TSCE #18(B): Canada’s Bills/Treaties Undermine Hague Convention On Child Abduction

Today is the 40th anniversary of the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. This is to focus on the civil side (such as custody issues). While this seems impressive, Canada has done much domestically and internationally to undermine and weaken the principles. Even the UN has studied the connection between illegal border crossings and smuggling, trafficking and child exploitation. Quite simply, without real borders, the Hague Convention is meaningless.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

For the previous work in the TSCE series. This is the 40th anniversary of the Hague Convention of Child Abduction. However, Governments ensure that it will continue. Also, take a look at open borders movement, the abortion and organs industry, and the NGOs who are supporting it. This is information that won’t be found in the mainstream or alternative media.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the Hague Convention treaty itself.
Hague Convention Civil Treaty
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s announcement on 40 year anniversary.

CLICK HERE, for Agenda 21, full treaty.
CLICK HERE, for Gov’t info on Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for text of Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for the many exemptions in S3CA.

CLICK HERE, for FIPA agreement Canada/China.
CLICK HERE, for previous review on FIPA.
CLICK HERE, for CD18.5, sanctuary for illegals in Toronto.
CLICK HERE, for Toronto EC5.5, human and sex trafficking resolution.
CLICK HERE, for Canadian Labour Congress on sanctuary cities.

CLICK HERE, for CANZUK International website.
CLICK HERE, for proposed expansion of CANZUK zone.
CLICK HERE, for review of new USMCA (NAFTA 2.0)
CLICK HERE, for link to official Agenda 2030 text.
CLICK HERE, for review of UNSDA Agenda 2030.
Text Of Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda
CLICK HERE, for text of New York Declaration.

CLICK HERE, for Bill C-6, citizenship for terrorists.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-32, lowering age of consent for anal.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-75, reduced criminal penalties.
CLICK HERE, for 2nd review of Bill C-75 (child offences).
CLICK HERE, for asking if Gov’t actually supports trafficking.

UN Global Migration Compact (Full Text)

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

3. Quotes From Hague Convention (Civil) Treaty

Article 3
The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where –
a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and
b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or
would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.

Article 4
The Convention shall apply to any child who was habitually resident in a Contracting State immediately before any breach of custody or access rights. The Convention shall cease to apply when the child attains the age of 16 years.

Article 5
For the purposes of this Convention –
a) “rights of custody” shall include rights relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child’s place of residence;
b) “rights of access” shall include the right to take a child for a limited period of time to a place other than the child’s habitual residence.

Article 8
Any person, institution or other body claiming that a child has been removed or retained in breach of custody rights may apply either to the Central Authority of the child’s habitual residence or to the Central Authority of any other Contracting State for assistance in securing the return of the child.
The application shall contain –
a) information concerning the identity of the applicant, of the child and of the person alleged to have removed or retained the child;
b) where available, the date of birth of the child;
c) the grounds on which the applicant’s claim for return of the child is based;
d) all available information relating to the whereabouts of the child and the identity of the person with whom the child is presumed to be.
The application may be accompanied or supplemented by –
e) an authenticated copy of any relevant decision or agreement;
f) a certificate or an affidavit emanating from a Central Authority, or other competent authority of the State of the child’s habitual residence, or from a qualified person, concerning the relevant law of that State;
g) any other relevant document.

Article 13
Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that –
a) the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; or
b) there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.
The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the
child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate
to take account of its views.
In considering the circumstances referred to in this Article, the judicial and administrative authorities shall
take into account the information relating to the social background of the child provided by the Central
Authority or other competent authority of the child’s habitual residence.

Article 17
The sole fact that a decision relating to custody has been given in or is entitled to recognition in the requested State shall not be a ground for refusing to return a child under this Convention, but the judicial or administrative authorities of the requested State may take account of the reasons for that decision in applying this Convention.

In short, this is an international agreement to enforce child custody orders, or family disputes. Note: the children don’t have to be return if administrators determine there is some danger. Unfortunately, this seems entirely subjective.

4. Announcement From Global Affairs Canada

October 25, 2020 – Ottawa, Ontario – Global Affairs Canada
The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, today issued the following statement:
“Today, we mark the 40th anniversary of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
“Every year, in Canada and abroad, thousands of children are wrongfully taken across international borders by a parent or guardian in violation of rights of custody. This has devastating effects on families, and it is the children who suffer the most. Children must be at the heart of family justice, and mechanisms like the Hague Convention on child abduction are essential in order to assist them in these terrible situations.
“Canada, along with 100 contracting states, continues to support this global effort to protect children from wrongful removal or retention and return them to their country of residence. We continue to call on the global community to join us and to ratify this important convention.
“We are committed to working with our international partners to continue to protect children and to reinforce the operation of the convention.”

While this all sounds fine, it should be noted that Canada has done a lot, both domestically, and with international treaties to weaken and undermine the spirit of this agreement.

What other treaties or bills do this?

5. Canada’s Bills/Treaties Since 1980

Here are some of the major developments in Canada in the last few decades. All of these either weaken the borders and/or reduce the criminal penalties involved.

  • UN Agenda 21 (1992)
  • Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement (2002)
  • FIPA (2012)
  • Sanctuary cities (First in 2013)
  • CANZUK: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK (2015)
  • UN Agenda 2030 (2015)
  • New York Declaration (2016)
  • Bill C-6 citizenship for terrorists (2016)
  • Bill C-32/C-75 (2018)
  • UN Global Migration Compact (2018)
  • USMCA, NAFTA 2.0 (2020)

It doesn’t matter who’s in power. They’re all globalists.

6. Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement

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

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

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

The treaty was pretty ineffective anyway, given that people could still get into the country as long as they BYPASSED legal border ports. Now, thanks to the Federal Court, the agreement is effectively dead.

Of course, the tens of thousands entering Canada illegally in recent years pales in comparison to the hordes of LEGAL migrants entering under various programs.

7. FIPA Between Canada And China

FIPA largely eliminated the border between Canada and the Chinese. This means that Chinese nationals can freely enter Canada, almost without restrictions. They can also bring their own security to look after their national interests. Makes it easy to smuggle products — or people — into Canada.

8. Sanctuary Cities Forming In Canada

In 2013, Toronto became the first city in Canada to officially obtain status a sanctuary city. It was supported by “conservatives” Doug and Rob Ford. How are child custody agreements supposed to be enforced overseas when children can simply disappear in one of them?

Now list includes: Toronto, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Edmonton and others. In the 2018 Ontario election, the NDP campaigned on turning Ontario into a sanctuary province.

9. CANZUK (CDA, Australia, New Zealand, UK)

The Trans-Tasmanian Partnership is an agreement between Australia and New Zealand to let citizens work and freely travel in each other’s countries. CANZUK would essentially be an expansion of that agreement by adding both Canada and the UK. This is an actual open borders arrangement which could be further expanded.

CANZUK International was formed in 2015, and members of the CPC are some of its biggest supporters.

It’s also interesting how the justifications have changed. Previously, it was about opportunity. Now it’s about containing Chinese influence, which Conservatives allowed to grow in the first place. One obvious example is FIPA.

10. UN Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development

Agenda 2030 was signed in September 2015 by then PM Stephen Harper. It signs away more of Canada’s sovereignty to the “sustainable development agenda”, and makes mass migration across international borders even easier. So-called conservatives would be hard pressed to explain why this is okay, but why the Paris Accord and UN Global Migration Compact are so wrong. There is a lot of overlap with the content.

Worth a mention is that “Conservative” Brian Mulroney was in power in 1992 when Agenda 21 was signed in Brazil.

11. New York Declaration, UN GMC Prelude

This was signed in September 2016, just a year after Agenda 2030. The UN Global Migration Compact was largely based on this text. Both agreements are to make it easier to bring large numbers of people across borders, and to establish international standards. It’s not difficult to see how this would make child abduction and transportation easier to do.

12. Bill C-6, Citizenship For Terrorists

It cheapens Canadian citizenship when anyone can get it. This is especially true for convicted terrorists and traitors. There’s also the increased likelihood of people gaming the system to avoid being sent back, for say crimes against children.

13. Bill C-32/C-75, Reducing Criminal Penalties

If the government is concerned about the well being of children, then why would they introduce a bill to water down criminal penalties for sex crimes against children, and reduce the age of consent?

  • 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

Bill C-75 “hybridized” these offences. What this means is that they were initially to be tried by indictment (felony), but now prosecutors have discretion to try them summarily (misdemeanor). Of course, there were plenty of Section 83 offences (terrorism) that were also hybridized.

14. UN Global Migration Compact

What is strange about the UNGMC is that its text explicitly undermines its stated goals. While the UN supposedly opposed smuggling, the agreement says people shall not be punished. And while condemning trafficking, the UN provides advice and guidance on how to do it more successfully.

15. USMCA, More Than Just Trade

The new USMCA (U.S., Mexico & Canada Agreement) is far more than just a trade agreement. It ensures that more “workers” will be coming across the borders, and cedes areas of labour rights to the UN.

16. How Does Any Of This Help Children?

Remember, this is the 40th anniversary on the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. Member states, (of which Canada is one), should take seriously the obligation to ensure that children are not taken across borders illegally, even if it’s by a parent, or some other guardian.

Instead, Canada signs treaties and passes bills that ensure that this will continue. Erasing borders, and reducing penalties does nothing to deter child smuggling. In fact, it only encourages it.

Sure, these changes don’t explicitly state moving children around illegally is a major goal (or even a goal at all). But as borders become less meaningful, this will certainly increase.

Action Canada: Local Branch Of International Planned Parenthood

The International Planned Parenthood Federation, Western Hemisphere Region, has a Canadian Branch. It’s called Action Canada, and follows much the same ideology.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

While abortion is trumpeted as a “human right” in Western societies, the obvious questions have to be asked: Why is it a human right? Who are these groups benefiting financially? Will the organs be trafficked afterwards? What will happen to the demographics of countries that are involved in this? Unfortunately, there aren’t nearly enough journalists asking the hard questions.

2. Action Canada’s Corporate Documents


3. Action Canada’s CRA Tax Filings

2015 Tax Filings
Receipted donations $189,977.00 (21.77%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $120,446.00 (13.80%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $562,169.00 (64.43%)
Total revenue: $872,592.00

Charitable programs $568,499.00 (72.58%)
Management and administration $128,937.00 (16.46%)
Fundraising $49,434.00 (6.31%)
Political activities $24,530.00 (3.13%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $11,828.00 (1.51%)
Total expenses: $783,228.00

Total compensation for all positions $301,704.00

2016 Tax Filings
Receipted donations $311,894.00 (20.60%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $69,908.00 (4.62%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $1,132,199.00 (74.78%)
Total revenue: $1,514,001.00

Charitable programs $1,219,877.00 (81.52%)
Management and administration $172,744.00 (11.54%)
Fundraising $49,372.00 (3.30%)
Political activities $54,330.00 (3.63%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $1,496,323.00

Total compensation for all positions $770,177.00

2017 Tax Filings
Receipted donations $302,923.00 (20.87%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $21,634.00 (1.49%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $1,127,020.00 (77.64%)
Total revenue: $1,451,577.00

Charitable programs $1,094,878.00 (78.20%)
Management and administration $160,827.00 (11.49%)
Fundraising $74,444.00 (5.32%)
Political activities $70,018.00 (5.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $1,400,167.00

Total compensation for all positions $850,391.00

2018 Tax Filings
Receipted donations $349,408.00 (17.31%)
Non-receipted donations $56,832.00 (2.82%)
Gifts from other registered charities $29,021.00 (1.44%)
Government funding $343,948.00 (17.04%)
All other revenue $1,239,514.00 (61.40%)
Total revenue: $2,018,723.00

Charitable programs $1,621,402.00 (84.10%)
Management and administration $163,382.00 (8.47%)
Fundraising $73,444.00 (3.81%)
Political activities $69,611.00 (3.61%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $1,927,839.00

Total compensation for all positions $947,188.00

2019 Tax Filings
Receipted donations $282,509.00 (8.00%)
Non-receipted donations $13,749.00 (0.39%)
Gifts from other registered charities $32,210.00 (0.91%)
Government funding $980,419.00 (27.77%)
All other revenue $2,221,381.00 (62.92%)
Total revenue: $3,530,268.00

Charitable programs $3,180,207.00 (90.02%)
Management and administration $210,532.00 (5.96%)
Fundraising $55,866.00 (1.58%)
Political activities $86,109.00 (2.44%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $3,532,714.00

Total compensation for all positions $1,995,997.00
Full-time employees (17)
Part-time employees (3)

Interesting. It took in some $3.5 million from various sources, and paid $2 million for its 20 employees, or about $100,000 each. As should be obvious, its revenues are steadily going up.

4. Action Canada’s Federal Lobbying

Something that stands out: it isn’t just the Canadian Government (Canadian taxpayers really), who are funding this group. The taxpayers of Denmark and the Netherlands are as well.

The sexual health education is presumably the pedo education system that UNESCO is promoting. And the abortion push is self explanatory.

5. Push For Decriminalization Of Prostitution

Negative consequences of criminalizing sex work
-Fear around legal consequences or harassment if sex workers carry condoms and lubricant, which can be used as evidence of sex work.
-Reduced ability to negotiate safer sex with clients.
-A negative impact on relationships with service providers (such as those providing condoms and harm reduction supplies) for fear of being identified as sex workers, which could lead to police entrapment.

The legislation known as the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act is especially alarming for immigrants. Canada’s sex work laws do not explicitly address migrant sex workers but the objective to “ensure consistency between prostitution offences and the existing human trafficking offences” means that human trafficking is being confused with prostitution. Because migrant sex workers are often identified as “trafficked victims” and because their work is often referred to as “sexual exploitation,” laws and policies that criminalize sex work and migration specifically target sex workers who are racialized and people of colour. This puts already vulnerable populations at higher risk of criminalization and violence.

The criminalization of the purchase of sexual services means sex workers will not seek police protection and support services when they need them, thereby decreasing their ability to report violence to police and take care of their health. It also prevents sex workers from using simple safety strategies like working in pairs, working in familiar areas, or having the time to consult “bad date lists” to help protect themselves against violent or abusive clients.

The mental gymnastics here are stunning. First, it is a pretty big conflict of interest that a group that promotes abortion (and sale of body parts), is also lobbying for prostitution. Seems like one business feeds into another.

Second, how many “immigrants of colour” are coming to Canada and ending up in prostitution?

Third, while explicitly denying that sex work is exploitive, this group details the ways in which it is very exploitive to the victims.

6. Helping Promote Abortion Globally


It shouldn’t surprise anyone, but Action Canada, like the rest of Planned Parenthood, promotes abortion worldwide. Not sure why Jagmeet Singh follows them though.

Also, it seems that restricting abortion in any way is tied to white supremacist ideology. However, it’s unclear how this logic would apply in majority non-white countries.

Apparently, a feminist foreign policy is one that pays to have the children killed in foreign countries. Now, considering that many cultures don’t value women, this would likely lead to a lot of sex selective abortions. How exactly is funding the selective targeting of female babies a “feminist” ideology?

7. Action Canada Supports BLM Movement

No surprise that Action Canada supports the Black Lives Matter groups, despite how violent they often are.

However, black lives DON’T seem to matter when they are being aborted. In fact, in the United States, blacks make up a very disproportionate amount of aborted babies.

8. Bill C-75 Facilitates Organ Trafficking

  • 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

It was mentioned in Part 17 and Part 18, how Bill C-75 watered down the criminal penalties for sex crimes against children. It would effectively reduce the punishments for organ trafficking and letting babies die. Just look at that list.

9. Action Canada: Cancel March For Life

In May 2020, this article was published on Rabble. True, this may just be a personal opinion, but as they Executive Director of Action Canada for Sexual and Health Rights, Sandeep Prasad’s words do carry some serious weight.

10. Parliamentarians For Population/Development

The Canadian Association of Parliamentarians on Population and Development (CAPPD) provides a forum for the exchange of ideas on population, sexual and reproductive health, human rights and development issues. Formed in 1997, CAPPD is open to all sitting Senators and Members of Parliament.

CAPPD coordinates efforts with several parliamentary associations throughout Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe to encourage governments to keep their commitments to reproductive health and women’s rights, as agreed by 179 countries at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo, Egypt.

Raise parliamentarians’ awareness of population, sexual and reproductive health, human rights and development issues through participation in study tours, international conferences, expert seminars and public events;

Advocate for the full implementation of the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action (ICPD PoA) and the Beijing Platform for Action;

Consult with government agencies, civil society, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and other international agencies and parliamentarians from other countries to assess Canada’s support for relevant international development goals;

Promote cooperation among other parliamentary networks working in the areas of population, sexual and reproductive health, human rights, and development.

This isn’t some lunatic fringe group. There are sitting Members of Parliament (across party lines) who are openly on board with this agenda. At the same time they are supposed to be working for the interests of their constituents, these members are openly acting as lobbyists for the abortion and globohomo agendas.

Planned Parenthood effectively has a trojan horse operating within the legislature.

11. UN Population Replacement Division

This was addressed here, here, and here. While promoting the right to easy abortion (and reduce birth rates), the United Nations also pushes for replacement migration to “bring up the numbers”. This seems illogical, until one realizes what the real goal is.


[1] Decrease the birth rate (abortion, globohomo)
[2] Increase replacement migration

12. Planned Parenthood Is Organ Trafficking

The Center for Medical Progress recently published this video, and it contains many admissions from Planned Parenthood officials.

In a new video released by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) Monday, Planned Parenthood officials give sworn testimony describing how abortionists alter abortion procedures in order to produce more intact human fetuses and, therefore, more usable fetal tissues and organs that can be sold for profit.

In 2015, the CMP and journalist and activist David Daleiden released a series of videos featuring undercover conversations with Planned Parenthood officials and medical directors. Planned Parenthood and their media allies decried the undercover videos as “edited” and claimed their late-term abortion practices were in complete compliance with the law. As attorney general of California, current vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris, who received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from Planned Parenthood, prosecuted Daleiden for exposing Planned Parenthood’s crimes.

Now, newly unsealed videos of deposition testimonies show these same Planned Parenthood employees confirming under oath what they previously admitted to Daleiden about abortion and fetal tissue harvesting. In the latest video, Planned Parenthood officials testify about their use of paperwork loopholes to feign compliance with federal partial-birth abortion law, as well as how they alter their abortion techniques to obtain intact organs.

There will have to be follow up on this. That said, Planned Parenthood has now admitted to using abortion as a way to generate body parts to sell on the open market. This is not about reproductive care, or making life better for women. It’s about generating a fresh supply of human parts to sell.

The information provided (so far) relates to Planned Parenthood in general. We will have to see how deep Action Canada is in this — if at all.

Big Tech Collusion With Big Pharma, And Against Free Speech (CV #40)


1. Free Speech Under Constant Threat

For more on free speech and the problems we face, check out this series. The right to speak one’s mind and be open are essential in any functioning society. However, there are hurdles and attacks all the time. Also, take a dive down the coronavirus and media rabbit holes. See what else there is.

2. Twitter Admits Shadow-Banning


In it’s July 30 pinned tweet, Twitter claims to be protecting the idea of an open internet. While the first item (preventing a few people from domination) makes sense, the second item is disturbing. It mentions focusing on “how the content is amplified and discovered”, implying that opinions the hosts don’t like will be supressed.

3. Twitter/UNESCO Collude On Media Literacy

Social media conglomerates are often looked upon with suspicion when it comes to the management of their platforms and collaboration for social development. Media and information literacy is a potent way to help people to critically navigate these information superhighways while enabling them to understand that they have the autonomy to choose what they do online or not.

In a unique partnership with UNESCO, Twitter is launching its updated Teaching and Learning with Twitter Guide during the Global MIL Week celebrations from 24-31 October 2019. The Twitter Learning Guide now has media and information literacy as its focus.

The Twitter Learning Guide benefitted from the direct rewriting and content provided by UNESCO through yearlong consultations. The vision and making of a partnership with Twitter were initiated a year ago when Twitter joined UNESCO on the promotion of Global Media and Information Literacy Week 2018.

This bold move demonstrates Twitter’s open commitment to enhancing the critical capacities of its users to make informed and wise choices about how they use the social media platform and engage with information that they encounter therein.

In October 2019, UNESCO and Twitter announced that they were partnering up for what they call “media and information literacy”.

While a campaign for media literacy sounds great on the surface, the devil is in the details. For example, UNESCO recently published “articles” telling people to only trust official sources for information on the coronavirus “pandemic”.

No one wants to see journalists harmed for doing their job. However, discrediting people for going against the official narratives is weasely and dishonest. See the previous article.

4. Big Tech Supports ChristChurch Call


In summer 2017, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft and Twitter came together to form the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT).

The objective of the GIFCT has always been to substantially disrupt terrorists’ ability to promote terrorism, disseminate violent extremist propaganda, and exploit or glorify real-world acts of violence on our services. We do this by joining forces with counterterrorism experts in government, civil society and the wider industry around the world. Our work centers around three, interrelated strategies:

Interesting. Microsoft was (until recently), headed by Bill Gates, who now spends his time trying to vaccinate the planet. Microsoft, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are all apparently on board with censoring information they deem harmful.

One has to wonder if this cooperation extends to Gates’ vaccination agenda. Would social media outlets do what they can in order to ensure it succeeds? As it turns out, yes they will.

5. Big Tech Supports Replacement Agenda

Washington: More than a dozen top American technology companies, including Google, Facebook and Microsoft, on Monday joined a lawsuit filed by the Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) latest rule that bars international students from staying in the United States unless they attend at least one in-person course.

Seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, these companies, along with the US Chamber of Commerce and other IT advocacy groups, asserted that the July 6 ICE directive will disrupt their recruiting plans, making it impossible to bring on board international students that businesses, including amici, had planned to hire, and disturb the recruiting process on which the firms have relied on to identify and train their future employees.

For all the talk about not interfering in elections, big tech seems to have no issue with suing the Government in order to keep the cheap labour flowing. Then again, it was always about importing people who will work for less.

Of course, with record high unemployment, continuing to bring people in makes no sense to society. But it was never about that.

6. Twitter Openly Censors CV Information


In serving the public conversation, our goal is to make it easy to find credible information on Twitter and to limit the spread of potentially harmful and misleading content. Starting today, we’re introducing new labels and warning messages that will provide additional context and information on some Tweets containing disputed or misleading information related to COVID-19.

In March, we broadened our policy guidance to address content that goes directly against guidance on COVID-19 from authoritative sources of global and local public health information. Moving forward, we may use these labels and warning messages to provide additional explanations or clarifications in situations where the risks of harm associated with a Tweet are less severe but where people may still be confused or misled by the content. This will make it easier to find facts and make informed decisions about what people see on Twitter.

While false or misleading content can take many different forms, we will take action based on three broad categories:
(a) Misleading information — statements or assertions that have been confirmed to be false or misleading by subject-matter experts, such as public health authorities.
(b) Disputed claims — statements or assertions in which the accuracy, truthfulness, or credibility of the claim is contested or unknown.
(c) Unverified claims — information (which could be true or false) that is unconfirmed at the time it is shared.

Information that public health authorities or subject matter experts deem to be misleading will be grounds for terminating your account. But what happens to those wanting to fact-check or disprove misleading information from experts or authorities? Guess you’re guilty of wrong-think.

Of course, other media outlets should not get a free pass. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are notorious for deleting accounts which post information that runs counter to the narrative.

7. AMA Wants Crackdown On Misinformation

The American Medical Association is urging the country’s largest internet technology firms to clamp down on misinformation about vaccines in light of the ongoing series of measles outbreaks.

The nation’s most influential physician organization on Wednesday sent a letter to the CEOs of Amazon, Facebook, Google, Pinterest, Twitter and YouTube expressing concern that their respective internet media channels are spreading false information about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and as a result have been driving parents to not immunize their children.

In a similar fashion, last month Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) sent a letter to chief executives at Facebook and Google requesting they address false claims about vaccines made on their platforms.

In March 2019, the AMA, the American Medical Association, urged social media platforms to crack down on what it calls “misinformation” about vaccines and their safety.

Several companies have taken steps to reduce vaccine misinformation in response to the criticism. On March 7, Facebook announced it would block advertisements that included false claims about vaccines and no longer show or recommend content that contained misinformation on its platform or on Instagram. In February, Pinterest announced it had blocked all vaccine-related searches on its platform in an effort to stop the spread of misinformation on anti-vaccination posts. Also, in the same month Google announced it had begun removing ads from videos that promote anti-vaccination content on YouTube.

It seems like these social media companies were already on board with the AMA’s request. They saw no issue with removing information that contradicted the narrative, though the methods differed somewhat.

8. Big Tech Helps Push Vaxx In Ireland

Social media companies have to decide “which side they are on” in the vaccine debate and should consider closing accounts and web pages that spread false information, Minister for Health Simon Harris has said.

Mr. Harris said he had invited Twitter, Facebook, Google and other companies to a “summit” to explain what they can do to support public health and clamp down on misinformation.

“These platforms can be a powerful tool for good, or they can be a vehicle for falsehoods and lies, and they need to decide what side they want to be on,” he said on Tuesday at the announcement of a vaccine alliance aiming to boost the uptake of childhood vaccines and reduce parental hesitancy about them.

Mr Harris said social media companies have to decide if they want their platforms to “be on the side of public health, or to be exploited for lies and disinformation”. He also challenged fellow TDs not to allow themselves to be “used” by asking “irresponsible” parliamentary questions about vaccines.

The Minister said the need for accurate, evidence-based information outweighed the need for “false balance” in the debate about vaccines and that efforts needed to be redoubled in order to save lives.

The Irish Minister of Health, in September 2019, invited big tech companies to Ireland to figure out ways to get people vaccinated in higher numbers. There is no pretense of having an open debate. Instead, the objective is quite clearly to push this agenda.

9. Big Tech Censors CV-19 Information

The rapid spread of the coronavirus in China and around the world has sent Facebook, Google and Twitter scrambling to prevent a different sort of malady — a surge of half-truths and outright falsehoods about the deadly outbreak.

The three Silicon Valley tech giants long have struggled to curtail dangerous health disinformation, including posts, photos and videos that seek to scare people away from much-needed vaccines. But the companies face their great test in the wake of a potential pandemic, now that the coronavirus has infected 4,400 people in China, killing at least 100, while sickening another five in the United States.

Already, Facebook and its peers have tried to battle back pervasive conspiracy theories, including a hoax that wrongly claims U.S. government officials secretly created or obtained a patent for the illness. Some of the misinformation has circulated through private Facebook groups — channels that are hard for researchers to monitor in real-time — that came into existence after news first broke about the coronavirus.

Even in January 2020, Facebook, Google and Twitter had been put to work trying to snuff out so-called “misinformation”. Plainly put, this is information that contradicts official narratives, regardless of how truthful or well researched.

Now, as seen in the tweets earlier in the article, outlets like Twitter are quite open about their agenda. This is not a free speech platform.

10. Big Tech Moves To Censor In EU

A representative for the EU told The Verge the program would be launched “without delays” and that detailed timings would soon be made public. The EU has told tech companies it would rather the data was comprehensive than rushed, and it’s likely the format will be similar to reports produced to tackle misinformation about the 2019 EU elections.

Spokespersons for Google, Facebook, and Twitter, told The Verge they supported the EU’s efforts and had already stepped up plans to combat misinformation about the pandemic on their platforms. Facebook and Google said they were committed to producing new monthly reports, while Twitter said it was still considering how to present this information, but that it would be adding regular updates to its coronavirus misinformation blog.

Similarly to the United States, Google, Twitter, Facebook, and others are being used to manipulate Europeans into believing that vaccines are completely safe. The article is from last month, June 2020. This is despite a litany of legitimate questions about what is in them, and what the side effects are.

11. Tech Censorship Is Done Openly

This isn’t some mystery, or crazy conspiracy theory. Companies like Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are being asked — and agreeing — to alter the media to create a more pro-vaxx environment. They are complicit in ensuring that difficult questions aren’t being asked and answered. There is no benefit to this, whether is be from a free-speech perspective, or from a health and safety perspective.

To drive home the point: this censorship and manipulation isn’t some secret plan. It’s all out in the open.

IMM #30: A Response To True North’s Call For Population Replacement

According to Candice Malcolm, diversity is necessary for a country to be successful. As long as there is some unifying element(s), it doesn’t matter how much you alter the makeup.

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. There is so much information that politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” are withholding.

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement).
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

2. Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament


3. Context For This Article

Yes, this has been out for a few years, and should have been addressed then. However, the lies and misrepresentations are still as relevant today as they were then.

It is truly bizarre that Malcolm accurately identifies many of the problems of immigration and multiculturalism, but still insists that Canada needs to go ahead with it. Her essay reads like a parody of a nationalist: identifying all the problems, but still providing the wrong solution.

True, Malcolm is extremely pointed and critical of Trudeau. However, she is silent on the Conservative Party (and her ex-boss, Jason Kenney), doing exactly the same thing. All that differed was rhetoric. Once this double standard is shown, any semblance of objectivity disappears.

4. Conservative Inc. Influenced By Koch/Atlas

  • Alberta Institute
  • Canadian Constitution Foundation
  • Canadian Taxpayers Federation
  • Canadians For Democracy And Transparency
  • Fraser Institute
  • Frontier Center For Public Policy
  • Institute For Liberal Studies
  • Justice Center For Constitutional Freedoms
  • MacDonald-Laurier Institute For Public Policy
  • Manning Center
  • Montreal Economic Institute
  • World Taxpayers Federation

Side note: Candice Malcolm is also part of Civitas.

5. Rebuke To True North Piece

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is known for his pithy one-liners and perfect soundbite platitudes. In the face of an illegal border crisis, a bizarre policy to “de-radicalize” and “re-integrate” ISIS terrorists, and growing skepticism over increasing immigration while neglecting Canada’s once-strong integration policies, Trudeau responds with the same simplistic response.

Canada’s once strong immigration policies? This would be a good time to point out that Malcolm worked for Jason Kenney while he was Immigration Minister. So did her husband. Yet it isn’t disclosed anywhere on True North’s website. Nor are their ties to various Koch/Atlas groups mentioned. Nejatian is a director at True North, yet you would have to contact Corporations Canada or Canada Revenue to find that out.

As a press secretary for Kenney, Malcolm’s role would effectively be to act as Kenney’s mouthpiece. This means toeing the line on the (then) record levels of people the Harper Government brought into Canada.

All of these factors would certainly factor into the tone and agenda that True North offers its readers. Yet Malcolm discloses none of it.

“Diversity is our strength.”
What exactly does he mean by “diversity”? What about less desirable types of diversity, such as diversity of core values? Or diverse moral codes, where some Canadians do not value women’s rights or the rights of the LGBT community? What about those who believe group rights ought to supercede the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed through the charter?
Diversity of core values, beliefs and culture can easily create societal fractures, and put our coveted peace and stability at risk.

Malcolm actually gets it partly right, but misses the bigger picture.

For an awful lot of people, values are derived at least in part from religious beliefs. Topics like equality of women and gay rights do vary considerably by faiths. Yet Malcolm claims that Canadians aren’t defined by religious identity.

She also claims that a diversity of culture creates social fractures, but seems to think there is no connection between race/ethnicity and culture. Culture must be an entirely sociological construct, without any biological basis at all.

Is Canada simply a United Nations of different people with different values and different moral codes? How are we, then, to deal with the corruption that plagues the UN itself, including vile anti-Semitism, a failed consensus on what constitutes basic human rights, and a lack of an agreed upon authority to enforce laws and norms?
Canada’s defacto policy of ever more immigration and ever more diversity was the subject of a now-controversial Twitter essay by Conservative Member of Parliament Maxime Bernier.

If you make it a point to continuously import large numbers of people from all over the world, then yes, it becomes a “United Nations” of different people.

Bernier’s tweeting did make national news. However, he acted as if diversity was something to be celebrated, and that only abstract ideas were what unified us.

Bernier argues that an endless drive for diversity, with no emphasis on what it means to be Canadian, will push us towards division and balkanization. He asks, “if anything and everything is Canadian, does being Canadian mean something?” And he goes on to raise a concern I’ve raised many times — what will happen to a tolerant and liberal society if it welcomes, en masse, individuals with illiberal and intolerant beliefs, practices and traditions?
Despite the predictable pearl-clutching from the Liberal media, and the one-sided rush to condemn Bernier for wrongthink, the Beauce MP raises an important, dare I say obvious, criticism of Trudeau’s open-border mantra and obsession with diversity for diversity’s sake.

While Trudeau’s open love for diversity and globalism is revolting, mainstream conservatives in Canada support much the same thing. They are just more subtle about it. Candice Malcolm and her Conservative Inc. allies support white genocide and population replacement, just as long it is done in an orderly fashion.

If you replace the founding stock of the nation, the nation dies. It doesn’t matter if you celebrate it as diversity or not.

Pluralistic nation-states have long existed, Canada being a prime example. And the basic notions that tie our society together are based not on our differences, which are many, but on the commonalities that unite us.

From an abstract perspective this is fine, but the devil is in the details. Malcolm doesn’t really think that there should be meaningful commonalities to unite us.

Remember: conservatives and civic nationalists don’t believe that ethnicity should be a factor in the makeup of a country. They don’t care that there is no blood bond between people. Cities are divided up that way — and all done voluntarily — but race is a social construct.

Beyond that, they don’t even support cultural homogeneity. Conservatives as a whole support multiculturalism, which instantly leads to parallel societies.

What about a common heritage or traditions? Conservatives don’t even support that. They seem to care little when parks or streets or monuments to foreign bodies get erected in Canada. There is no concern that foreign histories and heritage begin to replace our own.

A common religion? Well Christianity is under attack, while all others are allowed to grow. And considering the connection between faith and values (a link Malcolm denies), good luck getting people to agree on much of anything.

The point is, that when pressed for specifics, conservatives and civic nationalists will eventually admit that they don’t want any concrete bonds between people. Perhaps free markets, the economy, and the constitution are all that we need.

It is our common features — languages, history, traditions, laws, shared culture and values — that form the basis of a pluralistic nation-state. This is the “core identity” of our nationhood. In addition to this basic consensus, individuals and communities are free to engage in their own religion and traditions — all the things that make Canada a wonderful, interesting and unique place to live.

This might be an okay take on “pluralistic nation-state” if it had any semblance of reality. However, multicultural societies don’t share any of these things — except possibly the laws.

In order to preserve things like language, history, traditions, shared culture and religion, some degree of balkanization is required. After all, these things to do exist within a few people, but a society as a whole.

One only needs to look at the Greater Toronto Area (or any “diverse” city), to see it carved up and balkanized along ethnic, cultural and linguistic lines. Saying we have “shared values” sounds great, but people would rather live with people who share a common identity.

This is what conservatives and civic nationalists claim they don’t understand. We can talk all day about values, but it is a common identity that bonds a group.

As for the argument against identity politics, let’s dispel something: a society requires both men and women to function. Period. Promoting globohomo the way it is serves to fracture society. Beyond those 2 examples though, identity is what bonds a group.

In pluralistic societies like Canada, we do not derive our identity from our racial, religious or ethnic origin — unlike most countries in the world. We derive our identity from shared values. And yet, increasingly in Canada, we are forbidden from articulating or discussing what these values may entail.

We used to. The 1971 Canadian Census listed the country as 96% European. Christianity, and its many offshoots were the basis for much of the law and culture here. Canada was effectively, a white, Christian ethnostate. It is only in the last 50 years that “forced multiculturalism” has been brought to the West.

Malcolm pretends this is not the case, and claims that it is abstract values that bond and unite us, a philosophy known as “civic nationalism”. She also conflates identity and values, which are 2 completely different things.

INDENTITY is what the people have in common, which includes things like race, ethnicity, culture, language, religion, customs, traditions and heritage. These are what bind the people, and arguably race is the strongest unifier there is.

VALUES are a set of abstract ideas which hold society together in a civic sense. They include things like free speech, tolerance, or various laws and codes.

Obviously, values are much more fluid than identity, and can change quickly. The result is that society can break down when these values diverge. By contrast, having a common ethnicity, religion, culture, language, etc… society still holds together, even as values and standards change.

But in Trudeau’s diverse, post-national utopia, would there be a shared identity? Would our laws be commonly agreed upon and equally enforced? Without a commitment to nationhood, how would governments command legitimacy, and would our communities live in peace?

This is a good paragraph on its own. And a lot of valid points. One wouldn’t think that Malcolm worked for Jason Kenney (and by extension the Conservative Party of Canada), when Stephen Harper imported the 3rd World in record numbers.

Malcolm seems to have no problems with importing a replacement population when her Conservative bosses are the ones doing it. However, it’s totally wrong when the Liberals do the exact same thing.

As for the scale of this: replacing the old stock has been done by successive administrations. Both are just as guilty in facilitating it.

Pluralism, not just diversity, is our strength, and yet, Trudeau’s vision of a post-national state differs from our current position as a pluralistic nation-state. Remove the nation — the unifying factor — and what are you left with? What is the common cause?
This lack of identity or commitment to shared values is particularly troubling given the Liberal push for immigration on an even larger scale.

Yet, silence when Conservatives do the same thing.

She goes on and on about pluralism being a strength, but never explains how. It’s also never explained how large numbers of people with nothing in common can expect to come without drastically changing the nation.

Worse, it’s become hip among the intellectual avant-garde to argue for open borders and drastic measures to boost Canada’s population, with even some (misguided) conservative intellectuals arguing that Canada ought to intentionally boost its population to 100 million by the end of the century.

The 100 million is probably a reference to Century Initiative, an NGO that does want to boost Canada’s population. Yet Malcolm’s handlers in the CPC have been pushing for near-open borders immigration policies?

If Canada were to open its doors to, say, about a million people per year, for the next 80 years, would Canada continue to be a Western liberal democracy? Would English and French be broadly spoken? Would there even be official languages?

Malcolm seems to be unaware, (or perhaps pretends to be unaware), at just how many people are entering the country annually. 3 Notable programs are: (a) student visas; (b) temporary foreign workers; and (c) those in the International Mobility Program. While these are billed as “temporary” options, there are many options to stay. Since Canada doesn’t even have a proper entry/exit system, who knows how many of those people are still in the country?

Year Stu TFWP IMP Total
2003 61,293 82,151 143,444

2004 56,536 90,668 147,204

2005 57,476 99,146 156,622

2006 61,703 112,658 174,361

2007 64,636 165,198 229,834

2008 79,509 192,519 272,028

2009 85,140 178,478 263,618

2010 96,157 182,276 278,433

2011 98,383 190,842 289,225

2012 104,810 213,573 318,383

2013 111,865 221,310 333,175

2014 127,698 95,086 197,924 420,078

2015 219,143 73,016 175,967 468,126

2016 265,111 78,402 207,829 551,342

2017 317,328 78,788 224,033 620,149

2018 356,876 84,229 255,034 696,139

For some context: Canada went from admitting 60,000 student visas in 2003 to almost 360,000 in 2018. That is nearly 6 times as large over a 15 year span. Additionally, we went from about 80,000 temporary work visas in 2003 to over 320,000 (TFWP and IMP combined) in 2018.

What kind of values would these hypothetical Canadians posses, and what kind of political leaders would they elect? Would our laws continue to be equally applied, or would there be special caveats and exemptions for cultural and religious communities?

Malcolm raises a great argument in favour of a moratorium on immigration. Changing the demographics leads to irreversible voting shifts, typically to more left-leaning politicians. Except, instead of that, she uses it to claim that a better job has to be done about it.

Could we continue to afford universal social services, including healthcare, education and social welfare? What language would these services be provided in?

Again valid points, and would be great to use to advocate for massive cuts to immigration. But Malcolm doesn’t do that.

Would Canada continue to be a safe, friendly and welcoming society? Would our liberal tolerance be extended to those who are illiberal or intolerant? Would newcomers bring their ancient tribal feuds and hatred with them? Would practices like FGM and forced marriage be permitted? Would we import the foreign wars of the world — Israelis against Palestinians, Shi’ites against Sunnis, Russians against Ukrainians, and so on — into our own backyard?

More great arguments to support the position of slashing immigration. However, Malcolm believes (or claims to believe), that a certain level of diversity is needed to keep a nation healthy.

Would newcomers to Canada be selected based on education and training — Canada’s longstanding practice of skills-based immigration? Or would we simply allow any newcomer who arrives at our doorstep and wants to live in Canada?

About this “skills-based” immigration that Malcolm talks about, why not get into the costs of it? Plenty of college and university graduates can’t find work in their fields because successive governments — both Liberal and Conservative — have flooded market with foreign workers. This is done in a deliberate effort to drive down wages.

This is not restricted to high skilled workers either. The Temporary Foreign Worker Program, for example, was specifically used for entry level work because it allowed employers to ultimately pay less to import foreigners than to hire Canadians.

Malcolm was working for Jason Kenney when the TFW scandal hit in 2013.

Would there be a united Canadian identity? Or would our society splinter into identity groups with the pernicious concept of the “hyphenated-Canadians” — with some other identity coming before being Canadian?

Look at the next section. HUGE numbers of Chinese, Indian, Philippino, Iranian, Pakistani and other migrants are being brought into Canada on a yearly basis. This is white genocide. Malcolm complains now, but had no issue with the practice when working for the Ministry of Immigration.

How long would Canada continue to exist as a political entity? Perhaps Quebec would seek to separate. Or perhaps it would be aggrieved minorities, stateless ethnic groups or religious fanatics who would seek to carve out their own ethno-state.

Yes, all valid points. And Malcolm worked for Jason Kenney and the CPC while they were pushing immigration policies and programs to promote exactly this.

And that’s just the start. It would only be a matter of time before other groups — disgruntled Indigenous tribes, libertarian Albertans, Marxist communes, and any number of religious cults or zealous identity groups — would seek their own self-determination and self-governance.

Yet conservatives support the sort of immigration policies that encourage this. They claim that it won’t change the culture as long as there is “economic benefit”.

What would be the tipping point? 50 million? Or 150 million?

150 million by 2100 is about where we are headed now.

In the past, immigration policies were heavily restrictive, cost prohibitive and were coupled with a strong civil society promoting universal norms and values, conformity, and integration (frankly, assimilation).
The world is freer and more democratic today, thankfully, but that also makes integration all the more challenging.

Why is this change a good thing? Does Malcolm prefer easy immigration over social cohesion, integration and stability?

Trudeau has turned his back on integration, while steadily increasing the amount of immigration and without much concern for selecting those who will be successful in Canada. A casual observer of Europe’s failed immigration experiment can see that this is a toxic combination, and Trudeau’s schemes should be met with criticism and resistance from Canadians of all backgrounds.

Europe’s failed immigration experiment? Perhaps Malcolm has never heard of the KALERGI PLAN, a century old scheme to erase the peoples of Europe and replace them with a single group. Of course there has never been any sort of democratic vote, but all major parties are controlled.

Malcolm pretends that it is ONLY Trudeau who has been jacking up immigration in Canada. She deliberately omits that Brian Mulroney raised immigration rates in the 1980s to the highest they had ever been. Also, omits that Stephen Harper raised immigration to the highest rates ever (at that point)

She also omits being a staffer for Jason Kenney and pushing the mass migration narrative.

Diversity is important. There’s no doubt about that.
We need to challenge one another with new ideas, innovative thinking and differing perspectives in order to grow and thrive, as well as to solve the problems of our day. Societies that are too conformist or homogeneous are not only boring and banal places to live, they’re also destined to fail.

Societies that are homogenous are much more socially cohesive. Maybe Malcolm gets a kick out of driving across town to a “foreign country”, but most people don’t want that. They want societies which are high trust, and safe to live in. Multicultural countries do not offer this.

How is diversity important? Other than homogenous societies being boring? Wanting to change a nation’s makeup because you find it boring is pretty sociopathic.

Look at North Korea — the most homogeneous country in the world; closed to immigration and most trade — where everyone is equal in their misery and nothing meaningful has changed in decades.

Malcolm makes a disingenuous conclusion. North Koreans are miserable because they are closed to mass migration and globalized trade? Yeah, sure. I don’t suppose being a Communist dictatorship would have anything to do with that misery.

Or Japan, which allows little diversity in ethnic makeup or societal norms, and, in turn, the population is aging, the economy is stagnant, and debt is ever-growing. In other words, the society is dying.

Recently, Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA, promoted the idea that Japan should import a replacement population in order to keep the GDP from falling. Vincent James covers it very well. Malcolm speaks in much the same tone. Instead of preserving the demographics, heritage, culture, and language, both of them think of Japan only in terms of money.

If Japan really needed more people (and it’s already pretty crowded), then perhaps a Hungarian style program of getting couples to have more children would be a better idea.

Spoiler: there is much more to a country than its GDP.

Diversity is necessary. But diversity, in and of itself, is not necessarily a feature. The most diverse empires and countries in the world have fractured, imploded or dissolved, be it the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire or the former Yugoslavia. Diversity alone wasn’t the problem, but diversity without a common commitment, in other words, without unity, led to collapse.

This is incoherent. Malcolm correctly identifies that the most multicultural/multiethnic societies that have collapsed, and cites 3 of them. Diversity was not the problem, she claims, but just done incorrectly. Apparently history will be different if only these vastly different groups had some common bond to unite them.

Multicultural states have only ever been able to hold together when it is done by force. And even then, it is not a permanent solution.

Alongside diversity, it’s unity that makes Canada a successful country and a great place to live. And we need to constantly work and strive for this unity, in the face of large-scale immigration, changing demographics and a societal obsession with cultural relativism, identity politics and anti-Western distortion.

Serious question: if it’s unity that makes Canada successful, and a great place to live, why do we need diversity as all?

We need shared laws, shared values, shared traditions, and a shared identity to thrive and succeed. We need pluralism and nationhood.

We need pluralism and nationhood? How exactly does this work? How does importing millions of people who will balkanize Canada lead to a single nationhood?

It’s unity that makes us love our country and fosters patriotism. It’s unity — imbedded within diversity — that is our true strength.

Forget having a blood connection. Forget common culture, language, traditions, etc…. unity is just some abstract sense of being Canadian.

6. Recent Population Replacement In Canada

(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)

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

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

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

(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)

Note: this is nowhere near the number of people entering Canada every year. Remember to add in hundreds of thousand of students and temporary workers, and various pilot programs.

Even if this were everyone, how exactly is a country supposed to be unified when large numbers of people from very different cultures are imported year after year? How are abstract ideas and values supposed to overcome such fundamental differences?

If Canada were a nation where race, ethnicity and religion didn’t matter, (as Malcolm claims), then it seem very strange that balkanization takes place along racial, ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic lines. But that’s probably a racist thing to “notice”.

I realize that her prior political ties can make this a tricky subject to navigate. However, True North would be taken much more seriously if they were honest about how destructive multiculturalism really is.

7. Forced Diversity Is Genocide

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

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

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Article V
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.

Article VI
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.

Article VII
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.

Serious question: how are forced diversity, multiculturalism and pluralism, not forms of genocide? After all, they are calculated to bring about the destruction of a group, specifically, Europeans.

8. Malcolm Just Another Barbara Spectre

When rereading this essay from Malcolm, my mind instantly went to Barbara Lerner Spectre. She became infamous for saying that Europe had to adopt multiculturalism in order to survive.

How is Malcolm calling for pluralism any different than this? How is forcibly remaking the host culture — without a democratic mandate — not a form of genocide? Importing hundreds of thousands of people (now totally a million annually in recent years), completely remakes the demographics, culture, and traditions of the society. Yet Malcolm argues this is necessary, but gives the flimsiest of reasons.

It’s interesting how “conservatives” are so willing to jump on people like Trudeau for his immigration policies, but remain silent when their own people do much the same thing.

Of course there is an awful lot that True North Canada does not disclose to its readers. Rather than give real insight and research into immigration in Canada, it serves to post anti-Trudeau talking points.

Malcolm calls for essentially the same policies that will lead to the demise of Canada. But like other conservatives, she supports a more “patriotic” version of the same thing.

Thoughts On The “Conservative Inc.” National Debate

1. Overall Impression

Just let it implode.

That’s the reaction I got from watching the CPC debate. Real issues were shoved aside in favour of extremely superficial discussion. Granted, political debates are rarely meant to be engaging and in depth, and this was no exception.

This could be easily forgiven if official platforms and discussions were in depth on the important matters. However, that doesn’t appear to be the case.

If this group represents the future of the Conservative Party of Canada, then it’s probably best to just let the party collapse, and focus on other alternatives. It is every bit as globalist as the Liberal Party, and meaningful differences are few and far between.

2. Border Security & Enforcement

While Conservatives used to brag about how they would close the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement, that talking point seems to have dropped from their agendas. True, the agreement was modified, but many of the same issues still exist.

Of course they don’t mentioned that they never implemented a proper entry/exit system either, despite a recent decade in power. They never brought up that S3CA was drafted in such a way that the United Nations was a party to it, and consultations were required. They didn’t ever address the NGOs (many Jewish) who have been fighting in court for decades to keep the Canada/U.S. border open. Conservatives also downplayed the expediting of work permits to illegals, and amnesty for illegals.

It would be nice for conservatives to address abominations like Sanctuary Cities, which encourage and reward people for being in the country illegally. However, few seem to care.

In fact, conservatives have been, and remain, complicit, in ensuring that there isn’t any real border security in Canada. Closing the Safe 3rd Country Agreement is just a tiny piece of it. There is silence on so much else.

3. True Scale Of Immigration Into Canada

This has been brought up repeatedly on this site, but the “official” immigration numbers in no way reflect the number of people actually entering Canada with some pathway to stay longer. Each year, hundreds of thousands of students and “temporary” workers enter Canada. But this is noticeably absent from the discussion. Remittances drain our national coffers, pilot programs are varied and numerous, immigration is pushed even during times of high unemployment, and rich people can simply purchase a pathway to permanent residence. These are just a few examples of the mess that is the Canadian immigration system.

This also should be noted: every year thousands of “inadmissibles” are denied entry originally, but then allowed in LEGALLY anyway. What’s even the point?

This also ties back to the last section. Since Canada doesn’t actually have a proper entry/exit system in place, how can he ensure that students and temporary workers, (and the inadmissibles) are actually leaving the country afterwards?

Sloan (to his credit), made a few vague references to reducing immigration, but has never addressed the true size of the problem.

4. Lack Of Transparency On CANZUK

O’Toole repeatedly brought up CANZUK as a free trade agreement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. What he left out was that CANZUK also has a free movement provision, which allows citizens to freely move between countries. O’Toole deliberately omits as well that he fully intends to expand CANZUK to other nations as well. Watch 2:00 in the video.

5. Continued Population Replacement

(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)

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

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

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

(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)

This is by no means everyone entering Canada, but does demonstrate a point. In recent decades, immigration to Canada has overwhelmingly been from the 3rd world. This has resulted in irreversible demographic changes, to balkanization, and to a society where many feel no need to integrate.

Instead of addressing this, the candidates all cucked hard at the issue of “systemic racism. Instead of calling out the farce being played out live, they all submitted. Candidates all, to various degrees, played along with the horrors that people of colour experience on a daily basis.

Never mind that the only group that it’s legal to discriminate against is whites. In particular this means white men. This display was truly revolting to watch.

6. Silence On “Gladue Rights” Hypocrisy

If conservatives really wanted to address inequality in the criminal justice system, they could have brought up “Gladue rights”, which entrench special rights and considerations for Aboriginals and blacks. This abomination has been upheld as legal by the Supreme Court of Canada, and is now commonplace in criminal courts. Yes, we actually have race-based-discounts in criminal courts, even in sentencing. If this isn’t systematic racism, then what is?

Critics have claimed this is necessary, given the overrepresentation in prisons. While there is overrepresentation, these same critics try to avoid the key issue: CRIME RATES. They will look to any other reason to explain this disparity, other than actual criminal behaviour.

It was Gladue rights that allowed Terri McClintic to go to a healing lodge, for a brief period at least. This has been the law since the 1990s, but yet no one in power talks about that systemic racism.

7. International Banking Cartel

While Conservatives do whine about the debt, they deliberately avoid discussing WHY the situation is so bad. Specifically, since 1974, Canada has been borrowing primarily from private sources. Money is always artificially created, but when it’s owed to – say the Bank of Canada – the debt stays in Canadian hands. It can be paid off or cancelled at any time. Not the case when it is private institutions doing this.

In fact, over 90% of Canada’s national debt has been from accumulated interest. Liberals and Conservatives alike play along with this fraud, ensuring the balance grows.

Canada currently owes about 30% to foreign interests, which give them great leverage over us. Despite vague talking points, supporters have never been able to explain how private loans reduce inflation, and even if true, why this is better than simply using the Bank of Canada. Worse, Conservatives were in power when this was challenged in court by COMER, so they can’t claim ignorance on the issue.

Fiscal conservatives will always focus on a symptom (the debt), and not on the disease (the international banking cartel). They are complicit in helping this scheme along.

8. Silence On Climate Change Scam

I can’t even be happy about the approach here, and this is why. It’s another case of the Conservatives focusing on symptoms (Paris Accord, Carbon tax), while ignoring the underlying disease (the climate change industry). The candidates repeatedly say that the Carbon tax is an ineffective means for implementing a climate plan. The point to Provincial court challenges, while omitting that they are really just a form of controlled opposition.

The problem is that the entire climate change industry is built on lies and deception. Carbon Dioxide is plant food, and playing along with this hoax does not serve Canadians’ interests in the slightest. Broadly speaking, money which Western nations provide (with debt of course), are used for climate bonds, and predatory loans to the 3rd world.

None of this benefits Canadians, nor helps the environment in any way. Yet conservatives are quite willing to play along with the agenda, even if they claim to oppose the Carbon tax.

9. Support For Internationalist Agenda

Throughout the “debate”, candidates were criticizing Trudeau for how he handles affairs internationally.

Problem is, they criticize his handing of it only. They have no problem with the agendas themselves. Conservatives have no issue with being in bed with the U.N., or groups like the Trilateral Commission, the Bank for International Settlements, the World Trade Organization, CANZUK, or supporting agreements like the USMCA or the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

To reiterate: conservatives are only being critical for how Trudeau handles the globalism agenda. They have no problem with the agenda itself.

10. Two-Faced On Trade Protectionism

This was amusing to see the mental gymnastics at play. The Conservatives support the globalized trade agenda: NAFTA; (it’s successor USMCA); CANZUK; Trans-Pacific Partnership; FIPA, and countless more deals.

Problem is, as long as a part supports the offshoring agenda, they will never believe in protectionist policies. While all candidates gave lip service to wanting to be self sufficient, the reality is that they don’t. Keeping control over the production of essential goods necessitates protectionist policies — and an anti-free trade mentality. Conservative policies over the years have directly contributed to the dependence on foreign powers that are hostile to us.

11. Social Conservatives Thrown Under Bus

There was some talk from all candidates about the need for a “bigger tent”, and for bringing social conservatives in.

The problem is: there’s no sincerity behind this movement. Social conservatives are nothing more than a voting base to be tapped into. This party supports diversity, multiculturalism, gay “marriage”, the gender agenda, widespread abortion, and other non-traditional beliefs. In fact, the more diverse a country becomes, the less there is to conserve socially.

Read between the lines here. Soc-Cons are to be used as a vote supplement, nothing more.

12. Shift From Identity To “Values”

A major problem with conservatives is that they don’t believe that national identity is worth protecting. Whether it be demographics, culture, language, heritage, customs, traditions, religion, etc… As such, they don’t make any effort (other than platitudes), to preserve the makeup of the country.

Instead, they go with the much more vague and malleable notion of “values”. These are simply ideas that can be changed or watered down to suit political purposes.

13. Miscellaneous Points To Add

(Peter Mackay pledges – in writing – no merger with Alliance if he wins)

(Peter MacKay sticking the knife in again?)

MacKay has been around for a long time, and was involved in Harper’s globalist agenda all along. He and Maxime Bernier helped with the 2007 endorsement of the UN Parliamentary Assembly vote. There’s also his history of stabbing his colleagues in the back, from David Orchard to Andrew Scheer. MacKay is also connected to the Desmarais family, having previously dated Paul Desmarais Jr.’s daughter.

Aside from pandering constantly, O’Toole has tweeted out that he is a shill for foreign interests, or one in particular. Makes ones reasonably question his loyalty and commitment to Canada. Also noteworthy is that he spent a few years at the (now defunct) law firm of Heenan Blaikie. This is the same firm Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau worked at. It had also been infiltrated heavily by the Desmarais Family.


Dr. Lewis graduated magna cum laude from the University of Toronto (Trinity College). Thereafter, she obtained a Juris Doctorate from Osgoode Hall Law School, a Masters in Environmental Studies from York University, with a Concentration in Business and the Environment from the Schulich School of Business, and completed a PhD from Osgoode Hall Law School, York University. Dr. Lewis is the Managing Partner of Lewis Law Professional Corporation and has developed a specialized commercial litigation and international contract trade practice which focuses on energy policy. She has two decades of strong litigation experience beginning with some of the strongest Bay Street law firms, prior to starting this firm. She has published numerous articles in peer reviewed journals on international law, contracts, climate change and the feed-in-tariff system in renewable energy projects. Her local practice focuses on corporate commercial, real estate and estates, while her international practice is concentrated in the area of cross-border services including immigration, energy law.

While career politicians are distasteful as a rule, Leslyn seems to have come out of nowhere. She finished her PhD dissertation in 2019, at the age of 48. She seems professionally invested in the climate change scam and to have a globalist/internationalist mindset. Not sure this is the best choice for a party that desperately needs to ditch its globalist ties.

14. Forced VS Optional Vaccines

It was nice to hear the candidates say that no vaccines would ever be forced on Canadians — an obvious reference to the CV planned-emic. However, a point has to be made about that.

WHY are they so okay with vaccines in the first place? Given the deception and lies behind the reporting and the overblown nature, why aren’t they questioning the vaxx agenda itself? Why aren’t they questioning the rampant lobbying and conflict of interest here? Instead, the “opposition” seems limited as to whether vaccines should be made mandatory.

15. Just Let It Implode

This is some random tweet referring to the Republican Party in the United States. However, the exact same reasoning applies to “conservative” parties in Canada. They co-opt and corrupt nationalist and populist movements in order to incorporate (or appear to incorporate) them into their platform.

The result is that an extremely watered down — or non-existent — version of populist sentiment gets put into the mainstream. This is where puppet journalists obediently parrot the talking points and deceive the public.

The Conservative Party of Canada is not worth saving, or reforming, or overhauling. It needs to die. With it out of the way, more nationalist leaning alternatives can flourish and grow.

IMM #28: CANZUK Expansion, The Open Borders Bait-And-Switch (FT #10)

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. There is so much information that politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” are withholding.

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement).
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

2. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

CLICK HERE, for #1: thoughts on potential free trade with China.
CLICK HERE, for #2: NAFTA, lawsuits, job losses, sovereignty.
CLICK HERE, for #3: looking at NAFTA’s hidden/ignored costs.
CLICK HERE, for #4: Bill C-79, Trans-Pacific Partnership.
CLICK HERE, for #5: why Trump abandoned the T.P.P.
CLICK HERE, for #6: CANZUK erasing our sovereignty.
CLICK HERE, for #7: outsourcing, other trade deals, CANZUK.
CLICK HERE, for #8: professional outsourcing, wages, immigration.
CLICK HERE, for #9: EPI research on social costs of free trade.

3. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for article on expanding CANZUK zone.
CLICK HERE, for ExtraNewsFeed article on CANZUK.
CLICK HERE, for CANZUK.org article, mentions expanding.
CLICK HERE, for UK branch of CANZUK on expansion.

4. CANZUK’s Luke Fortmann On Expansion

As proponents of a new and exciting geopolitical union between the four CANZUK nations (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK), we’re very often met with one particular question: looking ahead, who else might be able to join the partnership?

It should be said that a new Commonwealth union would be welcoming of any potential members – with each being considered on a case-by-case basis – and that the CANZUK project is very much a work in progress; always receptive of fresh ideas and potential avenues to explore.

A useful way to begin is by taking a look at the CANZUK countries’ dependent territories, such as Christmas Island, the Cook Islands and Anguilla, for example, which are dependencies of Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, respectively, as well as the UK’s Crown dependencies (Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man).

Each area would naturally become full members of the new group along with the nations to which they are related. Some advocates claim that these small islands, and their generally sparse populations, are currently under-utilised, and that a CANZUK alliance would offer a tremendous opportunity for their communities to acquire a far more extensive set of rights by becoming equal partners in a union, while shaking off their somewhat colonial tint.

Widening our scope, we arrive at the Commonwealth realms. These realms are sovereign states who are members of the Commonwealth and who currently share Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch, of which, there are 16 including the CANZUK countries.

A further concern, and no doubt the most pressing, is that a union involving most or all of the current Commonwealth would be a political impossibility, with almost every country having broken off colonial ties with the British in order to achieve their independence, which says nothing for the relationships between some of the nations (India and Pakistan or Bangladesh and Pakistan, for example). Of course, it would be entirely possible for individual Commonwealth countries to make a solo membership claim.

When weighing up the potential barriers to entry that many of these Commonwealth countries have, we’re often confronted with the challenge that this new alliance is concerned only with nations that are populated by white folk. Such criticism is fairly lazy and can be easily dealt with. Firstly, as we’ve just seen, there’s absolutely no reason why these countries couldn’t join in the future, so long as efforts were directed at bringing them up to par in the ways just discussed.

The original article was deleted, but thankfully it is archived. CANZUK researcher Luke Fortmann writes about the possible expansion and states that options are “always being considered”. To be blunt, this 4 nation alliance could swell.

Also, he does acknowledge that expansion would lead to mass migration to the original 4 nations, and to their demographic replacement. But he doesn’t seem to care as long as it’s done in an orderly fashion.

4. Erin O’Toole Supports Expanding CANZUK

Listen to Erin O’Toole at 2:00 in the video

We can take it to the next level, to show that multi-later organizations can be aspirational. Where you have the rule of law, GDP, respect for rights, the Common Law system, the ability to support a free market, that you’ll work more together. Then we let more and more countries in, and revolutionize opportunities with CANZUK. Please support it. Thank you.

5. Australian Senator Paterson Supports It

Senator Paterson has also let it slip that he sees expanding the CANZUK zone as quite possible as soon as it is operational. The initial 4 are just the starting point. Interestingly, he points out that CANZUK is effectively an expansion of the 1973 Trans-Tasmanian Agreement.

(3:50) Rather than drafting a new agreement entirely from scratch, Australia should advocate adding Canada and the U.K. to the [Closer Economic Relations] Agreement, with only a few major changes if required…. Like the CER, CANZUK would include the freedom of movement between the 4 Commonwealth countries.

It could act as a strong voice in favour of the rules-based liberal order, that is under attack from populist movements on both sides of the political aisle around the world. Over time, this is a group which could grow. In the past week, I’ve had many good suggestions of countries that would make logical additions to CANZUK. Getting the core building block in place, though, I think makes sense.

Again, a bait-and-switch. Promoting it as just a 4 nation pact is the selling feature. Goal is to expand it once it’s fully operational.

6. Free Movement Is Primary Goal

Steve Paiken points out that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the U.K. happen to be majority white “for now”. Great emphasis. Knowing that it will change pretty soon. The people in the video make it clear they don’t care about demographic change.

7. ExtraNewsFeed Article On CANZUK

That leads into the benefit for the group in terms of geopolitics. Forming a close economic alliance with the EU would be easier for the bloc, and the two unions combined would have a population of 600 million people, around an eleventh of the world’s population. The combined economies of the two blocs would represent over a quarter of world GDP, at around $23 trillion.

Throw the US in as a partner, and this Western/Anglophone bloc is now worth half of the world’s economy and hosts an eighth of its people.

Some have mooted that the US or some African Anglophone countries might also join such a union, although this would certainly complicate trade matters and the idea of free movement. Perhaps a second “outer ring” union, with a pathway to full membership contingent on democratisation and economic development, could be created for other Anglophone countries.

That’s right. The article promoting CANZUK suggests creating a “secondary” level of nations, with a pathway to eventual full partnership.

8. CANZUK.org On Expanding The Zone

So, each of the CANZUK nations have focused on their local geographic regions with their trade deals, for reasons of proximity and ease of transport. But there would seem to be a huge opportunity here – for collaboration in free trade deals with each other’s home regions. For example, Australia and New Zealand already have free trade deals with China – Canada and the UK could hitch a ride onto these existing channels. And all four nations are interested in a trade deal with India – why not combine efforts?

These would have small effects to start with; but when combined over three regions – Asia-Pacific, North America and Europe, the effects would accumulate. Essentially, trade deals which would be too marginal to be worth pursuing on an individual national basis (for example, Australia-Norway) could be wrapped into a CANZUK framework. In this case, the UK would be the lead partner, opening their region to the other CANZUK partners.

Exactly how this would work remains to be seen. You could have a single CANZUK trade delegation, working together to land bigger deals, or a piecemeal approach, where the region lead partner(s) initiates the approach, bringing the others along for the ride as negotiations proceed.

While the talk of expansion appears to be in the context of trade, it would lead to economic harm, given how places like India and China can simply underbid local companies and put them out of work. And who’s to say it “won’t” lead to free movement at some point?

9. UK CANZUK On Expanding The Zone

I’m an advocate of creating a new geopolitical partnership between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK (CANZUK). This would begin with a free trade agreement, an agreement for free movement to live and work, and a defence and security partnership. If that were seen to function well, we might move on to establish an ever closer union principle, and create some formal mechanisms for caucusing our views in global debates and enhancing mutual recognition of regulation and coordinating in other relevant ways. The aim would not be to create a new integrated superstate (certainly not at first, and probably not for many decades or centuries, if at all) but, rather, a geopolitical partnership, akin to the European Economic Community or Warsaw Pact partnerships of the 1970s.

However, a more natural way to proceed would surely be to get CANZUK established and if those initial countries worked well together for a few decades, we could then consider adding the Bahamas, Barbados, Antigua and St Kitts, perhaps after some providing some assistance to raise their GDPs per capita a little closer to ours.

Overall, then, it would be best to begin with the narrower set of countries that are most compatible. That will be challenge enough to start with. That does not mean that in some decades time we should not consider adding countries with similar constitutions, such as The Bahamas or Barbados, if they can raise their GDP per capita and reduce their murder rates. But decisions on that question are, at this stage, many decades away.

Yet another piece reiterating that the current list (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom), are not the end result. Many more countries could be added at some point.

10. CANZUK Report Addresses Expansion


From a socio-economic standpoint, it is clear that integrating other Commonwealth nations within a facilitated migration initiative at this time would not work. At present, additional countries (such as South Africa, India, Jamaica and Pakistan, to name a few) do not meet the economic criteria that is essential for facilitated migration to succeed, as the benefits of reciprocal migration can only be guaranteed by Commonwealth countries that are very similar in terms of socio-economic characteristics.

There is no reason why additional countries within the Commonwealth would not be able to eventually join a facilitated migration initiative, but for the foreseeable future, the CANZUK countries are so similar in terms of social, economic, cultural and historical factors, it would be folly not to promote reciprocal migration, free trade and foreign policy among these countries and observe the benefits that such arrangements would bring

Read between the lines (page 9 of the report). Expanding CANZUK beyond the original 4 members doesn’t seem feasible, but doesn’t mean that it can’t or won’t happen at some point.

11. CANZUK Bait-And-Switch

It is sold to the public as a free trade and free movement (visa free) pact between 4 very similar countries. While this may not sound too bad in principle, fact is that expanding it to other countries is also being talked about. What people are being sold on is not the entire story.

Of course, there are other references available to CANZUK expansion, but hopefully the point has already been made here.