Category: Property Rights

Posted on

TSCE #13(C): Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund (LEAF), Fighting For The Extermination Of Women

LEAF comes across as such a well intentioned and benevolent group. However, dig a little deeper, and the problems start to show through.

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, and why are so they so fiercely against free speech? Will the organs be trafficked afterwards?

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpSrch.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/status-women/news/2019/07/government-of-canada-invests-in-projects-to-improve-gender-equality-in-the-justice-system.html
(3) https://www.leaf.ca/legal/reproductive-justice/
(4) https://www.leaf.ca/leaf-calls-on-government-of-canada-to-fund-abortion-services-abroad/
(5) https://www.parl.ca/Content/Bills/421/Private/C-225/C-225_1/C-225_1.PDF
(6) https://www.leaf.ca/leaf-urges-toronto-public-library-to-reconsider-event-featuring-meghan-murphy/
(6) https://www.leaf.ca/leaf-and-the-asper-centre-welcome-the-ontario-court-of-appeals-decision-in-r-v-sharma/
(7) https://ca.news.yahoo.com/ontario-sex-ed-curriculum-consent-003452043.html
(8) https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/gazette/illegal-organ-trade
(9) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-1/bill/S-204/first-reading

unodc.organ.and.human.trafficking
Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review

3. Two Federal Non-Profit Corporations

[1] WOMEN’S LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FUND FOUNDATION
Corporation Number: 255753-3
Business Number (BN): 880802897RC0001

[2] WOMEN’S LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FUND INC.
Corporation Number: 189741-1
Business Number (BN): 108219916RC0001

A point of clarification: there are actually 2 separate Federal corporations registered with the Government. They have different (though similar) names, and different corporate and business numbers. They also have different addresses in Toronto.

It’s worth pointing out that LEAF has branches across Canada and the United States. They operate with the same basic philosophy.

4. Mental Gymnastics In LEAF Agenda

The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) works to advance the substantive equality rights of women and girls through litigation, law reform, and public education. Since 1985, we have intervened in landmark cases that have advanced equality in Canada—helping to prevent violence, eliminate discrimination in the workplace, provide better maternity benefits, ensure a right to pay equity, and allow access to reproductive freedoms. For more information, please visit www.leaf.ca.

LEAF claims to be committed to a variety of good causes. However, their logic seems messed up. While they want better childcare benefits, it’s okay to kill the child up to the point of birth. And even when the mother DOES kill the child after birth, the penalties should be reduced.

And by what stretch of logic is murdering children compatible with preventing violence?

5. Canadian Taxpayers Are Financing This

Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) is receiving $880,000 to develop a modern, intersectional, and feminist strategic litigation plan that will enable feminists and gender equality advocates to address systemic barriers to gender equality and eliminate gender discrimination.

Canadian taxpayers will be footing the bill for some $880,000, for this 2019 grant. This is to develop a litigation plan to for what they refer to as fighting for gender equality. It’s unclear from the announcement how much (if any) will end up being diverted into actual court challenges.

6. LEAF’s Take On “Reproductive Justice”

1987 Baby R.
LEAF argued that children not yet born shouldn’t be allowed to be taken by government officials. Custody should be for people already alive.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1988-baby-r

1989 Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General)
LEAF argued that the right to life should apply to the mother (and not to the child). The criminal code and charter shouldn’t apply to the unborn baby.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1989-borowski

1989 Daigle v. Tremblay
LEAF argued that biological fathers should have no say over whether the child lives or dies, and that otherwise, it is an attempt to control the mother using the child as a proxy.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1989-daigle

1991 R. v. Sullivan
LEAF argued that 2 midwives convicted of criminal negligence causing death (for the death of the baby) should have that charge thrown out, since the baby isn’t actually a person.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1991-sullivan

1996 R v. Lewis
LEAF argued in favour maintaining “bubble zones”. These effectively were areas where abortion protesting would be banned. Free speech is fine, just not in certain areas.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1996-lewis

1997 Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.)
LEAF argued against the the state’s ability to detain a pregnant women, who was harming her own child. In this case, the mother was sniffing glue.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1997-winnipeg-child-family

2003 R. v. Demers
LEAF argued again against the rights of people who were protesting abortion, although the arguments differed somewhat.
leaf.intervenor.factum.2003-demers

2006 Watson v. R; Spratt v. R
LEAF once again arguing that “bubble zones” need to be maintained, and that freedom of speech needs to be curtailed in order to ensure smooth access to abortion.
leaf.intervenor.factum.2008-R-V-WATSON-SPRATT-Factum

2016 R v. MB
LEAF argued that a woman who killed her newborn child should not face the wrath of the criminal justice system, and should be cut a break
leaf.intervenor.factum.2016.r.v.mb.infanticide

LEAF is Pro-Life?
Yeah, not really seeing that here.

LEAF is Anti-Life

  • 1987 Baby R
  • 1989 Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General)
  • 1989 Daigle v. Tremblay
  • 1991 R. v. Sullivan
  • 1996 R v. Lewis
  • 1997 Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.)
  • 2003 R. v. Demers
  • 2006 Watson v. R; Spratt v. R
  • 2016 R v. MB

Keep in mind, these are not cases that impact LEAF directly. Instead, they go searching for cases to act as an intervenor (or interested party). In short, they insert themselves into OTHER cases in order to get the outcomes they want.

An astute person will realize that LEAF is fundamentally anti-free speech. Among the challenges they brag about is getting free speech restricted in order to facilitate abortion access.

This list is hardly exhaustive, but should give a pretty good idea of the things they stand against: rights for unborn children.

7. LEAF Wants Foreign Abortions Funded Too

As organizations who are deeply committed to the rights of women and girls, we are very concerned by recent statements regarding the Government of Canada’s refusal to fund safe abortion services abroad, including in cases of rape and for young women and girls in forced marriages. This approach represents a serious setback on women’s human rights and the health and wellbeing of survivors of sexual violence and girls in early and forced marriages.

We call on the Canadian government to:
1. Include access to safe abortion services as part of the package of sexual and reproductive health services funded by Canadian international cooperation initiatives;
2. Support effective strategies to ensure that survivors of sexual violence and young women and girls in early and forced marriage have access to a comprehensive package of sexual and reproductive health services, including safe abortion; and
3. Produce clear policy for Canada’s international initiatives that adopts a human rights-based approach to sexual and reproductive health.

What about the babies being killed? Don’t their human rights matter? Oh, that’s right, these groups don’t consider babies to be people.

Sincerely,
The undersigned organizations:
.
-Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) / Coalition pour le droit à l’avortement au Canada (CDAC)
-Action Canada for Population and Development / Action Canada pour la population et le développement
-Amnesty International Canada (English)
-Amnistie International Canada (Francophone)
-Canadian Council of Muslim Women
-Canadian Federation for Sexual Health
-Canadian Federation of University Women
-Canadian Women’s Foundation
-Choice in Health Clinic
-Clinique des femmes de l’Outaouais
-Fédération du Québec pour le planning des naissances (FQPN)
-Kensington Clinic
-Institute for International Women’s Rights – Manitoba
-Inter Pares
-MATCH International Women’s Fund
-Oxfam Canada
-Oxfam Quebec
–Planned Parenthood Ottawa
-West Coast LEAF
-Women’s Health Clinic, Winnipeg
-Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund / Fonds d’action et d’education juridiques pour les femmes
-YWCA Canada

(also addressed to)

-CC The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C.
Prime Minister of Canada
.
-CC Hélène Laverdière, NPD, MP
NDP International Development Critic
.
-CC Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, MP
Liberal International Development and Status of Women Critic
.
-CC Paul Dewar, NDP, MP
NDP Foreign Affairs Critic
.
-CC Marc Garneau, Liberal, MP
Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic
.
-CC Niki Ashton, NDP, MP
NDP Status of Women Critic

Not content with killing Canadian children, this coalition demands that the Canadian Government finance foreign abortions as well. That is correct. Use taxpayer money to pay to kill children in other countries.

It’s not at all a surprise to see a Planned Parenthood Ottawa has joined this group in making the call. After all, Planned Parenthood is involved in trafficking organs.

It never seems to dawn on these people that in many parts of the world, girls and women are viewed as far less than boys and men. This leads often to SEX SELECTIVE abortions. Is it really a feminist idea to deliberately target female babies?

8. No protection For Unborn Victims Of Crime

Considering the 1989 Boroski intervention (see list of cases above), it’s no surprise that LEAF, and other feminist groups oppose Bill C-225. This would have made it an additional crime to injury or kill a fetus while in the commission of another offense.

9. LEAF Forcing Abortion/Euth On Doctors

There was a 2019 decision from the Ontario Court of Appeals. It mandated that doctors either had to perform abortions and/or euthanasia, or provide a referral to someone who would. LEAF was one of the groups pushing it. They had no standing, other than to push their own pro-death views on others.

10. LEAF Wants Gender Ideology Critic Banned

The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) is troubled by the decision of the Toronto Public Library (the “TPL”) to rent one of its branch spaces to a group hosting an event with Meghan Murphy, who has a track record for denying the existence and rights of trans women. We are particularly concerned with Murphy’s history of publicly opposing efforts to codify the rights of trans people, specifically trans women, including her vocal opposition to federal human rights legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression.

LEAF was founded in 1985 with a mandate to advance substantive equality for women and girls in Canada. LEAF has long been committed to a vision of feminism that is inclusive of all, regardless of sex, gender identity or gender expression. LEAF’s advocacy is and remains focused on challenging sex and gender discrimination that results in inequality for self-identified women and girls. The long-term success of this mission demands that LEAF work towards challenging and dismantling patriarchy, in all its forms.

LEAF believes freedom of speech plays an important role in strengthening and upholding substantive equality. Holding space for respectful dialogue among diverse viewpoints is essential to this work. However, LEAF has long maintained that freedom of speech is not absolute. Like all rights enjoyed by Canadians, freedom of speech must be balanced with other fundamental rights and freedoms, especially equality. Speech that perpetuates harmful stereotypes only serves to further marginalize and exclude an already vulnerable population and does not merit protection.

In a case of “eating your own“, LEAF tried to get Meghan Murphy dis-invited from a Toronto talk on trans-activism. And Murphy is about as hardcore feminist as they come. According to her biography:

  • Bachelor’s degree in women’s studies
  • Master’s degree in women’s studies
  • Wrote for feminist publications
  • Believes in the wage-gap nonsense
  • Believes women are oppressed
  • Pro-abortion
  • Pro-gay agenda

Still, that wasn’t enough to prevent feminist and “women’s rights” groups life LEAF from turning against her.

For a group that “claims” to support women, one has to ask why LEAF is trying to take away the rights of a woman (Murphy), specifically her free speech.

Murphy does address legitimate issues that trans-activists are involved with, (such as sports, pronounc, etc…), and how they are conflicting head on with the rights of women. It seems that the committment to women’s rights can be tossed aside in favour of this extremely small group.

11. LEAF: Reduce Sentence For Drug Mule

Somehow, LEAF believes that arguing against a mandatory minimum sentence for a person convicted of smuggling 2kg of cocaine (worth some $200,000), is a woman’s rights issue. What about the women who are harmed as a result of the drug trade? Don’t they matter?

While not directly related to the abortion/organs issue, it’s still bizarre to see how this group feels entitled to meddle in other people’s cases.

12. LEAF Supports ON Sex-Ed Agenda

This week’s move is getting a thumbs-up from a national women’s legal organization that teaches older students about consent.

“It’s extremely important for everyone to understand what their rights and responsibilities are under the law,” said Kim Stanton, legal director of the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, which runs workshops for high school and university students. “Students need to know what’s OK and what’s not.

LEAF supports Ontario’s largely inappropriate sex-ed ciricculum.

13. Honourable Mention: Tanya Granic Allen

Candid honesty is extremely rare in political circles. However, this critique of LEAF and Leslyn Lewis, is a true gem. Also see the video. Well worth the 10 minutes or so.

Now, what is the result of anti-life laws becoming normal?

14. RCMP & Illegal Organ Trade

There are far more people in the world in need of a new organ than there are organs available. Like in any market where a dollar can be made because demand far outweighs supply, people can turn to the black market to find what they need. When a person’s life is on the line, the will to survive may override morals. The following facts depict the seedy underbelly of organ trafficking.

  • The United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking (UN GIFT) says the organ trade occurs in three broad categories: traffickers who force or deceive victims to give up an organ, those who sell their organs out of financial desperation, often only receiving a fraction of the profit or are cheated out of the money altogether and victims who are duped into believing they need an operation and the organ is removed without the victim’s knowledge.
  • Organ trafficking is considered an organized crime with a host of offenders, including the recruiters who identify the vulnerable person, the transporter, the staff of the hospital or clinic and other medical centres, the medical professionals themselves who perform the surgery, the middleman and contractors, the buyers and the banks that store the organs.
  • And according to the UN GIFT, it’s a fact that the entire ring is rarely exposed.
  • A World Health Assembly resolution adopted in 2004 urges Member States to “take measures to protect the poorest and vulnerable groups from ‘transplant tourism’ and the sale of tissues’ and organs.
  • “Transplant tourism” is the most common way to trade organs across national borders. These recipients travel abroad to undergo organ transplants (WHO Bulletin). There are websites that offer all-inclusive transplant packages, like a kidney transplant that ranges from US$70,000 to US$160,000.
  • There’s no law in Canada banning Canadians from taking part in transplant tourism — travelling abroad and purchasing organs for transplantation and returning home to Canada.
  • According to the World Health Organization (WHO), one out of 10 organ transplants involves a trafficked human organ, which amounts to about 10,000 a year.
  • While kidneys are the most commonly traded organ, hearts, livers, lungs, pancreases, corneas and human tissue are also illegally traded.
  • In a recent report, Global Financial Integrity says that illegal organ trade is on the rise, and it estimates that it generates profits between $600 million and $1.2 billion per year with a span over many countries.
  • In Iran, the only country where organ trade is legal, organ sales are closely monitored and the practice has eliminated the wait list for kidney transplants and has provided an increase in post-mortem organ donations, which aren’t remunerated in Iran.
  • A Harvard College study says donors come from impoverished nations, like countries in South America, Asia and Africa, while recipients are from countries like Canada, the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Israel and Japan.
  • According to research out of Michigan State University that looked at the black market for human organs in Bangladesh, the average quoted rate for a kidney was US$1,400 but has dropped because of the abundant supply.
  • In Bangladesh, the trade is propelled by poverty, where 78 per cent of residents live on less than $2 a day. They give their organs to pay off loans and take care of their families. If they received the money at all, it disappears quickly and they are often left sick and unable to work after the operations.
  • The Voluntary Health Association of India estimates about 2,000 Indians sell a kidney every year.
  • Given that the organ trade is often a transnational crime, international law enforcers must co-operate across borders to address the crimes.

This comes from a 2014 post on the RCMP’s website. Despite being several years old, it has a lot of useful information.

Now, it’s true that there are only so many people dying with usable organs. It’s also true that abducting and/or murdering people for their organs is risky, and can only be done so often. However, that isn’t really the case with aborted babies, as they typically have healthy organs. Sure, they are smaller, but still usable at some point.

Ever wonder why the recent push to have later and later abortions? It’s because the organs of a 35 week fetus are much more developed than those of a 20 week fetus.

15. UNODC On Organ, Human Trafficking

III. Guidance for response
.
A. Definitions
6. Article 3 (a) defines trafficking in persons:
“Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.”

unodc.organ.and.human.trafficking

It’s illegal to kidnap, force, or otherwise coerce people into giving up organs. However, aborted babies (even very late term) are just considered property with no legal rights of their own. At least, this is the case in Canada.

This UNODC paper is from 2011. However, its information is still very relevant today.

Whether this is intentional or not, it is one of the consequences of the actions of groups like LEAF. Removing any sort of legal protection from the unborn creates legal carte blanche to harvest and sell their organs at will.

16. UNODC: Illegal Entry Facilitates T&S

Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review

This was addressed in Part 9, the connection between illegal immigration, and the trafficking and smuggling of migrants. However, in the context of organ harvesting, it does put the issue in a whole new light.

17. Bill S-204, Criminal Code Change

Senate Bill S-204 would make it criminal offence to go abroad for the purposes of obtaining organs where consent was not given. While promising, however, it hasn’t gone anywhere since being introduced. Now, would these penalties apply to the trafficked organs of aborted fetuses, or only to trafficked organs of people living for some period of time?

18. Abortion Fuels Organ Trafficking

Now, to tie all of this together: the abortion industry helps fuel the organ trafficking industry.

It’s a straightforward idea: in order to traffic organs in a large scale, there has to be a large, constant supply available.

The abortion industry (and their advocates) ensure this by waging lawfare. They fight in court to keep stripping away any protections unborn children may have. They also change the law to allow for later and later abortions, and thus, more developed organs. Advocates will gaslight others who make attempts to limit this, or enshrine rights for the children. Child rights must be removed in favour of women’s rights.

Is LEAF involved with trafficking organs? They don’t appear to be, but their frequent court efforts ensure that this will continue. Whether intentional of not, groups like LEAF are part of the problem.

And to be clear, LEAF openly supports restricting free speech, under the guise of protecting abortion and gender rights. Of course, open discourse on these subjects would immediately weaken their arguments.

19. Defending Non-Disclosure Of HIV

Note: this was added after the article was originally published. LEAF argued in a Parliamentary hearing that failure to disclose HIV status should be removed from sexual assault laws, and in some cases, decriminalized altogether. Way to protect women.

Hear the audio clip starting at 8:59:30.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/WitnessMeetings?witnessId=248439

20. LEAF Is Anti-Free Speech

Free Speech Submission womens LEAF

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10543157

In 2019, LEAF actually made submissions in the “online hate” study, and took the position AGAINST free speech. Again, this was added after the original article was released.

Posted on

Bank For International Settlements Immunity Act, And More

Bank for International Settlements (Immunity) Act
S.C. 2007, c. 35, s. 140
.
Assented to 2007-12-14
.
An Act to provide immunity to the Bank for International Settlements from government measures and from civil judicial process
.
[Enacted by section 140 of chapter 35 of the Statutes of Canada, 2007, in force on assent December 14, 2007.]
.
Marginal note: Short title
.
1 This Act may be cited as the Bank for International Settlements (Immunity) Act.
.
Marginal note: Immunity — government measures
.
2 The Bank for International Settlements, its property and any property entrusted to it are exempt from the measures referred to in Article 1 of the Protocol regarding the immunities of the Bank for International Settlements that was ratified by Canada on January 20, 1938.
.
Marginal note: Immunity — judicial process
.
3 (1) The Bank is immune from the juris-diction of any court in respect of a civil proceeding.
.
Marginal note: Immunity — property
.
(2) The Bank’s property and any property entrusted to it are immune, in respect of any civil proceeding, from attachment and execution.
.
Marginal note: Binding on Her Majesty
.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) are binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada.
.
Marginal note: Non-application of sections 2 and 3
.
4 For reasons of national security or for the purposes of the conduct of Canada’s international affairs or the implementation of Canada’s international obligations, the Governor in Council may determine that, to the extent specified by the Governor in Council,
.
(a) the Bank, its property and any property entrusted to it are not exempt under section 2;
.
(b) the Bank is not immune under subsection 3(1); and
.
(c) the Bank’s property and any property entrusted to it are not immune under subsection 3(2)

In short, the Bank for International Settlements is immune from any jurisdiction in Canada.

It’s true that there is a provision that allows the Governor in Council to waive some or all of that immunity. However, when politicians see no issue with turning control of Canadian finances over to foreign, private interests, one has to wonder what it would take to be in Canada’s national interests.

1. Budget & Econ Statement Impl Act, (2007)

For reference, the Bank of International Settlements Immunity Act was just one part, Part 6, of the Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007 (S.C. 2007, c. 35).

2. Protocols For Immunity For BIS

protocols.for.immunity.bank.intl.settlements.1930
protocols.for.immunity.bank.intl.settlements.1936

Throughout the 1930s, various nations signed on to ensure the Bank for International Settlements had legal immunity from legal restrictions or orders in member states. This was almost a century ago.

3. BIS Legal Protections In Switzerland

bis.switzerland.legal.status.of.bank

Article 1
Legal personality
The Swiss Federal Council acknowledges the international legal personality and the legal capacity within Switzerland of the Bank for International Settlements (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”).

Article 2
Freedom of action of the Bank
.
1. The Swiss Federal Council shall guarantee to the Bank the autonomy and freedom of action to which it is entitled as an international organisation.
.
2. In particular, it shall grant to the Bank, as well as to its member institutions in their relations with the Bank, absolute freedom to hold meetings, including freedom of discussion and decision.

Article 3
Inviolability
.
1. The buildings or parts of buildings and surrounding land which, whoever may be the owner thereof, are used for the purposes of the Bank shall be inviolable. No agent of the Swiss public authorities may enter therein without the express consent Headquarters Agreement with Switzerland 37 of the Bank. Only the President, the General Manager of the Bank, or their duly authorised representative shall be competent to waive such inviolability.
.
2. The archives of the Bank and, in general, all documents and any data media belonging to the Bank or in its possession, shall be inviolable at all times and in all places.
.
3. The Bank shall exercise supervision of and police power over its premises.

Article 4
Immunity from jurisdiction and execution
1. The Bank shall enjoy immunity from jurisdiction, save:
.
(a) to the extent that such immunity is formally waived in individual cases by the President, the General Manager of the Bank, or their duly authorised representatives;
.
(b) in civil or commercial suits, arising from banking or financial transactions, initiated by contractual counterparties of the Bank, except in those cases in which provision for arbitration has been or shall have been made;
.
(c) in the case of any civil action against the Bank for damage caused by any vehicle belonging to or operated on behalf of the Bank.
.
2. Disputes arising in matters of employment relations between the Bank and its Officials or former Officials, or persons claiming through them, shall be settled by the Administrative Tribunal of the Bank. The Board of Directors of the Bank shall determine the constitution of the Administrative Tribunal, which shall have exclusive and final jurisdiction. Matters of employment relations shall be deemed to include in particular all questions relating to the interpretation or application of contracts between the Bank and its Officials concerning their employment, of the regulations to which the said contracts refer, including the provisions governing the Bank’s pension scheme and other welfare arrangements provided by the Bank.
.
3. The Bank shall enjoy, in respect of its property and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, immunity from any measure of execution (including seizure, attachment, freeze or any other measure of execution, enforcement or sequestration, and in particular of attachment within the meaning of Swiss law), except:
.
(a) in cases where execution is claimed on the basis of a final
judgment rendered by a court which has jurisdiction over
the Bank in accordance with paragraph 1(a), (b) or (c)above;
.
(b) in cases of execution of an award made by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to Article 27 of this Agreement.
.
4. All deposits entrusted to the Bank, all claims against the Bank and the shares issued by the Bank shall, without the express prior agreement of the Bank, wherever located and by whomsoever held, be immune from any measure of execution (including seizure, attachment, freeze or any other measure of execution, enforcement or sequestration, and in particular of attachment within the meaning of Swiss law).

The Swiss Government recognizes the Bank for International Settlements as an international organization, and gives it full immunities and powers over its land.

To be clear, the BIS already had very high levels and immunity long before Canada’s BIS Immunity Act in 2007. That just further cemented that immunity from Canadians or Canadian Officials.

It’s also worth pointing out that the property rights enshrined to this “international organization” far exceed the rights awarded to individuals in most nations.

4. BIS: Never Waste A Crisis

never.waste.a.crisis.banking.cv.climate.change
https://www.bis.org/review/r200717f.pdf

The pandemic is therefore a stark reminder that preventing climate change from inflicting permanent harm on the global economy requires a fundamental structural change to our economy, inducing systematic changes in the way energy is generated and consumed.

With brutal clarity, the current crisis has exposed two major risks to the global economy: first, the farreaching damages imposed on our society by a lack of prevention and early action, fostered by disbelief in science, in the face of a global shock that threatens not only the economy but our lives.

And, second, the repercussions of a failure to act collectively in a globalised world where inaction in one part of the globe can lead to highly disruptive and long-lasting spillover effects in other parts, hitting the poorest and most vulnerable in our societies most severely.

In this sense, the pandemic has been a warning shot with regard to the much greater challenge arising from climate change. In his famous speech, Mark Carney, then Governor of the Bank of England, has argued that “the catastrophic impacts of climate change will be felt beyond the traditional horizons of most actors – imposing a cost on future generations that the current generation has no direct incentive to fix”.[3] Moreover, studies have uncovered a significant lag in discerning the benefits of mitigation measures,[4] which makes it much harder to impose costs on society today if measurable results are available much later.

By making the costs of a major, truly global crisis more tangible, the pandemic may help to remove the “tragedy” from Mark Carney’s horizon: after COVID-19, the dramatic consequences of a global climate crisis may be much easier to imagine. And given the need for fundamental structural change after this crisis, the willingness to use this chance to take precautions against the even bigger risk of a climate crisis may have increased.

In order to achieve the European Union’s target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, our response to the growing risks of climate change has to start with the way we rebuild our economies after the pandemic.

In my remarks this morning, I will argue that three complementary pillars are needed to accelerate the transition towards a low-carbon economy: an effective carbon price, a strong investment programme and a greener financial market.

I will also argue that central banks have a role to play in mitigating climate-related risks, even within their
traditional mandates, because global warming poses severe risks to price stability.

These comments come from the European Central Bank, on July 17, 2020. They argue for using this so-called crisis for other purposes.

What a coincidence, that this “pandemic” gives these people the opportunity to impose a larger social agenda that they would never otherwise have been able to get away with.

5. BIS, UN, Carney Pushing “Climate Finance”

This was addressed in Part 7. Mark Carney was head of both the Bank of Canada, and the Bank of England. Now he’s in charge of “climate finance” at the UN, and openly threatens to make companies go bankrupt if they don’t play along with the climate change scam.

6. BIS Arguing For Bigger Change

It should be alarming to people that an organization that is not accountable to the public, (in any country), is using its powers to argue for larger societal changes. However, our politicians are puppets who simply do as they are told.

(1) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-1.5/page-1.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2007-c-35-s-140/latest/sc-2007-c-35-s-140.html
(3) https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-9.6/page-2.html
(4) https://www.bis.org/about/protocol-en.pdf
(5) https://www.bis.org/about/protocol-en.pdf
(6) https://www.bis.org/about/headquart-en.pdf

(A) climate.change.in.financial.sector
(B) climate.related.financial.disclosures
(C) eu.climate.goals.on.track
(D) green.light.for.economic.recovery
(E) pursuing.a.green.economy

Posted on

TSCE #5(B): Child Exploitation, And Other Private Members’ Bills

Private Member’s Bill C-219, introduced by John Nater, would have raised the criminal penalties for child sexual exploitation, and sexual exploitation of a child with a disability. This is one of several interesting bills pending before Parliament.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

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

2. Mandatory Minimums For Child Exploitation

Criminal Code
1 Paragraph 153(1.‍1)‍(b) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.
.
2 Paragraphs 153.‍1(1)‍(a) and (b) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.
.
3 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 286.‍1:
Aggravating circumstance — person with a disability
286.‍11 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence referred to in subsection 286.‍1(1) or (2), it shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the victim of the offence is a person with a mental or physical disability.

This bill, if passed, would have amended the criminal code, and made sexual exploitation an offence with a mandatory 1 year minimum jail sentence, even if it was tried summarily. Furthermore, it would have added a 1 year minimum to exploitation (summarily or by indictment), if the victim had a disability.

While 1 year is still very lenient, it would at least be a step in the right direction. Bills from Private Members often go nowhere, but this should be an issue everyone can agree on.

Interestingly, this bill was brought up in the last Parliament — Bill C-424 — but never got past first reading. Again, it should be something that everyone can agree is beneficial to society.

3. Property Rights From Expropriation

Expropriation Act
1 Section 10 of the Expropriation Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (11):
Exception
(11.‍1) Subsection (11) does not apply if the interest or right to which the notice of intention relates is intended to be expropriated by the Crown for the purpose of restoring historical natural habitats or addressing, directly or indirectly, climate variability, regardless of whether or not that purpose is referred to in the notice or described in the notice as the primary purpose of the intended expropriation.
.
2 Section 19 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
Exception
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the interest or right to which the notice of confirmation relates is intended to be expropriated by the Crown for the purpose of restoring historical natural habitats or addressing, directly or indirectly, climate variability, regardless of whether or not that purpose is referred to in the notice of intention or described in the notice of intention as the primary purpose of the intended expropriation.

Bill C-222 was introduced by Cheryl Gallant, and would prevent the Canadian Government from forcibly taking your land in order to turn it into a heritage site, or in some convoluted effort to fight climate change. It would amend the Expropriation Act to prevent exactly that.

Gallant was also the only MP to vote against the Liberal Motion to formally adopt the Paris Accord. She voted no, while “conservative” either voted for it, or abstained.

4. Quebec Multiculturalism Exemption

Bloc Quebecois MP Luc Theriault introduced Bill C-226, to exempt Quebec from the Multiculturalism Act. Now there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect your own heritage and culture. However, Quebec is rather hypocritical in simultaneously pushing theirs on other people.

5. Addressing Environmental Racism

Bill C-230 is to address environmental racism.
I have no words for this Bill by Lenore Zann.

6. Social Justice In Pension Plan

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act
1 Section 35 of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act is renumbered as subsection 35(1) and is amended by adding the following:
Considerations
(2) The investment policies, standards and procedures, taking into account environmental, social and governance factors, shall provide that no investment may be made or held in an entity if there are reasons to believe that the entity has performed acts or carried out work contrary to ethical business practices, including
(a) the commission of human, labour or environmental rights violations;
(b) the production of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war prohibited under international law; and
(c) the ordering, controlling or otherwise directing of acts of corruption under any of sections 119 to 121 of the Criminal Code or sections 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

Bill C-231, from Alistair MacGregor, would have cut off CPPIB (the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board), from investing in areas where any of the above are breached. This is a good idea in principle, even if the details are sparse.

7. Ban On Sex-Selective Abortion

cpc.policy.declaration

Bill C-233, from Cathay Wagantall, would make it illegal to abort children because of sex. In short, this means targeting female babies. However, it isn’t clear how this would work. Article 70 in the policy declaration says there will be no attempt to pass any abortion legislation, and Article 73 says that foreign aid shouldn’t be given to provide for abortion.

So killing children is okay, as long as it’s done in Canada, and the gender of the baby is not a factor. Makes sense to me.

8. Lowered Voting Age, Conversion Therapy

There are currently two bills: C-240, and S-219, which would lower the voting age to 16. Aside from being a bad idea, this seems a little redundant. There is also S-202, to ban conversion therapy. So, we want 16 year olds to be able to vote, and decide what gender they want to be.

9. National School Food Program

If you want the school to become more of a parent, there is Bill C-201 by Don Davies to do exactly that. It was previously Bill C-446. Now, let’s look at some non-Canadian content.

10. California Lowering Penalties For Anal

https://twitter.com/Scott_Wiener/status/1291406895878553600

San Francisco – Today, Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced Senate Bill 145 to end blatant discrimination against LGBT young people regarding California’s sex offender registry. Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age, “sexual intercourse” (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not require the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge decides based on the facts of the case whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.

This distinction in the law — which is irrational, at best — disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration, since LGBT people usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse. For example, if an 18 year old straight man has vaginal intercourse with his 17 year old girlfriend, he is guilty of a crime, but he is not automatically required to register as a sex offender; instead, the judge will decide based on the facts of the case whether registration is warranted. By contrast, if an 18 year old gay man has sex with his 17 year old boyfriend, the judge *must* place him on the sex offender registry, no matter what the circumstances.

Until recently, that sex offender registration was for life, even though the sex was consensual. Under 2017 legislation authored by Senator Wiener, registration. Is for a minimum of 10 years, still a harsh repercussion for consensual sex.

SB 145 does not change whether or not particular behavior is a crime and does not change the potential sentence for having sex with an underage person. Rather, the bill simply gives judges the ability to evaluate whether or not to require registration as a sex offender. To be clear, this judicial discretion for sex offender registration is *already* the law for vaginal intercourse between a 15-17 year old and someone up to 10 years older. SB 145 simply extends that discretion to other forms of intercourse. A judge will still be able to place someone on the registry if the behavior at issue was predatory or otherwise egregious. This change will treat straight and LGBT young people equally, end the discrimination against LGBT people, and ensure that California stops stigmatizing LGBT sexual relationships.

California State Senator Scott Wiener, in 2019 introduced Senate Bill SB 145, to stop men who have sex with 15, 16, and 17 year old boys from automatically becoming registered sex offenders. Here is the text of the bill.

The Bill has predictably received plenty of backlash. Criticism of it, however, has been dismissed as homophobia and anti-Semitism. Of course, a better alternative might be to RAISE the age of consent to 18 all around. That would do more to protect children.

If this seems familiar, it should. In 2016, Trudeau introduced Bill C-32, to lower the age of consent for anal sex. Eventually, it was slipped into Bill C-75, which not only reduced the penalties for many child sex crimes, but for terrorism offences as well.

11. New Zealand Loosens Abortion Laws

While New Zealand claimed to be in the middle of a pandemic, Parliament figured now is a good time to have easier access to abortion, even up to the moment of birth. Some really conflicting views on life. See Bill 310-1. Also, their “internet harm” bill seems like a threat to free speech.

Of course, that is not all that New Zealand has been up to lately. There is also taking people to quarantine camps, and denying them leave if they don’t consent to being tested. Yet, the PM thinks that critics are “conspiracy theorists”.

12. Know What Is Really Going On

Yes, this article was a bit scattered, but meant to bring awareness to some of the issues going on behind the scenes. The mainstream media (in most countries) will not cover important issues in any meaningful way. As such, people need to spend the time researching for themselves.

Bill introduced privately can actually be more interesting than what Governments typically put forward. Though they often don’t pass, they are still worth looking at.

Posted on

Canada’s Bill C-71: Backdoor Gun Registry

(Bill C-71, to restore the long gun registry)

One thing to point out right away: this bill is much more manageable to read than Bill C-69

CLICK HERE, for the full text of Bill C-71.

CLICK HERE, for the 1995 Firearms Act.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-19, Ending The Long Gun Registry Act
CLICK HERE, for the 2015 Economic Action Plan Act

Here are some noteworthy changes

5(2) of Firearms Act
ORIGINAL

(c) has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person.

REPLACEMENT
(2) Subsection 5(2) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (b) and by replacing paragraph (c) with the following:

(c) has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence or threatening conduct on the part of the person against any person;
(d) is or was previously prohibited by an order — made in the interests of the safety and security of any person — from communicating with an identified person or from being at a specified place or within a specified distance of that place, and presently poses a threat or risk to the safety and security of any person;
(e) in respect of an offence in the commission of which violence was used, threatened or attempted against the person’s intimate partner or former intim­ate partner, was previously prohibited by a prohibition order from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition; or
(f) for any other reason, poses a risk of harm to any person.

For greater certainty

(2.‍1) For greater certainty, for the purposes of paragraph (2)‍(c), threatened violence and threatening conduct include threats or conduct communicated by the person to a person by means of the Internet or other digital network

19(1.1) and (2) of Firearms Act
ORIGINAL

Target practice or competition

(1.1) In the case of an authorization to transport issued for a reason referred to in paragraph (1)(a) within the province where the holder of the authorization resides, the specified places must include all shooting clubs and shooting ranges that are approved under section 29 and that are located in that province.
Marginal note:

Exception for prohibited firearms other than prohibited handguns
(2) Despite subsection (1), an individual must not be authorized to transport a prohibited firearm, other than a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6.1), between specified places except for the purposes referred to in paragraph (1)(b)

REPLACEMENT

4 (1) Subsections 19(1.‍1) and (2) of the Act are replaced by the following:

Target practice or competition

(1.‍1) In the case of an authorization to transport issued for a reason referred to in paragraph (1)‍(a) within the province where the holder of the authorization resides, the specified places must — except in the case of an authorization that is issued for a prohibited firearm referred to in subsection 12(9) — include all shooting clubs and shooting ranges that are approved under section 29 and that are located in that province.

Exception for prohibited firearms other than prohibited handguns

(2) Despite subsection (1), an individual must not be authorized to transport a prohibited firearm — other than a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6.‍1) or a prohibited firearm referred to in subsection 12(9) — between specified places except for the purposes referred to in paragraph (1)‍(b).

Section 23 of Firearms Act
ORIGINAL

Authorization to transfer non-restricted firearms
23 A person may transfer a non-restricted firearm if, at the time of the transfer,
(a) the transferee holds a licence authorizing the transferee to acquire and possess that kind of firearm; and
(b) the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is not authorized to acquire and possess that kind of firearm.
1995, c. 39, s. 23; 2003, c. 8, s. 17; 2012, c. 6, s. 11; 2015, c. 27, s. 7.
Previous Version
Marginal note:

Voluntary request to Registrar
23.1 (1) A transferor referred to in section 23 may request that the Registrar inform the transferor as to whether the transferee, at the time of the transfer, holds and is still eligible to hold the licence referred to in paragraph 23(a), and if such a request is made, the Registrar or his or her delegate, or any other person that the federal Minister may designate, shall so inform the transferor.
Marginal note:

No record of request
(2) Despite sections 12 and 13 of the Library and Archives of Canada Act and subsections 6(1) and (3) of the Privacy Act, neither the Registrar or his or her delegate nor a designated person shall retain any record of a request made under subsection (1).

REPLACEMENT

5 Sections 23 and 23.‍1 of the Act are replaced by the following:

Authorization to transfer non-restricted firearms

23 (1) A person may transfer one or more non-restricted firearms if, at the time of the transfer,
(a) the transferee holds a licence authorizing the transferee to acquire and possess a non-restricted firearm;
(b) the Registrar has, at the transferor’s request, issued a reference number for the transfer and provided it to the transferor; and
(c) the reference number is still valid.

Information — transferee’s licence

(2) The transferee shall provide to the transferor the prescribed information that relates to the transferee’s licence, for the purpose of enabling the transferor to request that the Registrar issue a reference number for the transfer.

Reference number

(3) The Registrar shall issue a reference number if he or she is satisfied that the transferee holds and is still eligible to hold a licence authorizing them to acquire and possess a non-restricted firearm.

Period of validity

(4) A reference number is valid for the prescribed period.

Registrar not satisfied

(5) If the Registrar is not satisfied as set out in subsection (3), he or she may so inform the transferor.

Ending the Long Gun Registry Act of 2012
ORIGINAL

Non-application
(3) Sections 12 and 13 of the Library and Archives of Canada Act and subsections 6(1) and (3) of the Privacy Act do not apply with respect to the destruction of the records and copies referred to in subsections (1) and (2).

(4) If section 29 of the other Act comes into force before section 17 of this Act, then that section 17 is replaced by the following:
17. Paragraph 38(1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) holds a licence to possess that kind of firearm and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate and an authorization to transport the firearm; and

(5) If section 17 of this Act comes into force before section 29 of the other Act, then, on the day on which that section 29 comes into force, paragraph 38(1)(a) of the Firearms Act is replaced by the following:
(a) holds a licence to possess that kind of firearm and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate and an authorization to transport the firearm; and

(6) If section 29 of the other Act comes into force on the same day as section 17 of this Act, then that section 17 is deemed to have come into force before that section 29 and subsection (5) applies as a consequence.

(7) On the first day on which both section 30 of the other Act and section 17 of this Act are in force, paragraphs 40(1)(b) and (c) of the Firearms Act are replaced by the following:
(b) the individual produces a licence authorizing him or her to possess that kind of firearm;
(c) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the individual holds an authorization to transport it and satisfies the customs officer that the individual holds a registration certificate for the firearm; and

REPLACEMENT

Ending the Long-gun Registry Act

Amendments to the Act

2015, c. 36, s. 230

23 (1) Subsection 29(3) of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act is deemed never to have been amended by section 230 of the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1.

2015, c. 36, s. 230

(2) Subsections 29(4) to (7) of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act are deemed never to have come into force and are repealed.

2015, c. 36, s. 231

24 Section 30 of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act is deemed never to have come into force and is repealed.

Biggest takeaway here is that Bill C-71 is an effort to resurrect the Long Gun Registry

While there are some virtue signals about safety, the main objective is clearly undoing the 2011-2012 legislation.