CBC Propaganda #14: Let’s Replace The Canadian Population


Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


IMPORTANT LINKS

CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda Masterlist.

(CBC wants less Canadian children)
CLICK HERE, for “we’re only having 1 kids, and that’s okay”.
CLICK HERE, for beware of middle child syndrome.
CLICK HERE, for criticizing those with too many kids.
CLICK HERE, for why I only have 1 child.
CLICK HERE, for childless women changing culture.
CLICK HERE, for not teaching a daughter to be polite.
CLICK HERE, have less children to lower emissions.

(and in case you think CBC just wants less children in general)
CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism is critical to Canada.
CLICK HERE, for border walls are useless.
CLICK HERE, for nothing will stop migration.
CLICK HERE, for Europe should have open borders.
CLICK HERE, for Hungary’s Orban is a dictator for rejecting migration.
CLICK HERE, for bigot Orban wanting a Christian nation.
CLICK HERE, for Global Migration Compact is harmless.
CLICK HERE, for Canada having 100M people by year 2100.

(and to everyone’s favourite benevolent founder>
CLICK HERE, for Soros is misunderstood.
CLICK HERE, for Soros bullied out of Hungary.
CLICK HERE, for Canada joining UN, Soros, to sponsor refugees.

WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT

There are many, many more links on both subjects, but this should provide sufficient evidence for now. CBC, Canada’s government run “news” agency, consistently reports on both of these topics.

    CBC pushes both:

  1. Reducing Canadian birth rate; and
  2. Mass migration of foreigners

What are the consequences of these 2 initiatives? Well, when Canadians have less children, their birthrate falls, and the population declines. When you have mass migration, the declining population of Canadians is replaced by migrants and their descendants.

Think this is hyperbole? Consider these points:

  • Shame families with many children
  • Having 1 kid is okay
  • Childless is the new culture
  • Have fewer kids to save the planet

….. and on the other side:

  • Borders are immoral and pointless
  • Multiculturalism is part of Canada
  • Only bigots reject migration
  • Canada’s population needs to be much bigger
  • CONSIDER BOTH NARRATIVES

    First, starting with the fearmongering piece that climate change is destructive and can only be mitigated by altering human behaviour:

    What’s the single best decision you can make if you want to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) being released into the atmosphere?

    That’s the question UBC researcher Seth Wynes and his co-author Kimberly Nicholas set out to answer in a new paper published this week.

    Their answer? Have fewer children.

    The other three choices they identified were eating a plant-based diet, avoiding air travel and giving up personal vehicles. But by their reasoning, having one fewer child overwhelmingly outweighs all other choices, due to all of the GHGs that child would be responsible for emitting over the course of their life.

    “To put it simply, adding another person to the planet who uses more resources and produces more carbon dioxide is always going to make a large contribution to climate change,” Wynes said.

    And on the flip side of the “have fewer children” message, do you think that these people will recommend much, MUCH reduced immigration so as to reduce emissions? Nope, not a chance. From the “Century Initiative” promotion:

    If Canada sticks with current practices, our population will grow to between 51 to 53 million by the end of the century.

    A non-profit group called The Century Initiative advocates doubling that, to 100 million. That’s about triple our current population.

    “We recognize that it may be counterintuitive,” Shari Austin, CEO of the Century Initiative, told The Sunday Edition’s guest host Peter Armstrong.
    It’s the only way, she argued, that Canada can face the economic challenges ahead and strengthen its international influence.

    Currently, Canada accepts 310,000 immigrants per year. The Century Initiative suggests that number should be closer to 450,000.

    “It’s a big, audacious goal,” she conceded. But it has been done before. Since 1945 to the present day, Canada’s population has tripled.

    “A mix of people wanting to contribute to the economy and wanting to have children,” Austin explained.

    That doesn’t mean that refugees aren’t welcome.

    “We also have ethical obligations to make sure we do our fair share to help bring people to a better life,” she clarified.

    She also sees this as a way to create “a more diverse, more interesting, dynamic population.”

    “It’s an exciting opportunity to be proactive about what we want to look like in fifty years, in a hundred years. It’s also an opportunity to leave a better world for our kids and our grandkids.”

    It is interesting the contrast in the arguments.
    CBC uses ENVIRONMENTAL and HEALTH reasons to push for less Canadians to have less children. However,
    CBC uses ECONOMIC and MULTICULTURAL claims to push for more immigration (or migration)

    Nice bait-and-switch.

    To be fair, CBC does have many authors and contributors. However, the overall pattern is impossible to ignore. CBC regularly releases content pushing for Canadians to have less children. At the same time it sings the praises of open borders, mass migration and multiculturalism.

    GEORGE SOROS PUFF PIECES

    The financier is also famously active as a philanthropist. Through his Open Society Foundations, he has given billions to NGOs in more than 100 countries to “build vibrant and tolerant democracies,” according to its website.

    Why is Soros controversial?

    Emily Tamkin, a staff writer for Foreign Policy magazine, compares Soros’s public image to a mirror in the Harry Potter novels. When a character looked in that fictional mirror, they would see what they desired most.

    “He’s like that, but with the thing that you revile most,” she told The Current’s Anna Maria Tremonti.

    CBC also has done many flattering puff pieces on Soros. They claim he is misunderstood, and that it is bigots projecting their own prejudices onto him. No real objectivity here.

    IS THIS ILLEGAL?

    Under the letter of the law, probably not. But consider the following:

    Marginal note:
    Public incitement of hatred
    319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
    Marginal note:

    Wilful promotion of hatred
    (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    Does this promote hate and harm against Canadians? I would think so, but sadly no judge ever would. The CBC, which uses our tax dollars to advocate for our own replacement is just so wrong.

    STATS-CAN AWARE OF DECLINE

    Here is a recent report:

    Fertility rates among Canadian women continue to decrease

    The total fertility rate (TFR) for 2015 was 1,563 births per 1,000 women. In 2016, the TFR was 1,543 births per 1,000 women. The TFR in Canada has shown a general decline since 2008, when it was 1,681 births per 1,000 women. The TFR is an estimate of the average number of live births that 1,000 women would have in their lifetime, based on the age-specific fertility rates of a given year.
    Taking mortality between birth and 15 years of age into consideration, developed countries such as Canada need an average of around 2,060 children per 1,000 females to renew their population based on natural increase and without taking immigration into account. The last year in which Canada attained fertility levels sufficient to replace its current population was 1971.

    While the TFR is a good indicator of fertility in Canada as a whole, this national average can hide major provincial and territorial differences. From 2000 to 2016, Nunavut was the only province or territory to consistently have fertility levels above the replacement rate, with a TFR of 2,986 live births per 1,000 women in 2016. With the exception of the Prairie provinces and the Northwest Territories, every other province and territory had TFRs during this period that rarely exceeded 1,700 births per 1,000 women.

    In 2016, for the 16th consecutive year, Saskatchewan had the highest TFR among the provinces, at 1,934 births per 1,000 women. It was followed by Manitoba (1,847), the Northwest Territories (1,793) and Alberta (1,694). British Columbia was the province with the lowest fertility rate at 1,404 births per 1,000 women, followed by Nova Scotia (1,422) and Newfoundland and Labrador (1,425).

    Sustainable Development Goals
    On January 1, 2016, the world officially began implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development — the United Nations’ transformative plan of action that addresses urgent global challenges over the next 15 years. The plan is based on 17 specific sustainable development goals.

    The Births release is an example of how Statistics Canada supports the reporting on the Global Goals for Sustainable Development. This release will be used in helping to measure the following goal:

    Forgot to mention, population control is part of Agenda 2030.

    Few Canadian Kids + Mass Migration = Demographic Replacement

    Final thought: Consider this policy idea, previously published.

    UN Security Council: Legalized Aggression


    (Then President George W. Bush, arguing for an invasion of Iraq under blatantly false pretenses. The UN Security Council approved the use of force in 2002 by a 15-0 vote. War was launched on March 20, 2003).


    (A critique on the problem with veto power)


    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    CLICK HERE, for UN Security Council home page.
    CLICK HERE, for the page on sanctions.
    CLICK HERE, the UN Charter.
    CLICK HERE, for Article 41 of the UN Charter (Sanctions).
    CLICK HERE, for an index of voting records.
    CLICK HERE, for Wikipedia page on “Proxy Wars”.

    Peace and Security

    The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It has 15 Members, and each Member has one vote. Under the Charter of the United Nations, all Member States are obligated to comply with Council decisions.

    The Security Council takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of settlement. In some cases, the Security Council can resort to imposing sanctions or even authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.

    That is correct. 15 nations can decide what is “in the interest of global peace and security”. Hardly seems that other nations get much of a say in international matters. Would your own sovereignty be limited by what these 15 members of the “Global Community” have to say?

    Even more undemocratic is the make up of the Security Council. There are 15 members, 5 of which are permanent, and 10 others which are chosen on a rotational basis.

    The 5 permanent members are: 1/ the United States; 2/ Russia (formerly the Soviet Union); 3/ Britain; 4/ France; and 5/ China. These were the “winners” of World War II, when the UN was founded. Each of the 5 permanent members has “veto” power, meaning they can unilaterally block any resolution from passing.

    In order to pass a Security Council resolution, a majority of members have to approve it. Additionally, none of the “Permanent 5” can veto. They each have to abstain or support.

    What if the UN doesn’t opt for military force? There are less direct, but more passive-aggressive measures called “sanctions”. These are essentially punishments the Security Council imposes.

    (From Article 41)

    “The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.”

    From the page on sanctions:

    “Security Council sanctions have taken a number of different forms, in pursuit of a variety of goals. The measures have ranged from comprehensive economic and trade sanctions to more targeted measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, and financial or commodity restrictions. The Security Council has applied sanctions to support peaceful transitions, deter non-constitutional changes, constrain terrorism, protect human rights and promote non-proliferation.”

    The UN Security Council also lists who it has imposed sanctions upon: “Since 1966, the Security Council has established 30 sanctions regimes, in Southern Rhodesia, South Africa, the former Yugoslavia (2), Haiti, Iraq (2), Angola, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Eritrea, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Liberia (3), DRC, Côte d’Ivoire, Sudan, Lebanon, DPRK, Iran, Libya (2), Guinea-Bissau, CAR, Yemen, South Sudan and Mali, as well as against ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida and the Taliban.”

    Does UN Security Council Create World Peace?
    Not really. This is especially true when one of the “Permanent 5” has veto power over any resolution to stop or condemn the aggression. Though the major powers may not directly be involved, they may provide aid to others and fight proxy wars.

    Though not always the best site, Wikipedia is great for a quick reference.

    Chinese Civil War (1944–1949)
    Greek Civil War (1944–1949)
    Iran crisis of 1946 (1945–1946)
    First Indochina War (1946–1954)
    Paraguayan Civil War (1947)
    Malayan Emergency (1948–1960)
    Internal conflict in Myanmar (1948– )
    Balochistan conflict (1948– )
    Arab–Israeli conflict (1948–present)
    Korean War (1950–1953)
    Mau Mau Uprising (1952–1960)
    Second Indochina War (First Taiwan Strait Crisis (1953–1975))
    Algerian War (1954–1962)
    First Sudanese Civil War (1955–1972)
    Suez Crisis (1956–1957)
    Second Taiwan Strait Crisis (1958)
    Lebanon crisis (1958)
    Tibetan uprising (1959–1962)
    Central American crisis (1960–1996)
    Congo Crisis (1960–1965)
    Portuguese Colonial War (1960–1974)
    Xinjiang conflict (1960s–present)
    First Iraqi–Kurdish War (1961–1970)
    Eritrean War of Independence (1961-1991)
    North Yemen Civil War (1962–1970)
    Dhofar Rebellion (1962–1976)
    Sarawak Communist Insurgency (1962–1990)
    Sand War (1963)
    Aden Emergency (1963–1967)
    Insurgency in Northeast India (1963–present)
    Rhodesian Bush War (1964–1979)
    Dominican Civil War (1965)
    Communist insurgency in Thailand (1965–1983)
    Bolivian Campaign (1966–1967)
    Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–1969)
    South African Border War (1966–1990)
    Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970)
    Naxalite–Maoist insurgency (1967–present)
    Communist insurgency in Malaysia (1968–1989)
    Operation Condor (1968–1989)
    Al-Wadiah War (1969-present)
    Civil conflict in the Philippines (1969–present)
    Yemenite War (1972)
    Angolan Civil War (1974–2002)
    Ethiopian Civil War (1974–1991)
    Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990)
    Western Sahara War (1975–1991)
    Indonesian occupation of East Timor (1975–1999)
    Cabinda War (1975–present)
    Insurgency in Laos (1975–present)
    Civil conflict in Turkey (1976–present)
    Shaba I (1977)
    Ogaden War (1977–1978)
    Cambodian-Vietnamese War (1977–1991)
    Mozambican Civil War (1977–1992)
    Chittagong Hill Tracts conflict (1977–1997)
    Shaba II (1978)
    Uganda–Tanzania War (1978–1979)
    NDF Rebellion (1978–1982)
    Chadian–Libyan conflict (1978–1987)
    Yemenite War of (1979)
    Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989)
    Sino-Vietnamese War (1979
    Internal conflict in Peru (1980–present)
    Ethiopian–Somali Border War (1982)
    Sri Lankan Civil War (1983–2009)

    This isn’t even a complete list. But when researching conflicts, you will find that it is most often one or more of the “Permanent 5” behind these conflicts. How can the UN actually help world peace when its own Security Council members can flaunt the principles without consequences?

    Why are a nation’s well being and sovereignty dependant on the will of 15 nations, 5 of whom appointed themselves as permanent members with a veto.

    This is not to say that nations should not be free to enter into military alliances and pacts. However, this arrangement seems stacked against smaller and weaker nations.

    What Does UN Say About Security Council?

    Under the United Nations Charter, the functions and powers of the Security Council are:

    -to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;
    -to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction;
    -to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;
    -to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;
    -to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;
    -to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;
    -to take military action against an aggressor;
    -to recommend the admission of new Members;
    -to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in “strategic areas”;
    -to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.

    There has been much speculation within Canada that Justin Trudeau is being so “UN compliant” because he is aiming for a seat on the Security Council. Not sure if this is true, though it’s certainly possible.

    Military aggression. But “democratically performed” military aggression.”

    Public Policy #4: UN Promotes Replacement Migration, While Hungary Boosts Family Growth


    (UN Promotes replacement migration)


    (Hungary proposes making it more affordable for Hungarian women to have children)


    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

    (1) Challenge to UN Global Migration Compact dismissed in Calgary, however Court rules that it is not intended to be a legally binding contract.

    (2) Challenge launched to close loophole in Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement


    CLICK HERE, for the topic of “REPLACEMENT MIGRATION”.
    CLICK HERE, for March 2000 Report.

    NEW REPORT ON REPLACEMENT MIGRATION ISSUED BY UN POPULATION DIVISION
    20000317

    NEW YORK, 17 March (DESA) — The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled “Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.

    United Nations projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of Japan and virtually all countries of Europe will most likely decline. In a number of cases, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Italy, countries would lose between one quarter and one third of their population. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of population to historically unprecedented high levels. For instance, in Italy, the median age will rise from 41 years in 2000 to 53 years in 2050. The potential support ratio — i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person — will often be halved, from 4 or 5 to 2.
    Focusing on these two striking and critical trends, the report examines in detail the case of eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). In each case, alternative scenarios for the period 1995-2050 are considered, highlighting the impact that various levels of immigration would have on population size and population ageing.

    Major findings of this report include:
    — In the next 50 years, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of low fertility and increased longevity. In contrast, the population of the United States is projected to increase by almost a quarter. Among the countries studied in the report, Italy is projected to register the largest population decline in relative terms, losing 28 per cent of its population between 1995 and 2050, according to the United Nations medium variant projections. The population of the European Union, which in 1995 was larger than that of the United States by 105 million, in 2050, will become smaller by 18 million.

    — Population decline is inevitable in the absence of replacement migration. Fertility may rebound in the coming decades, but few believe that it will recover sufficiently in most countries to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future.

    – 2 – Press Release DEV/2234 POP/735 17 March 2000

    — Some immigration is needed to prevent population decline in all countries and regions examined in the report. However, the level of immigration in relation to past experience varies greatly. For the European Union, a continuation of the immigration levels observed in the 1990s would roughly suffice to prevent total population from declining, while for Europe as a whole, immigration would need to double. The Republic of Korea would need a relatively modest net inflow of migrants — a major change, however, for a country which has been a net sender until now. Italy and Japan would need to register notable increases in net immigration. In contrast, France, the United Kingdom and the United States would be able to maintain their total population with fewer immigrants than observed in recent years.

    — The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent the decline of the total population are considerably larger than those envisioned by the United Nations projections. The only exception is the United States.

    — The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent declines in the working- age population are larger than those needed to prevent declines in total population. In some cases, such as the Republic of Korea, France, the United Kingdom or the United States, they are several times larger. If such flows were to occur, post-1995 immigrants and their descendants would represent a strikingly large share of the total population in 2050 — between 30 and 39 per cent in the case of Japan, Germany and Italy.

    — Relative to their population size, Italy and Germany would need the largest number of migrants to maintain the size of their working-age populations. Italy would require 6,500 migrants per million inhabitants annually and Germany, 6,000. The United States would require the smallest number — 1,300 migrants per million inhabitants per year.

    — The levels of migration needed to prevent population ageing are many times larger than the migration streams needed to prevent population decline. Maintaining potential support ratios would in all cases entail volumes of immigration entirely out of line with both past experience and reasonable expectations.

    — In the absence of immigration, the potential support ratios could be maintained at current levels by increasing the upper limit of the working-age population to roughly 75 years of age.

    — The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require a comprehensive reassessment of many established policies and programmes, with a long-term perspective. Critical issues that need to be addressed include: (a) the appropriate ages for retirement; (b) the levels, types and nature of retirement and health care benefits for the elderly; (c) labour force participation; (d) the assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers to support retirement and health care benefits for the elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration,

    – 3 – Press Release DEV/2234 POP/735 17 March 2000

    in particular, replacement migration and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.
    The report may be accessed on the internet site of the Population Division (http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm). Further information may be obtained from the office of Joseph Chamie, Director, Population Division, United Nations, New York, NY, 10017, USA; tel. 1-212-963-3179; fax 1-212-963-2147.

    Hungary understands
    Far better than “importing” replacement populations, Hungary has decided to make it more affordable to have their own children. Recently, Prime Minister Victor Orban announced a policy that women who have 4 children or more will no longer pay income tax. The goal is to encourage women to have more children, and reverse falling birth rates.

    By growing your own population, you don’t have to worry about “multiculturalism”. You don’t have to hope that a group assimilates and adopts your values. There isn’t language and culture clash, like their is with mass migration.

    Mostly importantly, you don’t have to worry about cultures (like Islam) INTENTIONALLY REFUSING to assimilate and replace your way of life with their way of life.

    Note: in small amounts, immigration “can” benefit a nation. But mass migration to “replace” the dwindling old-stock simply leads to the disappearance of the host culture and people.

    Conservatism & Libertarianism fail
    In order to preserve a nation, unity and common bonds are far more important than merely “keeping the numbers up”. There is more to a nation than number of people, GDP, and economic growth. Nationalists understand this. Conservatives and Libertarians do not.

    Canada — and all nations — wanting to grow, should follow the Hungarian lead of boosting its own population. Forget about using replacement migration as a solution.

    2019 — Laws Worth Challenging in Calgary

    (We are at a crossroads here, no question)

    <img src=”https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/canzuk01-300×169.png” alt=”” width=”500″ height=269″ class=”alignnone size-medium wp-image-1295″ />

    (At party convention in Halifax, in August 2018, CPC endorsed Canzuk)

    (Canada’s so-called “Conservative” Party endorses globalism)


    (1) The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is HERE.
    (2) The full text for Canada/US Safe 3rd Country is HERE, and see HERE.
    (3) The proposed UN Parliament/World Government is HERE.
    (4) The full text of the Paris Accord is HERE.
    (5) The Multiculturalism Act is HERE.
    (6) The Canadian Citizenship Act (birth tourism) is HERE.
    (7) Bill C-6 (citizenship for terrorists) is HERE.
    (8) M-103 (Iqra Khalid’s Blasphemy Motion) is HERE.
    (9) Fed’s $595M bribery of journalists is outlined HERE.
    (10) Agenda 21 (signed in June 1992) is HERE
    (11) Agenda 2030 (signed in September 2015) is HERE.
    (12) UN Global Citizen Education is HERE.
    (13) UN ”Digital Cooperation” is HERE.
    Items in the above list are addressed HERE.

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG


    Here are some good ideas for patriotic/nationalistic Canadians to be pondering. These things need to be gotten rid of, or stopped, if we are to take our country back.

    (1) UN Global Migration Compact — underway
    (2) Loophole in Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement
    (3) UN Parliamentary Assembly
    (4) Multiculturalism Act
    (5) Birth Tourism, aka “Anchor Babies”
    (6) Citizenship For Illegals
    (7) M-103, Blasphemy
    (8) Paris Accord
    (9) Government Buying Off Media Outlets with $595M
    (10) Membership With The UN

    As will be demonstrated, the CPC, which calls itself “Conservative” cannot be trusted on this topic and really supports open borders globalism

    (1) UN Global Migration Compact
    This is already being challenged in Calgary Federal Court. Updates to be posted

    OTHER IDEAS TO CONSIDER…

    (2) Loophole in Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement
    CLICK HERE, for the actual link to the government website.

    CLICK HERE, the review of it.

    Where the Agreement is in effect

    The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:
    at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
    by train or
    at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S.

    To point this out, if someone crosses “between” border crossings, they can get around this agreement. Weaselly globalists like to refer to illegal aliens who do this as “irregular crossers”.

    The biggest problem here of course is Roxham Road.

    (3) UN Parliamentary Assembly
    CLICK HERE, for that earlier piece covering a proposition to form a global government. Needless to say this will erase our sovereignty, as would the UN Global Migration Compact.

    Note: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau signed this in 2010, so he had been on board with this for a decade now. Many other Liberals and NDP also have signed.

    (4) Multiculturalism Act
    CLICK HERE, for the legislation.
    CLICK HERE, for the earlier review of it.

    Multiculturalism Policy of Canada
    Marginal note:
    Multiculturalism policy

    3 (1) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to
    (a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;

    (b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future;

    (c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation;

    (d) recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development;

    (e) ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity;

    (f) encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada’s multicultural character;

    (g) promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins;

    (h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;

    (i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and

    (j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.

    Canada should have one identity. Multiculturalism encourages — yes encourages — there to be multiple parallel societies going on within Canada.

    We need this to replaced by something that focuses on a Canadian identity

    (5) Birth Tourism, aka “Anchor Babies”
    CLICK HERE, for the earlier review of the policy.

    Note: The CPC wants to end “abuse”, of the practice, but stops short of actually calling for it to be ended.

    “Halifax, NS: Today, Conservative Party Leader and Leader of the Official Opposition Andrew Scheer released the following statement on birth tourism in Canada:

    “This weekend, Conservative Party members debated and passed a policy related to a Liberal MP’s petition calling for the end of birth tourism in Canada.

    “This is a practice that has received increasing attention from Canadian media in recent months.
    “Our Shadow Minister for Immigration Michelle Rempel will soon begin her Pathways to Canada tour, during which she and other Conservative MPs will meet with stakeholders and policymakers to provide input on new Conservative immigration policy.

    “While the policy passed did not clearly focus on ending the practice of birth tourism, ending birth tourism will be among the objectives of our policy.””

    This is a sleazy way of circumventing Canadian laws. Simply come here while 6-8 months pregnant, have a child, then instant citizenship. The child, now a “Canadian” can turn around an sponsor the mother, and whoever they claim the “father” is, for citizenship as well.

    Only Canada and the U.S. allow such a policy.

    (6) Citizenship For Illegals
    Again endorsed by the CPC, despite it damaging Canadian sovereignty.

    “Ottawa, ON – The Honourable Michelle Rempel, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, and Gerard Deltell, Shadow Minister for the Treasury Board, today announced the launch of the Pathway to Canada tour.

    “Conservatives have spent nearly three years calling on Justin Trudeau to put forward a plan to ensure Canada’s immigration system operates in an orderly, planned, and safe manner. These calls have gone unanswered and Canadians’ confidence in the system continues to plummet.

    “As the next step in our policy development process, we are launching Pathway To Canada, a tour of the country to hear from policy-makers and stakeholders on how best to improve our immigration system.

    “Specifically, we are looking for the best ways to integrate newcomers into Canada’s economic and social fabric, address labor needs, and ensure provincial support is adequately budgeted for.

    “We are committed to doing whatever we can to restore Canadians’ confidence in their immigration and refugee system.”

    The Pathway to Canada tour will seek input from Canadians, newcomers, industry groups, provincial counterparts, international partners, and civil society groups on concepts outlined here: https://www.michellerempel.ca/m_p_rempel_s_pathway_to_canada_remarks”

    Though the CPC tries to avoid answering the question directly, pathway to citizenship (in their eyes), includes those illegally crossing into Canada (see Item #2).

    (7) M-103, Blasphemy
    This was pushed by Iqra Khalid, a Pakistani Muslim Liberal MP. Let’s be clear, the real goal is censoring criticism of Islam.

    M103 – Systemic racism and religious discrimination

    That, in the opinion of the House, the government should:
    (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear;
    (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and
    (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could
    (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making,
    (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    Though this is “non-binding” there is concern that it will be used as a form of “soft law” to later impose actual binding rulings. In short, it may become used as a legal precedent.

    Worth noting: The Liberal Government rejected an almost identical motion that excluded the term “islamophobia”. Again, this is all about silencing criticism of Islam.

    (8) The Paris Accord
    CLICK HERE, for a review of the “virtue signalling” scam.
    CLICK HERE, for more information on the climate change scam.
    CLICK HERE, for the Paris Accord text.

    We should not be ceding sovereignty to the UN in the form of a massive wealth transfer scheme. It will do nothing to actually enact environmental progress. Unless, of course, the goal is to just shut down entire industries.

    (9) Economic Update “Bribes” Journalists with $595 million
    CLICK HERE, for the fall 2018 economic update. (Page 40 is where it starts). Journalists should not be getting propped up financially by the governments they are supposed to be holding accountable.

    CLICK HERE, for the review on the subject. Also a response from Unifor rep Howard Law.

    (10) Membership With The UN
    CLICK HERE, for the earlier covering of the topic.

    The point being that Canada gains nothing from being involved in the UN. We shovel large amounts of money (which often ends up in slush funds). In return, we get to virtue signal, but sign away our sovereignty.

    Final Thoughts
    One setback we have faced recently. Ex-pats who have no intention of ever returning to Canada are still allowed to vote. If you have been gone more than 5 years, aren’t you no longer effected by what goes on in Canada?

    This list is hardly exhaustive, but would be a great place to start in fighting for our nation.

    Are you a Canadian, or a global citizen?

    Choose wisely. Your future liberty and freedom hang in the balance.

    What If Bill C-16 Took Effect Outside of Canada?

    (Never mind. It already has in some places.)

    ***********************************************************************
    The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

    UN GMC Challenged In Calgary Fed Court, 300-635 8th Ave SW.
    Case File: T-2089-18. Filed December 6, 2018.
    CLICK HERE for more information.
    ***********************************************************************

    (1) Canada’s Bill C-16

    CLICK HERE, for an earlier article on amending both the Canadian Criminal Code and Human Rights Code for ”gender identity or expression”.

    (2) New York City

    CLICK HERE, for the link to the NYC Human Rights Commission.

    The document is a very long one, but let’s start with the first topic: misnaming or misgendering someoneone.

    1. Failing To Use an Individual’s Preferred Name or Pronoun

    The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.

    Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. 10 Many transgender and gender non-conforming people choose to use a different name than the one they were given at birth.

    All people, including employees, tenants, customers, and participants in programs, have the right to use their preferred name regardless of whether they have identification in that name or have obtained a court-ordered name change, except in very limited circumstances where certain federal, state, or local laws require otherwise (e.g., for purposes of employment eligibility verification with the federal government). Asking someone their preferred gender pronoun and preferred name is not a violation of the NYCHRL

    And the penalties for this?

    IV. PENALTIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

    The Commission can impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct. The amount of a civil penalty will be guided by the following factors, among others:

    The severity of the particular violation;
    The existence of previous or subsequent violations;
    The employer’s size, considering both the total number of employees and its revenue; and
    The employer’s actual or constructive knowledge of the NYCHRL.
    These penalties are in addition to the other remedies available to people who successfully resolve or prevail on claims under the NYCHRL, including, but not limited to, back and front pay, along with other compensatory and punitive damages. The Commission may consider the lack of an adequate anti-discrimination policy as a factor in determining liability, assessing damages, and mandating certain affirmative remedies.

    Yes, a potential $250,000 fine for misgendering someone.

    Incidently, New York now recognizes 31 genders. Not a joke.

    (3) California Senate Bill 219

    CLICK HERE, for the text of SB 219

    1439.50. For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:

    (a) “Gender expression” has the same meaning as defined in Section 51 of the Civil Code.

    (b) “Gender identity” means a person’s identity based on the individual’s stated gender identity, without regard to whether the self-identified gender accords with the individual’s physical appearance, surgical history, genitalia, legal sex, sex assigned at birth, or name and sex, as it appears in medical records, and without regard to any contrary statement by any other person, including a family member, conservator, or legal representative. An individual who lacks the present ability to communicate his or her gender identity shall retain the gender identity most recently expressed by that individual.

    Existing law, the California Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of residential care facilities for the elderly by the State Department of Social Services. Under existing law, a person who violates the act, or who willfully or repeatedly violates any rule or regulation adopted under the act, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law also provides for civil penalties for a violation of the act.

    So, just in case you are wondering, yes, it would be an actual offence. To be fair, it is being challenged in court.

    (4) Australia

    CLICK HERE, got the tedious guidelines for awarding costs.

    CLICK HERE, for the section on gender identity.

    The Commission recognises that terminology can have a profound impact on a person’s identity, self-worth and inherent dignity. The use of inclusive and acceptable terminology empowers individuals and enables visibility of important issues.

    The Commission supports the right of people to identify their sexual orientation and sex and/or gender as they choose. The Commission also recognises that terminology is strongly contested, particularly terminology to describe sex and/or gender identity. The consultation revealed that there is no clear consensus on what is appropriate terminology in this area.

    This report uses the phrase ‘gender identity’ in two specific contexts. First, international human rights discourse often uses the phrase gender identity. Second, many state and territory laws use a variation of this phrase. As a result, the phrase ‘gender identity’ is used when referring to international human rights agreements or state and territory laws.

    This report also frequently uses the phrase ‘sex and/or gender identity’. This term is used to refer to the whole spectrum of sex and/or gender in our community. It aims to include all people regardless of whether they identify within or outside of the binary gender.

    (5) New Zealand

    CLICK HERE, for the list of things you can complain about.

    The Human Rights Act 1993 makes it unlawful to discriminate based on:

    Sex – includes pregnancy and childbirth, and discrimination against transgender and intersex people because of their sex or gender identity.
    Marital status – includes marriages and civil unions that have ended.
    Religious belief – not limited to traditional or mainstream religions.
    Ethical belief – not having a religious belief.
    Colour, race, or ethnic or national origins – includes nationality or citizenship.
    Disability – including physical, psychiatric, intellectual or psychological disability or illness.
    Age – people are protected from age discrimination if they are over 16 years old.
    Political opinion – including not having a political opinion.
    Employment status – being unemployed, on a benefit or on ACC. It does not include being employed or being on national superannuation.
    Family status – includes not being responsible for children or other dependants.
    Sexual orientation – being heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian or bisexual.
    These grounds apply to a person’s past, present or assumed circumstances. For example, it is unlawful to discriminate against someone because they have a mental illness, had one in the past, or someone assumes they have a mental illness.

    The prohibited grounds for discrimination are covered in detail in part two of the Human Rights Act.

    (6) Europe

    The ECHR refers to the European Court of Human Rights

    CLICK HERE, for some decisions over the years.

    CLICK HERE, for an ECHR guidebook.

    ARTICLE 8

    Right to respect for private and family life

    1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family
    life, his home and his correspondence.

    2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
    of others

    However, this is the same ECHR that upheld Islamic blasphemy law in Austria.

    (7) More Nonsense

    CLICK HERE, for an absurd article that tries to erase biology altogether.

    Note: While laws and punishments do vary, this stupidity is pushing the limits of tolerance and accomodation. It causes people to be openly contrarian, especially when discussion of these topics leads to stigmatizaion.

    While there is legitimate concern and sympathy for trans-people, laws like these have the unintended consequence of being weaponized against undeserving targets.

    Even open minded people are sick of it.

    CBC Propaganda #2: Europe Should Have Open Borders

    (An extremely biased CBC “news” piece)

    (The U.N. admits it helps “migrants”, regardless of their legal status)

    (Mastercard and MercyCorps)

    ***********************************************************************
    The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
    ***********************************************************************

    CBC, a.k.a The “Communist Broadbasting Corporation”, or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”, is a government funded “news” organization. It receives about $1.5 billion annually to spew out anti-Canadian stories. Taxpayers don’t get a say in the matter.

    CLICK HERE, to reach the CBC Propaganda Masterlist. It is far from complete, but being added to regularly.

    Of course, CBC promoting globalism is nothing new. Here is a recent cover of a “non-profit” calling itself Century Initiative. Their goal was to boost Canada’s population to 100 million people by the year 2100. Of course, logistical details, or incompatibility of cultures is not discussed.

    On November 23, Jonathon Gatehouse of CBC released this article. It contained a story whining about how Europe enforcing its borders was putting migrant lives in danger.

    The present article is extremely biased and one sided. It takes issue with Europe protecting its own borders, and denying unending immigration from the third world. It is amazing how an article can both be factually accurate, yet so completely miss the point. CBC is being extremely selective in what information is presents.

    Throughout the article, Gatehouse repeatedly implies that these migrants have the right to reach Europe and live there. The right of European Nations to defend their borders is mention is looked down upon. Let’s go through the article:

    “Desperate migrants are choosing ever more dangerous sea routes to Europe and using smaller and less seaworthy boats, causing a sharp increase in drowning deaths, warns the International Organization for Migration.”

    What CBC leaves out is that these are “ILLEGAL” migrants, who do not have permission to enter Europe, let along live there. This point is omitted throughout the article.

    “The European Union’s success in cutting deals to close off the sea routes from Turkey to Greece, and from Libya to Italy, has resulted in an overall drop in the number of migrants arriving on the continent — 128,265 so far this year, compared to almost 187,000 in 2017, and 390,000 in 2016.

    Some are now even arriving in the Canary Islands, a Spanish archipelago 100 kilometres off the Moroccan coast. At least 36 migrants have died trying to make that crossing in 2018, compared to one the year befoore”

    The European Union is not trying to cut off one route for the sake of being a jerk. They are genuinely trying to control their borders with this move. Migrants are trying circumvent this by finding other ways to get into Europe.

    “Yet despite the concerns over the rising death toll, many European nations seem focused on enacting even tougher anti-migrant policies.

    This week, prosecutors in Sicily moved to seize a migrant rescue vessel operated by Medecins Sans Frontières and another aid organization, accusing the groups of illegally dumping of 24 tonnes of “potentially toxic waste” during stops in Italian ports.”

    Gatehouse seems to miss the point of this entirely. European nations are sick of mass illegal immigration and are trying to stop it. If migrants are endangering themselves by finding innovative ways to break immigration laws, then it is not the responsibility of said nations to provide assistance. There is no obligation to aid law-breakers.

    “And soon, Italy’s parliament will vote on a new immigration law proposed by the populist government that will remove humanitarian protections for migrants and block asylum seekers from accessing services. These are moves that UN human rights experts have said will “certainly” violate international law.”

    Gatehouse omits the key detail that these new laws are meant for ILLEGAL immigrants. He seems to think that just showing up against Italy’s will entitles people to free benefits.

    “Meanwhile in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is ratcheting up his attacks on the European Union, calling it a “transport agency” for migrants that hands out funds and “anonymous bank cards” to “terrorists and criminals.”

    “This is the kind of slippery slope which could again lead to a broken Europe,” Orbán declared today in an interview on Hungarian public radio.

    Actually, the EU and UN do provide financial assistance for migrants, regardless of their legal status. See this page, from the U.N. website, regarding the “caravan” demanding access to the U.S. See this previous article. Handing out prepaid credit cards to finance “migration” actually is happening.

    “Anti-immigrant sentiment is undeniably on the rise in Europe.

    This week, the Guardian newspaper crunched the voting results from 31 European elections over the past 20 years. It found that populist parties have tripled their support and managed to put their leaders into positions of power within 11 different governments.”

    This is true, although Gatehouse bypasses the fact that mass, illegal and uncontrolled immigration directly leads to anti-immigrant sentiment and policies. Throughout the article, there is no mention of European nations having the right to decide for themselves who enters their borders.

    “”I [Hillary Clinton] admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken, particularly by leaders like Angela Merkel, but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must send a very clear message — ‘We are not going to be able to continue to provide refuge and support’ — because if we don’t deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil the body politic.”

    To date in 2018, 2,075 migrants have drowned or gone missing while crossing the Mediterranean.”

    This quote is accurate. However, the connection seems to be lost on the author. And while 2075 may have died, they were trying to get into Europe ILLEGALLY. This is a point Gatehouse avoids altogether. Why should Europe assist those trying to break their laws?

    This is a theme in the entire article: that these migrants have a “right” to enter Europe, and that Europe is causing a humanitarian crisis by not assisting them.

    However, Gatehouse does deserve credit for one thing: not once does he refer to them as “refugees”. he acknowledges that they are migrants looking for a better life.

    Macron v. Hitler (Satire)

    (The Eiffel Tower, as France submits to various masters)

    How would these 2 stack up if they lived at the same time? Let’s take a look

    but first, prevent more Hitlers and Macrons from gaining power. See below:

    ***********************************************************************
    The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
    ***********************************************************************

    Hitler: Alpha male
    Macron: Beta male

    Hitler: Fantasized about conquering and dominating France
    Macron: Fantasized about being conquered and dominated by Germany

    Hitler: Wants to take over Europe
    Macron: Wants others to take over Europe for him

    Hitler: Wanted a European army dominated by Berlin
    Macron: Wanted a European army dominated by Berlin

    Hitler: Will imprison or kill people for wrong-think
    Macron: Will dox people for wrong-think

    Hitler: Wrecked Europe using huge German armies
    Macron: Wrecked Europe using huge foreign armies

    Hitler: Bullied Eastern Europe into doing his bidding
    Macron: “Trying to” bully Eastern Europe into doing his bidding

    Hitler: Angered that the Americans defeated Germany in 1918
    Macron: Angered that the Americans liberated France in 1918

    Hitler: Raised the swastika flag over fallen nations
    Macron: Raised the European Union flag over fallen nations

    Hitler: Believed legality of secondary importance
    Macron: Believed consent of secondary importance

    Hitler: Wanted “lebensraum” in Europe for German people to live
    Macron: Wanted “lebensraum” in Europe for African and Middle Eastern people to live

    Hitler: Thinks that strong national identity is necessary for a nation
    Macron: Thinks that national identity shouldn’t exist

    Hitler: Wanted a society of a pure Aryan race
    Macron: Wanted a society of a pure mixed race

    Hitler: Believed that the German people were superior to all
    Macron: Believed that the French people were superior to none

    Hitler: Blames Jews for Germany’s many problems
    Macron: Blames whites for France’s many problems

    Hitler: Hates diversity of thought, and diversity of race
    Macron: Hates diversity of thought only

    Hitler: Had a beta sidekick named Mussolini
    Macron: Had a beta sidekick named Trudeau

    Hitler: Replacing other populations using force–
    military occupation/invasion/deportations/killings
    Macron: Replacing local populations by:
    (a) abortion on demand;
    (b) LGBTQ agenda;
    (c) encouraging career over family;
    (d) making a family unaffordable;
    (e) “White Guilt” to discourage breeding;
    (f) mass immigration of very different groups;
    (g) forced multi-culturalism;
    (h) balkanization and white flight;
    (i) celebrating other cultures;
    (j) tax incentives for foreigners to start families

    Who is worse?

    UN Finances ”ARMED” Croatian Invasion, Nations Reject Global Migration Pact

    (Mastercard and Mercy Corps teaming up)

    ***********************************************************************
    The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
    ***********************************************************************

    A recent article seen here, reports an attack on the Croatian border, with some 20,000 economic migrants (sorry, ”refugees”) demanding access and passage to other European nations.

    This story, and the Slovenian article provides an explanation as to how these mass ”refugee” moves are being carried out.

    Mastercard, for its part, fully admitted in 2016 to providing prepaid credit cards. They partnered with an organisation called Mercy Corps to help coordinate mass migration. Mercy Corps was founded in 1979 as ”Save the Refugees Fund”.

    And apparently, financing for this has largely come from George Soros. Not as a humanitarian venture, but as a business venture. See here, and there are many other articles available online.

    The 20,000 refugees (mostly military aged men) in the above article were not trying to seek refuge in Croatia. It was merely a transition point, as they wanted to get to Germany or Northern Europe. Those countries have more generous welfare.

    This actually does answer a big question. People had been wondering why all of these so-called ”refugees” all had new clothes, phones, and looked so well cared for. The invasions had been paid for by credit cards.

    The U.N., starting on this page, does answer at least 5 more questions.

    First, the U.N. is directly responsible for aiding and abetting the 7,000 strong migrant ”caravan” travelling from Honduras to Guatemala to Mexico, with the intention of demanding access to the United States. This was covered in this article.

    Second, the U.N. knows full well that these ”refugees” are attempting to enter illegally, and in essence, overwhelm the host country. More to the point, the U.N. doesn’t care.


    The United Nations Migration Agency, IOM, is providing support and assistance to migrants crossing Central America in several self-styled caravans, while expressing concern over “the stress and demands” they are placing on host countries.

    All migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status – IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico

    Third, one of the U.N.’s directives is ensuring that people have some form of identity documents, and getting them issued from the host country. While this sounds great at first, keep in mind the U.N. doesn’t care if the people it moves around are actual refugees. So the U.N. likely wouldn’t put much effort into determining if they are getting identity documents for who the people really are.

    Fourth, the U.N. makes it clear that they support fraudulent cases. A refugee is supposed to seek asylum in the first safe country, not shop around.

    Fifth, and most importantly, the U.N. demonstrates repeatedly that it does not respect national borders. That could not be more clear with the Global Migration Compact. The U.N. is an enemy to the individual nation states, the same way the E.U. is an enemy to European nation states.

    Send tens of thousands of men to completely different cultures, with: (a) new clothes and phones; (b) fake I.D.; (c) prepaid credit cards. What could possibly go wrong?

    But hey, nothing like Trudeau style gender quotas, because it’s 2018.

    ***********************************************************

    However, while the above article is bad. Here is some good news. More and more countries are refusing to endorse the U.N. Global Compact for Migration. Once again, the U.N. doesn’t get it.

    Australia refuses to sign.

    Austria refuses to sign.

    Croatia refuses to sign.

    Czech Republic refuses to sign.

    Hungary refuses to sign.

    Italy refuses to sign.

    Poland refuses to sign.

    The United States refuses to sign

    This is 8 right here. Let’s grow the list, and kill the compact completely.

    Ungrateful, Snooty, French President Wants ”E.U. Army” to Protect Against U.S.

    (Paris, the last time there was a ”European Army”)

    (Macron, lobbying last year for a single European (1) army; (2) budget; (3) tax structure)

    (Macron, calling for an army to protect France against U.S.)

    (Macron admits France would have voted to leave EU if referendum held)

    ***********************************************************************
    The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
    ***********************************************************************

    Where to begin with this one? French President,Emmanuel Macron is calling for the formation of a European Army, to protect Europe from the U.S., Russia and China. He also calls out rising nationalist sentiment in Eastern Europe, such as with Hungary and Poland.

    Aside from the the arrogant tone Macron has, there are a number of flaws with this move. I am tempted to classify it as ”satire”.

    (1) Macron completely whitewashes France’s history as an imperialistic and colonising power.

    (2) The U.S. and Russia helped defend France from a German invasion in World War I (1914-1918).

    (3) The U.S. and Russia (the Soviet Union) defeated Hitler and the German army, in World War II (1939-1945). Incidently, France has surrendered after just 6 weeks.

    (4) From 1945 to 1989, the U.S. presence kept the Soviet Union from pushing further into Europe. Macron seems to forget about NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), which both the U.S. and France are part of.

    (5) Macron is not the first arrogant French President in this type of case. Charles de Gaulle was a constant embarassment, and eventually forced NATO headquarters to be removed from Paris, and relocated in Brussels, Belgium.

    (6) Macron omits that the U.S. has had tens of thousands of troops in Europe for decades, and could have conquered France at any time.

    (7) Macron omits that European nations gutted their military budgets in the 1990s, to focus on social spending.

    (8) Macron denigrades ”nationalists”, but those leaders, like Viktor Orban in Hungary are actually very popular. Macron is the one acting against his people’s wishes.

    So what is the real motivation for the army? Is it to stamp out any anti-EU factions? Is it to ”expand EU influence” into other regions? Macron is not Napoleon, and France is no longer a military power. Get real.

    ECHR Upholds Islamic Blasphemy Law in Austria

    (From the European Court of Human Rights press release)

    ***********************************************************************
    The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
    ***********************************************************************

    An Austrian woman had her appeal rejected and will have to pay 480 Euros for truthful comments she made at 2 seminars calling Muhammad a paedophile for marrying a 6 year old girl.

    An interesting side note, as exampled in the video, Islam is not a race, and hence criticism of it is not ”racism”. That claim is often used to derail legitimate debate.

    For some context, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is a European-based court in France where people can contest judgements if they claim human rights have been violated. This court will consider cases after other legal remedies have been exhausted in the home country.

    Conviction for calling Muhammad a paedophile is not in breach of Article 10
    In today’s Chamber judgment1

    in the case of E.S. v. Austria (application no. 38450/12) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

    The case concerned the applicant’s conviction for disparaging religious doctrines; she had made
    statements suggesting that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies.

    The Court found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context
    of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the
    right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving
    religious peace in Austria. It held that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the
    permissible limits of an objective debate, and by classifying them as an abusive attack on the
    Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace, the domestic courts put
    forward relevant and sufficient reasons.

    That was the summary of the case, The press release goes on to list the facts:

    Principal facts

    The applicant, E.S., is an Austrian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Vienna (Austria). In October and November 2009, Mrs S. held two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam”, in which she discussed the marriage between the Prophet Muhammad and a six-year old girl, Aisha, which allegedly was consummated when she was nine. Inter alia, the applicant stated that Muhammad “liked to do it with children” and “… A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”.

    On 15 February 2011 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies, and convicted Mrs S. for disparaging religious doctrines. She was ordered to pay a fine of 480 euros and the costs of the proceedings. Mrs S. appealed but the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming in essence the lower court’s findings.

    The facts were not really in question, just the findings

    Decision of the Court
    Article 10

    The Court noted that those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion under Article 9 of the Convention could not expect to be exempt from criticism. They must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs. Only where expressions under Article 10 went beyond the limits of a critical denial, and certainly where they were likely to incite religious intolerance, might a State legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures.

    The Court observed also that the subject matter of the instant case was of a particularly sensitive nature, and that the (potential) effects of the impugned statements, to a certain degree, depended on the situation in the respective country where the statements were made, at the time and in the context they were made. Accordingly, it considered that the domestic authorities had a wide margin of appreciation in the instant case, as they were in a better position to evaluate which statements were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country.

    ……….

    The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the domestic courts carefully balanced the applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings
    protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society.

    3
    The Court held further that even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the
    Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression.

    The ECHR press release pretty much sums it up in 2 statements

    (1) Criticising Islam can lead to religious unrest

    (2) Protecting religious feelings (of Muslims) trumps free speech

    Actually, the ruling and press release could be taken as a good sign that some religions simply do not belong in a Western country. If mere criticism can result in ”religious violence” then it is obviously incompatible.

    The ECHR excused the practice, saying that it should be considered that child marriages were historically a reality. But switch that around. That historical reality would be considered paedophilia under today’s laws. So the statement is factually correct.

    But before sounding too smug, the Liberal Party of Canada passed a non-binding motion (M-103) which


    a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could

    (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making,

    (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    Notice that Islam is the only religion mentioned in the motion. It should also be noted that the Liberals rejected an alternative motion that would passed the same intent, but with no mention to any specific religion.

    No other religious group in the western world acts this way, or has to have certain laws passed to appease it.

    Religion and Government should remain 2 separate entities. However, that becomes next to impossible when importing a culture that believes religious law should govern civil law. Another example of multiculturalism not working at all. This nonsense needs to stop.