All personal court appearances are under “BLOG”
Challenge to UN Global Migration Compact dismissed in Calgary, however
Court rules that it is non intended as legally binding contract
Court Case
A v. Her Majesty, the Queen
Court File No: T-2089-18
Calgary Branch, Federal Court
300-635 8th Ave SW, Calgary
Filed: November 6, 2018
Ruled: February 12, 2019
The Claim was filed in Calgary Federal Court on December 6, 2018. It asked (among other things), for an injunction against signing the UN Global Migration Compact.
The Defense filed a motion to strike, claiming that under Federal Courts Act, it should have been an “Application for Judicial Review”, not a claim. However, that doesn’t seem to be the only problem.
After some back and forth, the Statement of Claim was struck out (without permission to amend), and a $500 cost award was issued against me.
Here are some quotes from the ruling. The most interesting is possibly the one where the Judge confirms that the UN Global Migration Compact is not intended as a legally-binding agreement.
So, who won? The goal of the claim was to prevent Canada from joining the UN Compact, and the Judge says that it has no legal weight anyway.
[2] (Plaintiff) pleads, in the alternative, that if Canada has already signed the UN Compact when the Court rules on her claim, the Court should void the signature and any legal consequences
In this case, the issue of whether it should have been a 1/ Statement of Claim, or 2/ Application for Judicial Review, is sort of mute, since this alternative “does” fall within the scope of a Claim.
Court is also correct that seeking to nullify any legal consequences “is” primary function of this action. However, the Judge will go on to say that the UN Global Migration Compact “doesn’t” carry legal weight.
[8] However, this does not exempt a plaintiff from pleading material facts supporting the claim. Rule 174 states that a Statement of Claim “shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies.
Court finds that the facts plead were not specific enough to be suitable for an action.
[15] The Supreme Court has substantive content of each Charter right in the case law, and a Plaintiff who relies on the Charter must plead material facts to satisfy the criteria applicable to the provision in question. Charter cases can not be decided in a factual vacuum.
Interesting to know. General pleading are not enough in this case, and more definitive and substantive arguments must be made.
[26] As it is plain and obvious that (her) claims based on the Charter and other statutory provisions cannot succeed, the thrust of her claim is simply that Canada should be enjoined from joining the UN Compact, a non-legally binding, cooperative framework agreement because she is of the opinion that it attempts to normalise mass migration to any country, and that the public should have been consulted on this agreement.
Again, the Judge re-iterates that it is “non-legally binding”. Having rejected the specific constitutional arguments earlier, apparently the only argument left is that the public should have been consulted.
[27] It is well-established that the conduct of foreign affairs, and international relations, including the decision to conclude or withdraw from a treaty, is part of the Crown’s prerogative powers and falls exclusively under the executive branch of government. In the absence of a Charter challenge, a decision pertaining to such matters is not justifiable.
There “were” several Charter challenges listed, but the Calgary Court found them too broad to be acceptable.
[25] Based on my review of the Statement of Claim, it is plain and obvious that the Contract Claim discloses no cause of action and must be struck out. The Statement of Claim quotes lengthy exerps from the UN Compact, including the following statement at Paragraph 54 of the claim, which indicates the UN Compact is not intended as a legally binding contract:
44(7) “This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, co-operate framework that builds on the commitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. It fosters cooperation among all the relevant actors on migration, acknowledging that no one State can address migration alone, and upholds the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law.”
This is possibly the most interesting part of the entire ruling. The Judge states that the UN Global Migration Compact is not intended as a legally binding contract.
We now have a Federal Court Judge ruling that the UN Compact is “not intended as a legally-binding contract”. This is huge, as this may thwart any attempt by open-borders advocates to use the UN Compact as a “reference point” at a later date.
Even though the Court threw the case out, the reasons given may be what we need to prevent it from becoming “soft law”.
You’re welcome, Canada
$900 — costs of travel, court fees, other fees
$500 — costs award issued by Calgary Court
PRICELESS — protecting Canada’s sovereignty
Check out Australian YouTuber Daisy Cousens, for an interesting review on the Green New Deal. Thorough, and on point in her critique.
1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam
CLICK HERE, for #1: major lies that the climate frauds tell. CLICK HERE, for #2: review of the Paris Accord. CLICK HERE, for #3: Bill C-97, the GHG Pollution Pricing Act. CLICK HERE, for #4: in 3-2 decision, Sask. COA allows carbon tax. CLICK HERE, for #5: controlled opposition to carbon tax. CLICK HERE, for #6: controlled opposition Cons ==> Supreme Court. CLICK HERE, for #7: climate bonds pitched as $100T industry. CLICK HERE, for #8: Joel Wood pitching various pricing options. CLICK HERE, for #9: Mark Carney and UN climate finance. CLICK HERE, for #10: Goldman Sachs, Obama, Clinton, Chicago CX. CLICK HERE, for #11: Coronavirus, Pirbright Inst, Gates, Depopulation.
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for the Green New Deal FAQ. CLICK HERE, for House Resolution 109, Green New Deal. CLICK HERE, for the Forbes article referenced in the FAQ. CLICK HERE, for the Huffington Post article referenced in the FAQ.
3. Context For This Review
Newly elected US Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has announced an extremely ambitious “Green New Deal”. It will not only save the world, help eco-systems, dramatically boost the US economy, phase out carbon industries, but it will provide economic security for everyone — even those not willing to work.
Of course, don’t bother asking how much this will cost. The only question that matters (apparently) is the cost if nothing is done. That will be the end of the world as we know it.
Many still question this economics graduate, just because she doesn’t know how economics work. But that is just being divisive.
Additionally, it will pander to every imaginable group who is oppressed. The world may be ending, but it doesn’t mean we have to put aside such issues as gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc….
Please don’t be selfish here. Wondering about (a) your job security; (b) your lifestyle; (c) your private property; (d) your civil rights, etc are inconsequential. All that matters is saving the world.
Some may wonder what will happen if they “refuse” to go along with this massive, sweeping, government program. Afterall, many are resistant to change. But we will have to see what the penalties will be later. Perhaps some amendments will be added. Daisy Cousens (in the above video), makes the valid point that in order to see this deal go through, government force will be required.
4. The FAQ Section
“What is the Green New Deal?
.
The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan to create a greenhouse gas neutral society that creates unprecedented levels of prosperity and wealth for all while ensuring economic and environmental justice and security.
The Green New Deal achieves this through a World War 2 scale mobilization that focuses the robust and creative economic engine of the United States on reversing climate change by fully rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, restoring our natural ecosystems, dramatically expanding renewable power generation, overhauling our entire transportation system, upgrading all our buildings, jumpstarting US clean manufacturing, transforming US agriculture, and putting our nation’s people to work doing what they do best: making the impossible possible.”
1/ The first part says that it is to create a greenhouse gas neutral society, yet also promises unprecedented levels of wealth and prosperity.
2/ Logistical question: how do you ensure economic justice when implementing such a drastic plan? It sounds expensive.
3/ So fighting climate change is like fighting Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? Okay.
4/ To dramatically expand renewable power, wouldn’t that involve developing on those lands you want to restore?
5/ Upgrade all buildings? Does that include all homes? How is such a thing possible, and will people be put up in hotels while their homes are being upgraded?
6/ Jumpstarting US clean manufacturing? Will private or public funds be poured into that? Also, won’t you also be putting a lot of other people out of work? Look at Ontario or BC to see how those “clean initiatives” have played out.
7/ If this enviro shift will lead to unprecedented levels of prosperity, why is it no private companies have attempted anything like this (even on a small scale)? Aren’t they all greedy capitalists?
8/ About this crumbling infrastructure, will it all be demolished and new ones built, or is it geared towards massive renovations?
9/ What will happen to people who refuse to go along with it?
Any large-scale transformation of society can create the risk of some people slipping through the cracks. That’s why the Green New Deal also calls for an upgrade to the basic economic securities enjoyed by all people in the US to ensure everybody benefits from the newly created wealth. It guarantees to everyone:
-A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
-High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
-High-quality health care
-Clean air and water
-Healthy food
-Safe, affordable, adequate housing
-An economic environment free of monopolies
-Economic security to all who are unable or UNWILLING TO WORK
(my emphasis above). That’s right. It guarantees everyone “unwilling” to work economic security. Not those unable to work, but anyone “unwilling”. This is doomed to fail, since there will be absolutely no incentive to work.
People will figure out very quickly it makes no sense to work and pay taxes for non-workers, when they can just be one of those non-workers, and get money for free. It will kill any incentive to be productive.
“Why is such a large-scale mobilization necessary right now?
A recent IPCC report declared that global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate. This calls for global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions of 40 to 60 percent by 2030. The U.S. contributes 20% of global emissions. To hit these global targets, the US must not only get to a greenhouse gas emissions neutral society by 2030, but it must also lead this change abroad to avert climate catastrophe.”
1/ So it’s not that the world will end in 12 years, but that there “may” be a rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, (which was 1700s)
2/ IPCC has a very lengthy history of making wrong predictions. Does that matter to you?
3/ Also, if greenhouse emissions were such a critical factor, wouldn’t all this industrialization you’re calling for make the problem worse?
4/ Wouldn’t planting a lot more trees take a lot of this impact away? Just hire poor highly-indebted college students.
“How will you pay for the Green New Deal?
The Green New Deal is a massive investment program, not an expenditure. The question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what is the cost of inaction, and what will we do with our new shared prosperity created by the investments in the Green New Deal.
We will finance the investments for the Green New Deal the same way we paid for the original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the rich, and decades of war – with public money appropriated by Congress. Further, government can take an equity stake in Green New Deal projects so the public gets a return on its investment. We already know that investments in infrastructure create huge returns on investment. The interstate highway system returned more than $6 in economic productivity for every $1 it cost. Similarly, investments in upgrading and transforming industry are a chance to grow the wealth of our nation dramatically.”
This completely dodges the question. Leftists tend to refer to all spending as “investments” in order to deflect attention. No responsible government would simply commit to open-ended spending of this sort. The US is already $22 trillion (yes, trillion) in debt. Where would this money come from? And will people be “forced” to pay for and go along with this scheme?
The Huffington Post article echoes that mentality.
“We must give up our obsession with trying to ‘pay for’ everything with new revenue or spending cuts.”
“Will this hurt communities that rely on fossil fuels jobs?
The Green New Deal will prioritize creating high-quality, family wage-supporting union jobs in communities that rely on fossil fuel industries. It will ensure that all communities have a better alternative for high-wage work before they transition away from fossil fuel industry based work.”
This is wishful thinking. Pumping almost endless amounts of money into an open-ended, and largely unquantifiable “World War II” agenda “may” lead to a job boom. But once the borrowed money runs out (hint: it will), it would lead to a regional collapse as those new jobs disappear.
“Is this an environmental plan? Why do you have things like universal health care and other social safety net measures in here?
The Green New Deal is a plan to make a full-scale transition of our economy that puts jobs and justice first. This plan will require a strong social safety net so that every U.S. person can make this transition comfortably and nobody falls through the cracks in the process. If we want to be able to mobilize our economy fully, we can’t afford to have employees stuck in their current jobs because they are afraid to lose health care or workers unable to participate because they can’t afford the education and training programs. We also need to be sure that workers currently employed in fossil fuel industries have higher-wage and better jobs available to them to be able to make this transition, and a federal jobs guarantee ensures that no worker is left behind. We believe that the economic securities and programs for justice and equity laid out in this Green New Deal resolution are a bare minimum of what we need to do to successfully execute the Green New Deal.”
1/ So, this is to dismantle the US economy altogether and replace it with a new one?
2/ We can’t afford to have people stuck in those low paying jobs, yet you are going to shut down entire industries.
3/ Your plan for a new infrastructure involves pumping money in indefinitely. Until these systems are operational, they won’t be running, or able to produce anything else.
4/ This will involve creating a whole separate economy to build up all these new energy efficient systems, and overhauling existing buildings.
5/ Where will all this money come from? Wait, not supposed to ask.
6/ What will happen to transportation when all air travel is phased out?
7/ How does any of this “reduce” carbon emissions?
8/ Can we assume that “going along” with this plan will be voluntary? Or will it be forced?
Okay, now we get to the House Resolution itself, and the introduction of incessant identity politics.
First, here comes the fear mongering, and the costs of doing nothing. Take everything will a grain of salt.
“(3) global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause—
(A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change;
(B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100;
(C) wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019;
(D) a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth;
(E) more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050; and
(F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States; and
(4) global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require—
(A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030; and
(B) net-zero global emissions by 2050;”
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez supports open borders and mass migration. She openly calls to abolish immigration control entirely in the US. So how will mass migration to a high-consumption society “reduce” carbon emissions?
B/ $500B in lost economic output, yet we are not supposed to ask about money when funding this new deal?
C/ A source would be nice.
D/ These are the same scientists who say the north pole would disappear.
E/ 350M more people exposed to heat stress? I thought temperatures were only going to raise 1.5 degrees Celcius?!
F/ A risk to $1 trillion worth of public infrastructure by a temperature raise of 1.5 degrees Celcius? And I thought money was no issue.
4/ “Pre-industrialised periods” means before 1800s.
A/ 40-60% cut? Yet you want to phase out carbon entirely.
B/ Plant more trees. Problem solved.
“Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as “systemic injustices”) by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);”
The references to identity politics are rampant throughout the bill.
“(2) a 4-decade trend of wage stagnation, deindustrialization, and antilabor policies that has led to—
(A) hourly wages overall stagnating since the 1970s despite increased worker productivity;
(B) the third-worst level of socioeconomic mobility in the developed world before the Great Recession;
(C) the erosion of the earning and bargaining power of workers in the United States; and
(D) inadequate resources for public sector workers to confront the challenges of climate change at local, State, and Federal levels; and”
It’s an interesting double standard here. Ocasio-Cortez keeps bringing up wages, finances and economic situations when it comes to getting support for the bill. Yet she continuously avoids financial discussion when it comes for paying for this green new deal. Can’t have it both ways.
“(3) the greatest income inequality since the 1920s, with—
(A) the top 1 percent of earners accruing 91 percent of gains in the first few years of economic recovery after the Great Recession;
(B) a large racial wealth divide amounting to a difference of 20 times more wealth between the average white family and the average black family; and
(C) a gender earnings gap that results in women earning approximately 80 percent as much as men, at the median;”
A/ Having an economic disparity by itself is not evidence of injustice. People who are highly driven tend to far out earn their unproductive counterparts. But remember, you wanted to create a system which paid people a living wage for refusing to work.
B/ Is this an apples-to-oranges comparison? Would Ocasio-Cortez be comparing European living standards to African living standards? Or is she suggesting this gap is all within America?
Remember, the 1% is very small.
So, if an average black family earned $30,000/year, does it mean the average white family earned $600,00/year? That doesn’t add up
C/ The gender pay gap is simply the earnings difference between men and women overall. Women tend to earn less since they take more time off to raise children, and often choose lower paying jobs.
If you could get the same work from a woman as a man, and just pay her less, then wouldn’t there be an incentive to fire all the men and only hire women?
“(3) a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses; and”
Sorry to rain on the parade, but what happens if large segments of these groups DON’T want the deal, and the burdens it imposes on them? Will their will be ignored?
Now, let’s talk about how this will be implemented. Again, the Resolution doesn’t take into account what will happen if people say no.
“(4) to achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects—
(A) providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization;
(B) ensuring that the Federal Government takes into account the complete environmental and social costs and impacts of emissions through—
(i) existing laws;
(ii) new policies and programs; and
(iii) ensuring that frontline and vulnerable communities shall not be adversely affected;
(C) providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization;
(D) making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries;
(E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;
(F) ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level;
(G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;
(H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States;
(I) strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;
(J) strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors;
(K) enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections—
(i) to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and
(ii) to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States;
(L) ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused;
(M) obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples;
(N) ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies; and
(O) providing all people of the United States with—
(i) high-quality health care;
(ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;
(iii) economic security; and
(iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.”
While this may be well intentioned, it is clearly not realistic
A/ Financing is important, but you need to provide “way” more detail on this.
B/ Take the societal impacts into account? Okay. What happens if your own studies say that your program is impractical?
C/ High education to everyone? Government controlled, or free market?
D/ Making investment in research? Okay, but how long will the research take to complete? Remember, this is only a 10 year plan
E/ Directing investments? Great, though again, we need more detail.
F/ Ensuring the democratic process? That “sounds” great, but this can only be achieved by “taking away” people’s rights.
G/ Guaranteed jobs and training?
H/ More guaranteed jobs.
I/ Strengthening their rights, yet this deal can only be achieved by “removing” rights and imposing it.
J/ Strengthening H&S laws? Normally I would be totally on board with this, but it context of everything else, it is chilling what the details will look like.
K/ This may be poor wording, but how does one “transfer pollution”? Also, why would you worry about borders? Don’t you want to abolish ICE?
L/ Protecting public lands? Actually a good one.
M/ Consent from Indigenous Peoples? Okay, will you still go ahead if they say no?
N/ Prevent unfair competition? But don’t you “ensure” it, with this government monopoly?
O/ Guaranteed health care, housing, jobs, necessities
5. Final Thoughts
While this all sounds great, the details (and lack of) are scary. Not only that, the authors seem totally unaware of how self-contradictory the GND is.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly RELIES ON financial incentives to sell the program, yet AVOIDS any talk of how this will be paid for.
Further she talks about GIVING rights and discretions to groups and how they run their lives, yet implementing this will require TAKING rights away.
The deal mentions EQUALITY many times, but entire sections are devoted to divisive IDENTITY POLITICS and to pandering to specific groups.
The Green New Deal is to PROVIDE new opportunities and entitlements for everyone in America, yet involves SHUTTING DOWN entire sectors of the economy.
All of these promises are made that the social service needs of AMERICANS will be met. However, Ocasio-Cortez promotes OPEN BORDERS IMMIGRATION, which would see those services overrun.
For this deal to be implemented in any real form, any and all rights of citizens (to oppose) it would need to be taken away, and the deal imposed by force. Even then, it would bankrupt the USA long before it ever became reality.
CLICK HERE, for the UN page on gender equality. CLICK HERE, for women’s human rights. CLICK HERE, for about UN women. CLICK HERE, for goal #5 of sustainable development. CLICK HERE, for guiding principles of UN women’s advisory, civil society groups. CLICK HERE, for the Commission on the Status of Women. CLICK HERE, for Canada’s GBA+ (Gender Based Analysis Plus) CLICK HERE, for declaration of women’s rights. CLICK HERE, for the 1995 Beijing Declaration for Women. CLICK HERE, for the 2017 system-strategy for gender parity. CLICK HERE, for gender-inclusive language CLICK HERE, for guidelines for gender inclusive language. CLICK HERE, for tools & training for gender inclusive language.
2. Review Of Subject
One thing to point out right away. There are topics here that make Western feminism seem ridiculous. Legal rights for women, and banning FGM are significant issues to deal with in the 3rd world. So kudos to the UN for pointing that out.
Another thing to note is it is a legitimate question if the UN writes policies for the Canadian Government to implement. Trudeau goes on and on and on about women’s equality in Canada, even in Cabinet. Canada has full equality for women, and has for generations. Yet, we are told daily there is systemic discrimination.
Regarding the “gender-inclusive language”, there are far more important issues to deal with. However, there are recent examples of cuck-splaining, and mangling the National Anthem.
On Main Page
Unfortunately, there is still a long way to go to achieve full equality of rights and opportunities between men and women, warns UN Women. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to end the multiple forms of gender violence and secure equal access to quality education and health, economic resources and participation in political life for both women and girls and men and boys. It is also essential to achieve equal opportunities in access to employment and to positions of leadership and decision-making at all levels.
I would actually agree with this. Women “should” have equal rights and protection across the globe. However, all of this other nonsense, like GBA+ and “inclusive language” get added in as well. Makes the entire idea of women’s equality seem silly by comparison.
Dates of Importance
1/ February 6, the International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation is observed,
2/ February 11 is the International Day of Women and Girls in Science,
3/ March 8 is International Women’s Day,
4/ June 19 is the International Day for the Elimination of Sexual Violence in Conflict,
5/ June 23 is International Widows’ Day,
6/ October 11 is the International Day of the Girl Child and on
7/ October 15 the International Day of Rural Women is observed.
8/ November 25 is International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women
8 dates specifically to women? That seems excessive. That level of pandering would make almost any SJW/NPC blush.
Gender Based Analysis Plus (GBA+)
What is GBA+?
GBA+ is an analytical process used to assess how diverse groups of women, men and non-binary people may experience policies, programs and initiatives. The “plus” in GBA+ acknowledges that GBA goes beyond biological (sex) and socio-cultural (gender) differences. We all have multiple identity factors that intersect to make us who we are; GBA+ also considers many other identity factors, like race, ethnicity, religion, age, and mental or physical disability.
For more information about identity factors go to Government of Canada’s Approach, or take the Introduction to GBA+ online course.
GBA+ and gender equality
In 1995, the Government of Canada committed to using GBA+ to advance gender equality in Canada, as part of the ratification of the United Nations’ Beijing Platform for Action.
Gender equality is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the Constitution of Canada. Gender equality means that diverse groups of women, men and non-binary people are able to participate fully in all spheres of Canadian life, contributing to an inclusive and democratic society.
The Government recently renewed its commitment to GBA+ and is working to strengthen its implementation across all federal departments.
To learn more about the Government’s renewed commitment, including its response to the 2015 Report of the Auditor General of Canada “Implementing Gender-based Analysis”, view the:
While in the developing world, these things “may” (I emphasise “may”) be helpful in some sense, they are useless in the 1st World, where women have had equal protection for years. About the only purposes may be:
1/ Creating affirmative action programs
2/ Shaming and controlling men
Toolbox for using gender-inclusive language in English
The Toolbox for using gender-inclusive language in English is a set of training materials, activities and resources for individuals or groups looking for ways to raise awareness of the subject, better understand how to apply the Guidelines and/or promote further discussions in their teams.
The materials, activities and resources included in the Toolbox can be used independently from one another. The goal is to encourage United Nations staff to actively use gender-inclusive language principles in English and share best practices with other colleagues in the workplace. Each tool provides step-by-step guidance that includes clear goals, relevant resources and suggestions on the next steps.
New resources and training programmes in the six languages will be included in the Toolbox as they become available.
Not only are there calls in Canada for the “gender inclusive language” but the UN provides fairly extensive training in using this language, and does so unironically.
Being “inclusive” in addressing someone
1.1 Forms of address
When referring to or addressing specific individuals, use forms of address and pronouns that are consistent with their gender identity.
For United Nations staff members, you may check the intranet or the organizational or staff directory. If the staff member appears as “Ms.”, that is the form of address that should be used for her, and female pronouns are appropriate. Alternatively, and if the situation permits, you may ask the persons you are addressing or writing about what pronoun and form of address should be used for them.
Note for United Nations staff members who draft texts to be translated: If you are the author of a text that is going to be translated, and your text is referring to a specific person, please let translators know what the gender of that person is so they can use appropriate language in their translations. This is crucial for languages such as Arabic, French, Russian and Spanish.
There should also be consistency in the way women and men are referred to: if one of them is addressed by their name, last name, courtesy title, or profession, the other one should be as well.
Not to be outdone, underneath this, the UN provides many examples and scenarios what is “more inclusive” and what is “less inclusive”. This is extremely passive aggressive and controlling.
These ideas infiltrate the current federal government in everything that they talk about and implement. This is too long to cover full, but do check out the links and read for yourselves.
A final thought: while there are legitimate issues of equality and safety of women in the 3rd World, the UN seems to gloss over them in favour of the endless virtue signalling the 1st World engages in.
Challenge
The UN writes the Liberals’ gender policies.
Change my mind.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK SOUGHT CLICK HERE, the mandate for developing a legally binding framework (2004) You suckers thought this was “voluntary”? CLICK HERE, for the “non-legally binding” legal framework.
The United Nations wants to globally regulate forests as well.
What “don’t” they want to regulate?
What areas of nationhood “don’t” they want to control?
International Arrangement on Forests
The International Arrangement on Forests (IAF) has five main components: the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF) and its Member States, the UNFF Secretariat, the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF), the UNFF Global Forest Financing Facilitation Network (GFFFN), and the UNFF Trust Fund.
Some of the key objectives of the IAF include:
1/ Promoting implementation of sustainable forest management (SFM), in particular the implementation of the UN Forest Instrument;
2/ Enhancing the contribution of forests to the post-2015 development agenda;
3/ Enhancing cooperation, coordination, coherence and synergies on forest-related issues;
4/ Fostering international cooperation, public-private partnerships and cross-sectoral cooperation;
5/ Strengthening forest governance frameworks and means of implementation;
6/ Strengthening long-term political commitment towards the achievement of SFM;
7/ Enhancing coherence, cooperation and synergies with other forest-related agreements, processes and initiatives
Note: It is worth pointing out that many of these UN initiatives have very detailed, lofty goals. However, when it comes to “implementation details”, they get very fuzzy.
Does the UN not know how they will implement their agendas? Would they just rather not say? Are they worried about the consequences of posting “written evidence” on their website?
What about the policy document?
Name
The name of the partnership is the Collaborative Partnership on Forest, hereinafter referred to as the CPF or the Partnership.
Mission
The mission of the CPF is to help enhance the contribution of all types of forests and trees outside forests to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and other internationally agreed development goals, promote the sustainable management of all types of forests and to strengthen long-term political commitment to that end.
Functions
The core functions of the CPF are to: support the work of UNFF and its member countries; provide scientific and technical advice to the Forum and governing bodies of other CPF members, at their request; enhance coherence, cooperation as well as policy and programme coordination at all levels, including through joint programming and the submission of coordinated proposals to members’ governing bodies, consistent with their mandates; promote the implementation of the UN Forest Instrument and the United Nations Strategic Plan for Forests as well as the contribution of forests and trees to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and other major forest-related agreements.
Membership
The Collaborative Partnership on Forests currently consists of fourteen international organizations, institutions and secretariats (hereafter referred to as CPF members), that have substantial programmes on forests. Members have considerable capacity to deliver on CPF’s core functions. It is widely recognized that no single body or organization has the capacity or mandate to respond to the multiple demands of forests in a comprehensive manner. Collectively, CPF members, building on their comparative advantages, support the implementation of sustainable forest management worldwide.
The Partnership may periodically review its composition vis a vis its evolving mandate and decide on changes in its membership or establish temporary arrangements for the involvement of third parties to expand its capacities as needed.
Also Worth A Look, The “Major Groups”
The following Major Groups were identified in Agenda 21:
A/ Business and Industry
B/ Children and Youth
C/ Farmers
D/ Indigenous People
E/ Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs)
F/ Local Authorities
G/ Scientific and Technological Community
H/ Women
I/ Workers and Trade Unions
Again, all part of Agenda 21
(a) Business & Industry — this is to be expected, but more information would be nice on their role and expected compensation
(b) Children & Youth — Will there be child labour, or are children expected to specifically benefit?
(c) Farmers — Need more information
(d) Indigenous people — Need more information
(e) NGOs — this is perhaps the most interesting, since NGOs are notorious for flouting national law (think the human smugglers into Europe)
(f) Local authorities — to be expected
(g) Scientific community — the same ones pushing the climate change scam?
(h) Women — So, gender quotas?
(i) Workers & trade unions — Won’t that be a new form of take over?
While this all sounds great, some questions need to be asked:
1/ Will this “forest management” be happening in all countries?
2/ How will the funding be provided? (Specifically, with details)
3/ Who will oversee this?
4/ What if a national government decides participation is against its own interests?
5/ Will blocs of nations be able to “outvote” others?
This has been going on for decades, yet this is the first I am hearing about it?!?!
Global citizenship education
While the world may be increasingly interconnected, human rights violations, inequality and poverty still threaten peace and sustainability.
Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is UNESCO’s response to these challenges. It works by empowering learners of all ages to understand that these are global, not local issues and to become active promoters of more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, secure and sustainable societies.
GCED is a strategic area of UNESCO’s Education Sector programme and builds on the work of Peace and Human Rights Education. It aims to instil in learners the values, attitudes and behaviours that support responsible global citizenship: creativity, innovation, and commitment to peace, human rights and sustainable development.
UNESCO’s work in this area is grounded in its own Constitution which aims to ‘build peace in the minds of men and women,’ the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Education 2030 Agenda and Framework for Action, notably Target 4.7 of the Sustainable Development Agenda, the Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1974), and the World Programme for Human Rights Education
(link is external)
(2005-ongoing).
Under the GCED umbrella, UNESCO has several special themes: Preventing violent extremism through education, Education about the Holocaust and genocide, Languages in education and the promotion of the rule of law through global citizenship education
UNESCO collaborates with an extensive global network to disseminate GCED including its own Category 1 institutes, other UN agencies and inter-governmental organizations, including regional organizations, most notably: the UNESCO Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable Development (MGIEP), the International Institute for Capacity Building in Africa (IICBA), the UNESCO Institute for Statistic (UIS), the Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding (APCIEU), the UNESCO Associated Schools Project Network (ASPNet) and UNITWIN/UNESCO Chairs.
3. UNESCO Tramples on Provincial/State Jurisdiction For Education
Sections 91/92/93 of Canadian Constitution lay out areas of jurisdiction
Education
Marginal note:
Legislation respecting Education
93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:
.
(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union;
.
(2) All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen’s Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen’s Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec;
.
(3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen’s Subjects in relation to Education;
.
(4) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far only as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section.
10th Amendment stresses the States’ rights
>Amendment 10
– Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
UNESCO’s “Human Rights” Push Violates Prov/State Rules Section 91(13) Property and Civil Rights in the Province — clearly Provincial matter
Likewise in the US, human rights/civil rights are decided at the “State” level.
UN Obsession With Immigration Intrudes Prov/State Rights
(Note: This is somewhat off topic, but worth mentioning)
Section 95 of Canadian Constitution
Concurrent Powers of Legislation respecting Agriculture, etc.
95. In each Province the Legislature may make Laws in relation to Agriculture in the Province, and to Immigration into the Province; and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of Canada may from Time to Time make Laws in relation to Agriculture in all or any of the Provinces, and to Immigration into all or any of the Provinces; and any Law of the Legislature of a Province relative to Agriculture or to Immigration shall have effect in and for the Province as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada<.p>
CLICK HERE, for an immigration article State v Federal rights:
Jurisdiction and the Supremacy Clause
The federal government’s jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.
However, many states have passed legislation that limits undocumented immigrants’ access to public benefits, directs state and local police to check the legal residence status of arrestees and other directives that affect immigrants. Lawmakers pressing for immigration-related state laws typically cite a lack of federal enforcement and the need to conserve limited state resources, while some cite security concerns.
But are such state laws constitutional? While state lawmakers have articulated a genuine interest in limiting illegal immigration, there is no clear line in the sand. See State Immigration Laws for a regularly updated, state-by-state directory.
Immigration Laws at the State Level
Perhaps the most notorious state attempt at regulating immigration is Arizona’s S.B. 1070, signed into law in 2010. The U.S. Dept. of Justice (DOJ) stated in a brief that Arizona lawmakers “crossed a constitutional line” with the new law. A federal judge blocked four of the most controversial elements, including the requirement that police check the immigration status of anyone they stop or suspect is in the state illegally.
Other states have passed laws with similar police directives, including Oklahoma and Utah. In addition to enforcement measures, many of the state laws addressing immigration mandate the use of E-Verify to check the employment eligibility of job applicants; require identification for voting purposes and impose restrictions on public benefits, such as food stamps and non-emergency medical care at state clinics.
Lawmakers in Arizona and Indiana directly challenged the 14th Amendment’s provision granting automatic citizenship to those born on U.S. soil, proposing legislation that would do just that. Proponents of such laws argue that the amendment’s interpretation should be narrowed to exclude children who are born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants, positioning their controversial bills for eventual review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Note: Both in Canada and the US, immigration is generally seen as a Federal matter, though Provinces/States do have some wiggle room.
Since the UN views itself as a “global citizen education” provider, it should come as no surprise that it is creeping towards having a common education curriculum.
Local and regional control is incrementally being phased out.
National pride is being replaced by global acceptance.
UN Leading To Death Of Nations Put all this in a bigger context:
Global citizens, with global values, a global education, and global “rights”;
Cultures, customs, traditions replaced by “tolerance”
Borders replaced by “integrated mechanisms”
Facilitated by global agreement for free migration;
A global ban on criticizing “religions” like Islam;
Global access to internet, but governed by the UN;
Endless EDA initiatives like Agenda 21, 2030, Paris Accord;
Governed by a world parliament
Please read this policy idea, first posted on Canucklaw over 3 months ago. You will very likely agree with the conclusion.
CLICK HERE, for a March 2008 meeting. CLICK HERE, for an April 2009 press briefing. CLICK HERE, for a 2009 statement, States obliged to promote religious tolerance. CLICK HERE, for World Interfaith Harmony Week, February 2010. CLICK HERE, for a 2010 call for “minority rights”. CLICK HERE for UN Assistance in Afghanistan meeting in 2012. CLICK HERE, for a 2012 address from the Turkish Foreign Minister CLICK HERE, for a 2014 Iranian statement to the UN. CLICK HERE, for a whitewashing of Islam, October 2014. CLICK HERE, for a gripe-fest about Islamophobia, August 2017. CLICK HERE, for Iqra Khalid, Pakistani Muslim, and Liberal MP.
2. Iqra Khalid’s Blasphemy Motion
Text of the Motion
.
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
Now, this seems harmless enough. After all, it is “non-binding”.
However, efforts are being made regularly, particularly in the United Nations to ban criticism of Islam globally.
Don’t believe me? Check out the links above, and read the quotes below.
“…Noting the Declaration adopted by the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers at its thirty-fourth session in Islamabad, in May 2007, which condemned the growing trend of Islamophobia and systematic discrimination against the adherents of Islam and emphasized the need to take effective measures to combat defamation of religions,
Noting also the final communiqué adopted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference at its eleventh summit, in Dakar, in March 2008, in which the Organization expressed concern at the systematically negative stereotyping of Muslims and Islam and other divine religions, and denounced the overall rise in intolerance and discrimination against Muslim minorities, which constitute an affront to human dignity and run counter to the international human rights instruments,
2. Also expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations and emphasizes that equating any religion with terrorism should be rejected and combated by all at all levels;
3. Further expresses deep concern at the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;
6. Expresses concern at laws or administrative measures that have been specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination that they experience;
9. Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;
10. Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt is an essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
15. Invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to continue to report on all manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights to the Council at its ninth session;”
Note: Although “non-binding”, this vote succeeded, 21-10.
This is filled with references to Islam being victimised. Again, and again, systematic oppression and discrimination is blamed.
However, there is mention of the intolerance and violence “caused” by Islam and muslims against “Kafirs”. Indeed, there seems to be endless mistreatment, but it is only aimed in one direction.
Although there have been many votes and motions over the years to ban criticism of Islam in the West, they have (for now) failed to pass a binding resolution due to free speech concerns.
4. What Does Turkey Think?
“…He underlined that the recent attacks against the Prophet Muhammad and against Islam were outright provocations that aimed to pit nations and peoples against each other. Turkey condemned all sorts of incitement to hatred and religious discrimination against Muslims and peoples of other faiths. Unfortunately, Islamophobia had become a new form of racism, like anti-Semitism, and it could no longer be tolerated “under the guise of freedom of expression”. Freedom did not mean anarchy, he stressed in that respect; instead, it meant responsibility. At the same time, he condemned the provocation and violence that followed, saying it “cannot be justified under any pretext”. Because of the alarming increase in the number of acts that defame religions, he believed the time had come to establish the denigration of all religions and their followers as a hate crime. He called for a universal policy and legal instrument that, while protecting free expression, should also ensure respect for religion and prevent intentional insults against faiths. “The solution should not be arbitrary,” he added, calling on the United Nations, in particular, to lead that effort and provide the international legal framework.”
1/ Islamophobia is apparently racism. Islam is a race?
2/ Freedom means responsibility (aka censorship)
3/ People wanting free speech are responsible for the violence that ensues?
4/ Calls to prevent insults (aka hurt feelings)
5/ UN should set the legal framework?!?!
Going through the UN archives, there are almost endless reports and meetings of Muslims claiming to be victims and demanding that their ways be respected. Noticeably absent, is anything that says Muslims must respect “other people’s” ways.
A global ban on blasphemy (criticizing Islam) is coming. It is just a matter of time.
