $5000 LPC
2006 Apr 30 $5000 LPC
2006 Apr 30 $1000 LPC
2006 Apr 30 $2000 LPC
2006 Dec 31 $5000 LPC
2007 Jan 01 $1000 CPC
2007 Feb 08 $1000 CPC
2008 Sep 30 $500 Maxime Bernier
2009 Jan 21 $1000 CPC
2009 Feb 19 $1100 LPC
2010 Apr 30 $1100 CPC
2010 May 31 $1171 LPC
2010 Jun 01 $1100 LPC
2011 Mar 14 $923 Beauce Riding Ass’n
2012 Apr 09 $901 Beauce Riding Ass’n
2014 Mar 19 $1000 Beauce Riding Ass’n
2014 Mar 26 $500 LPC
2014 Apr 24 $1200 CPC
2015 Feb 20 $5000 Beauce Riding Ass’n
2015 May 28 $1000 CPC
2015 Nov 09 $1200 LPC
2016 Mar 18 $1500 LPC
2016 Oct 13 $1000 Maxime Bernier
2016 Oct 17 $300 CPC
2017 May 12 $1550 CPC
2017 May 15 $1500 CPC
2018 Mar 16 $1500 LPC
2018 Mar 22 $1575 CPC

And these donations, which are clearly directed to both the Liberal and Conservative parties, is just one member of the Desmarais family.

7. Desmarais & Beaudoin Big Donors

Desmarais family – $290,000
To the Liberals: $190,000
To the Conservatives: $100,000
The influential clan behind Quebec’s Power Corp. of Canada has donated $290,000 over the past decade, slightly favouring the Liberals. The total includes donations from patriarch Paul Desmarais, who died in 2013, wife Jacqueline, sons Paul Jr. and André, who now jointly lead the company, along with daughters Louise and Sophie as well as several grandchildren.

Laurent Beaudoin and the Bombardier family – $213,000
To the Liberals: $132,000
To the Conservatives: $81,000
The Quebec family that controls Bombardier Inc. has donated more than $200,000, with the largest share going to the Liberals. Donors include chairman emeritus Laurent Beaudoin, wife Claire Bombardier Beaudoin, son Pierre, who stepped down as CEO this year, along with other relatives who make up the controlling shareholders of Bombardier.

The Globe & Mail did a piece on major donors and how they tend to donate to both parties. The Beaudoin and Desmarais families are the two biggest, but there are other players.

It doesn’t take much to understand the reason behind this: these families want to have influence, regardless of which party wins power. Paying off all sides is apparently how you do it.

8. Beaudoin Took Trip With Harper

Corporations and associations — including Bombardier, Cenovus Nuclear Energy, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and Cameco — confirmed that the government paid for portions of the expenses, with the amount varying from firm to firm.

“We’ll leave it to the government to confirm those expenses. We won’t comment any further on that,” Isabelle Rondeau, director of communications at Bombardier, said of CEO Pierre Beaudoin’s participation.

Pretty influential to get an all inclusive trip with the PM, to be covered by taxpayers. And considering how often Bombardier needs to be bailed out, it is hardly a success story.

9. Why Maxime Bernier Bailed Out Bombardier

As stated earlier, Pierre Beaudoin holds dual roles: one as the Chairman of Bombardier, another as a Director of Power Corporation, owned by the Desmarais family. The conflict of interest here cannot be understated.

Andre Desmarais and Paul Desmarais Jr. are the sons of Paul Desmarais Sr. They control Power Corporation now. Helene Desmarais is Paul Jr.’s wife, and is the Chair of the Montreal Economic Institute. Side Note: Andre Desmarais is ex-PM Chretien’s son-in-law. He married Frances Chretien. Other side note: Peter MacKay used to date Sophie Desmarais.

Let’s take a look at someone Helene Desmarais has been donating to, and the riding associations she has been donating to. Bear in mind, she has donated 5 times to riding associations (according to Elections Canada records), once to Laurier Saint-Marie, and 4 times to Beauce.

Date Amount $ Received
2008 Sep 30 $500 Maxime Bernier
2011 Mar 14 $923 Beauce Riding Ass’n
2012 Apr 09 $901 Beauce Riding Ass’n
2014 Mar 19 $1000 Beauce Riding Ass’n
2015 Feb 20 $5000 Beauce Riding Ass’n
2016 Oct 13 $1000 Maxime Bernier

Explaining the Bombardier bailout (when Maxime Bernier was Industry Minister) isn’t difficult. Let’s connect the dots here:

Bombardier Chairman, Pierre Beaudoin works for ==>
Paul Desmarais Jr, who’s married to ==>
Helene Desmarais, who runs the ==>
Montreal Economic Institute, which employed ==>
Maxime Bernier, who became the ==>
Industry Minister, who has power to ==>
Hand out taxpayer money

Here’s an even simpler connection:
Pierre Beaudoin ==> Desmarais Family ==> Bernier

Of course, that is just one bailout that Bombardier has received over the years. Because of the Beaudoin/Desmarais connection, and Desmarais owning so many politicians, the bailout money keeps coming in.

10. Bombardier Exec Pocket Bailout Money

Total compensation for the Montreal-based manufacturer’s top five executives and board chairman Pierre Beaudoin was US$32.6 million in 2016, up from US$21.9 million the year before, according to a proxy circular ahead of Bombardier’s annual meeting on May 11

CEO Alain Bellemare received US$9.5 million, up from US$6.4 million in 2015, including US$5.2 million in share and option-based awards and a US$1 million salary. His annual bonus almost doubled to US$2.36 million.

Beaudoin’s total compensation increased to US$5.25 million from US$3.85 million a year earlier.

Global News reported that Bombardier in 2017 will be getting a $372 million “loan” package. Interesting how the executives who run Bombardier into the ground get larger bonuses. Beaudoin himself will be getting an extra $10 million, about a 50% increase. Not bad for being such a screwup.

11. Political Connections = Bailouts

Pierre Beaudoin and Anthony Graham are both Directors at Power Corporation (owned by the Desmarais family), and govern Bombardier. This is a huge conflict of interest.

Bombardier has spent significant time and money lobbying politicians. Pierre Beaudoin has taken it upon himself to do some of the lobbying personally. Beaudoin also has a lengthy track record for donating to both major parties — meaning he gets access regardless of who wins.

These bailouts are little more than political money laundering. Taxpayer funds go to Bombardier, and executives use part of it to increase their bonuses.

All of this needs to stop.

Posted on

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

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

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

2. Why Canadians Should Care

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

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

3. Court History Over The Years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. 1992: SCC Rules No Standing

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. 2008: S3CA, Parts Of IRPA Struck Out

S3CA, Parts of IRPA Struck

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. 2009: Previous Ruling Overturned

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

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

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

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

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

7. 2017-Present: Toronto Challenge

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

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

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

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

The case is still pending.

8. So Who Are These NGOs?

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

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

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

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

Canadian Association Of Refugee Lawyers
carl.01.directors
carl.02.change.of.office
carl.03.bylaws.2015
carl.04.notice.of.return
carl.05.certificate.of.continuance

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

Plattsburgh Cares
Plattsburgh Cares Main Page
Plattsburgh Cares, Humanitarian Support

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

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

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

9. Look At The Bigger Picture

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

The Zionist Roots Of Amnesty International

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

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

2. Important Links

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

(8) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Benenson
(9) http://archive.is/0Vzub
(10) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flora_Solomon
(11) http://archive.is/mLYW8
(12) https://www.benensonsociety.org/
(13) http://archive.is/XfPd
(14) https://www.benensonsociety.org/campaign-archives
(15) http://archive.is/lpVwc
(16) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/peter-benenson-13233.html
(17) http://archive.is/w8KjQ
(18) https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/04/my-hero-flora-solomon-ben-macintyre
(19) http://archive.is/plnqO
(20) https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/name/peter-benenson-obituary?pid=3219284
(21) http://archive.is/Z7uql
(22) https://www.nytimes.com/1939/04/06/archives/grigori-benenson-noted-financier-former-owner-of-building-at-165.html
(23) http://archive.is/0FpCR
(24) https://www.jewishpress.com/news/israel/boycott/exposed-amnesty-internationals-obsessive-anti-semitic-anti-israel-hatred/2019/12/22/
(25) http://archive.is/WfdT4

3. Why Should Canadians Care?

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

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

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

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

4. AI Lawfare In Canadian Courts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mohammad v. Tarraf, 2019 ONSC 1701 (CanLII)

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

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

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

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

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

5. Amnesty International Lobbying Efforts

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

A more interesting story is on the lobbyist Titch Dharamsi:

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

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

6. Canadian Chapter Corporate Documents

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

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

7. Peter Benenson Founded Amnesty Int’l

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

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

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

8. Benenson’s Obituary (UK Independent)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Guardian Article On Flora Solomon

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

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

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

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

10. Grigori Benenson, Peter’s Maternal Grandfather

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

Source: Find A Grave

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Jews Accuse AI Of Anti-Semitism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. Nothing Grassroots About A.I.

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

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

2. Important Links

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

3. Dropping Names

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

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

4. Amnesty International

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. B’Nai Brith

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

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

The Canadian Chapter will tell you what goes on here.

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

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

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

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

6. Canadian Association Of Refugee Lawyers

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

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

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

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

Wow, climate refugees.
What complete nonsense.

7. Canadian Council Of Churches

And here is a link to their main page.

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

8. Canadian Council For Refugees

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

They list some 200 organizations that the CCR partners with.

9. Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs

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

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

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

10. Know Your Enemies

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

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