Abuse of S3CA & Coming To Canada Under False Pretenses


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 previous article on the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement (signed in 2002)

OTHER CASES WORTH SEEING


(1) CLICK HERE, for a marriage of convenience.
Liang v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2014 CanLII 90636 (CA IRB)

(2) CLICK HERE, for committing identity fraud in order to gain entry to Canada.
Shaikh v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 CanLII 89040 (CA IRB)

(3) CLICK HERE, for an actual terrorist wanting to stay in Canada.
Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1997 CanLII 5893 (FC)

(4) CLICK HERE, for a failed US asylum seeker, relying on falsified psychological documents.
X (Re), 2016 CanLII 152912 (CA IRB)

(5) CLICK HERE, for a failed US asylum seeker changing his story this time.
X (Re), 2013 CanLII 99499 (CA IRB)

(6) CLICK HERE, for an Indian man claiming to be from Tibet to gain asylum (Mariam Monself, take note).
X (Re), 2014 CanLII 100882 (CA IRB)

(7) CLICK HERE, for a “refugee” who lived illegally in the US for 14 years, then trying to claim asylum in Canada
X (Re), 2015 CanLII 44019 (CA IRB)

(8) CLICK HERE, for a wanted fugitive from China trying to get asylum in Canada.
X (Re), 2015 CanLII 107837 (CA IRB)

These 8 cases are just a small sample of the tidal wave of fraudulent “refugee” claims that have been made over the last several years. Although many get rejected, many still get through. This happens even when adjudicators admit that applicants have been deceptive.

UN PROMOTES ABUSE OF S3CA


CLICK HERE, for the UN link.

Exceptions to the Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada

The U.S. and Canada have an agreement preventing people who first enter one country from applying for asylum or refugee status in the other. This means that if you entered the U.S. first and then try to apply for asylum in Canada, you may not be able to. However, there are exceptions to the agreement that may allow you to apply for asylum in Canada, even if you came to the U.S. first. For one thing, this agreement only applies to you if you are planning on arriving at entry ports on the U.S.-Canada land border. It does not apply if you plan on arriving in Canada at air or marine ports.

The following questions will determine whether you meet any of the exceptions that will allow you to apply for asylum in Canada at a U.S.-Canada land border even if you arrived in the U.S. first.

EXCEPTION # 1 Land Border Entry Ports Only

Are you going to arrive in Canada from a land border?

NO ==> You qualify under this exception!

YES ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

EXCEPTION # 2 Family Connections in Canada

Do you have any of the following family members in Canada?

  • A spouse
  • A common-law partner (a common law partner is person of the same or opposite sex with whom you are cohabiting in a conjugal relationship and have cohabited for at least a year.)
  • A legal guardian
  • A child
  • A father or mother
  • A brother or sister
  • A grandfather or grandmother
  • A grandchild
  • An uncle or aunt
  • A nephew or niece

NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

YES ==> Is your family member any of the following?

  • A Canadian citizen
  • A permanent resident
  • A protected person (i.e. determined to be a refugee or a person in need of protection)
  • Accepted in principle on humanitarian and compassionate grounds (removal order stayed under Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations 233)
  • 18 years of age or over and is a refugee claimant (and the claim has not been rejected, withdrawn, found abandoned or ineligible)
  • 18 years of age or over and is in Canada on a work permit or study permit (but check the exceptions)
  • YES ==> You qualify under this exception!
    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 3 Unaccompanied Minor
    Are you under 18?
    NO ==> You do not qualify under the unaccompanied minor exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.
    YES ==> Were you accompanied here by your father, mother, or legal guardian? Are you married? Is your father, mother, or legal guardian in Canada or the United States?

    If NO to all these questions ==> You qualify under this exception!
    If YES to any of these questions ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 4 Countries to which Canada Does Not Remove

    Are you a national of any of the following countries?

    • Afghanistan
    • Burundi
    • Democratic Republic of Congo
    • Haiti
    • Iraq
    • Liberia
    • Rwanda
    • Zimbabwe

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    YES ==> Have you been convicted of any crimes?

    NO ==> You qualify under this exception!

    YES ==> You may not qualify under this exception. Canada does not admit people who have been convicted of certain crimes. Whether you qualify under this exception depends on the type of crime(s) you were convicted of.

    EXCEPTION # 5 Death Penalty

    Have you been charged or convicted of an offence punishable with the death penalty in the country?

    YES ==> You MAY qualify under this exception. Canada does not admit people who have been convicted of certain crimes. Whether you qualify under this exception depends on the type of crime(s) you were convicted of.

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 6 Valid Visa Exception

    Do you have a valid visa to enter Canada, other than a transit visa?

    YES ==> You qualify under this exception!

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 7 Visa Required in U.S. But Not in Canada

    Are you a national of any of the following countries?

    • Antigua and Barbuda
    • Barbados
    • Botswana
    • Cyprus
    • Greece
    • Malta
    • Mexico
    • Namibia
    • Papua New Guinea
    • Republic of (South) Korea
    • St. Kitts and Nevis
    • St. Lucia
    • St. Vincent
    • Solomon Islands
    • Swaziland
    • Western Samoa

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    YES ==> You qualify under this exception!

    FROM CANADIAN WEBSITE


    CLICK HERE, for Canadian Government website.

    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.

    Exceptions to the Agreement
    Exceptions to the Agreement consider the importance of family unity, the best interests of children and the public interest.
    There are four types of exceptions:

    1. Family member exceptions
    2. Unaccompanied minors exception
    3. Document holder exceptions
    4. Public interest exceptions

    Even if they qualify for one of these exceptions, refugee claimants must still meet all other eligibility criteria of Canada’s immigration legislation. For example, if a person seeking refugee protection has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, that person will not be eligible to make a refugee claim.

    Family member exceptions
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they have a family member who:

    • is a Canadian citizen
    • is a permanent resident of Canada
    • is a protected person under Canadian immigration legislation
    • has made a claim for refugee status in Canada that has been accepted by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB)
    • has had his or her removal order stayed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds
    • holds a valid Canadian work permit
    • holds a valid Canadian study permit, or
    • is over 18 years old and has a claim for refugee protection that has been referred to the IRB for determination. (This claim must not have been withdrawn by the family member, declared abandoned or rejected by the IRB or found ineligible for referral to the IRB.)

    Unaccompanied minors exception
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they are minors (under the age of 18) who:
    are not accompanied by their mother, father or legal guardian
    have neither a spouse nor a common-law partner, and
    do not have a mother, a father or a legal guardian in Canada or the United States.

    Document holder exceptions
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they:
    hold a valid Canadian visa (other than a transit visa)
    hold a valid work permit
    hold a valid study permit
    hold a travel document (for permanent residents or refugees) or other valid admission document issued by Canada, or
    are not required (exempt) to get a temporary resident visa to enter Canada but require a U.S.–issued visa to enter the U.S.

    Public interest exceptions
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if:
    they have been charged with or convicted of an offence that could subject them to the death penalty in the U.S. or in a third country. However, a refugee claimant is ineligible if he or she has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, or if the Minister finds the person to be a danger to the public.

    Making a refugee claim under the Safe Third Country Agreement
    For detailed information on making a refugee claim for protection in Canada at the Canada–U.S. border, please refer to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).

    There are so many exemptions in this agreement that it’s difficult to find someone who “doesn’t” qualify on one or more grounds.

    CANADA ADMITS US IS A SAFE COUNTRY

    Factor 3: Human rights record of the United States
    The United States meets a high standard with respect to the protection of human rights. It is an open democracy with independent courts, separation of powers and constitutional guarantees of essential human rights and fundamental freedoms.

    Factor 4: Whether the United States is party to an agreement with Canada for the purpose of sharing responsibility with respect to claims for refugee protection

    The Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States was signed on December 5, 2002, came into force on December 29, 2004, and remains in force.

    The US is a safe country. That “should” end the discussion on fake refugees coming here.

    After all, simply being in the country illegally isn’t a defense.

    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.

    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.

    Public Policy Ideas #3: Canada Should Dump Multiculturalism and Feminism Althogether

    (Putin: “We are a multi-ethnic country, but one civilization.”)

    (Samantha Brick, possibly the UK’s dumbest feminist)

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

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

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

    If Canada wants to move forward as a strong, unified country, here are 2 related ideas:

    (1) Get rid of multiculturalism
    (2) Get rid of feminism

    Multiculturalism does not work.
    It never has, and never will.

    Seehere, the Multiculturalism Act.

    ”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.”

    What this act does it promote, in fact legislate, that there are to be multiple societies within Canada. People are not expected to adopt a Canadian identity, but instead, Canada is expected to accept and promote other identities. Nonsense.

    (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;

    That is right, we don’t want to have any sort of ”national” heritage. Rather, apparently we prefer to
    have the country made up of individual cultural heritages. Not that it will lead to balkanization or anything.

    (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;

    Again, reinforcing the idea that Canada is to have no unique identity, but to be a ”stew” of other identities.

    (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

    This statement actually contradicts itself. If you are preserving and enhancing languages other than English and French, then logically, they are beginning to replace English and French.

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

    This statement also contradicts itself. If you are advancing other cultures (whose main languages are not English or French), then you are promoting those other languages at the expense of English and French. Further, multiculturalism does not lead to harmony, but to division and segregation.

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

    (A) If a culture views women as 2nd class citizens? Do we embrace it?
    (B) If a culture tolerates honour killings, do we respect it?
    (C) If a culture traditionalises animal cruelty, do we celebrate it?
    (D) If a culture views child marriages as tradition, do we allow it?
    (E) If a culture allows cousin marriages/inbreeding, keeps the family ties, do we accept it?
    (F) If a culture promotes killing of gays, do we celebrate it?
    (G) if a culture calls for violence towards outsiders, do we turn the other cheek?

    Under the multiculturalism act, yes, differences should be celebrated.

    Interestingly, Quebec takes a different stand. They protect their French language, and they protect their French culture. However, multiculturalism and billigualism are forced on the rest of Canada, by Quebec, under a constitution Quebec never signed.

    Further, this obsession with having no cohesive or unifying identity is also codified in the Canadian Charter.


    Multicultural heritage
    27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

    This article, was originally going to be included, but now is a separate piece. An extreme example of how promoting culture really misses the big picture.

    This is not to say that people of different races cannot live together. That is possible. However, different cultures cannot co-exist. Vastly different social structures in a given area either leads to parallel societies, or it leads to segregation and balkanization. Both are harmful to a nation. Here is an idea brought up in earlier articles.

    CIVIC NATIONALISM: People joined by abstract ideas such as laws, values, freedom, equality, and justice.

    ETHNO NATIONALISM: People joined by identity such as race, ethnicity, culture, tradition, customs, spoken/written language, heritage, religion, spirituality.

    Having common values and laws (civic nationalism) is important, but alone it is insufficient. There has to be something that actually unites the people. While this is not a call for any racial supremacy, there has to be some commonality (ethno nationalism) to make the society cohesive. While people understandably have different standards, here is one

    (a) People in a society need to speak a common language.
    (b) People in a society need to have a common culture.

    If we have these 2 items, a society will function, although, the more devout would argue that there would need to be a third unifier:

    (c) People in a society need to have a common faith.

    Hate Crime Laws Divide By Identity

    This will be the topic of a separate article. But here are the hate crime laws on the books in Canada.


    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.

    Marginal note:Defences

    (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

    (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

    (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

    (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

    (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

    While this seems harmless enough, will legislation such as M-103 (Islamic Blasphemy) or C-16 (Compelled Speech for Gender Pronouns) do an end run around these terms?

    Also, a quick glance at Provincial Human Rights Code (such as British Columbia, shows that it is all about dividing by identity.

    Feminism is Destructive
    Also, one can make a very strong case that FEMINISM is also harmful to society. Of course, we are decades past the point where it is about fighting for equality (1st wave), and we are past the point of so-called ”reproductive equality” (2nd wave).

    It is no longer about equality with men, but rather, supremacy over men, (3rd wave). Feminism no longer subscribes to be about an sort of cohesion, but that of privilege and domination.

    This ”equality of outcome”, or affirmative action, is even enshrined in Part 15(2) of the Canadian Charter


    Equality Rights
    Marginal note:Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
    15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

    Marginal note:Affirmative action programs
    (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

    In short feminism allows women to demand to be on a level playing field with men, but still demand special treatment if the outcomes are not what they want.

    Here is an extreme case of feminist thinking gone wrong:

    The Article Samantha Brick, April 7, 2009
    Normally the Daily Mail is not the best source, but this article was too great to pass up. Here are some quotes (in bold) and comments below:

    “Over in one corner sat Alice, a strong-minded 27-year-old who always said what she thought, regardless of how much it might hurt someone else. In the other corner was Sarah, a thirtysomething high-flier who would stand up for herself momentarily – then burst into tears and run for the ladies.

    Their simmering fight lasted hours, egged on by spectators taking sides and fuelling the anger. Sometimes other girls would join in, either heckling aggressively or huddling defensively in the toilets. It might sound like a scene from a tawdry reality show such as Big Brother, but the truth is a little more prosaic: it was just a normal morning in my office.

    The venomous women were supposedly the talented employees I had headhunted to achieve my utopian dream – a female- only company with happy, harmonious workers benefiting from an absence of men.”

    Admittedly this intro is catchy, but one would get the impression that Samantha Brick had absolutely no clue about how women interact in groups. Did she not grow up with them?

    “It was an idealistic vision swiftly shattered by the nightmare reality: constant bitchiness, surging hormones, unchecked emotion, attention-seeking and fashion rivalry so fierce it tore my staff apart.”

    The author will go on to elaborate at great length on these details. But the obvious question remains: why keep these women employed if they are this destructive? Remember, you did mortgage your home to get this building going.

    “Working in TV is notoriously difficult for women. There is a powerful old boys’ network, robust glass ceiling and the majority of bosses are misogynistic males.

    Gradually, what had started out as a daydream – wouldn’t it be great if there were no men where I worked? – turned into an exciting concept. I decided to create the first all-female production company where smart, intelligent, career-orientated women could work harmoniously, free from the bravado of the opposite sex.”

    Again, from reading this, you would think that Samantha had absolutely no clue how women interact in groups. She also seems to buy the notion that men only succeed because they are men (sexism and patriarchy). Perhaps men on average achieve more because they don’t create drama, complete with: constant bitchiness; surging hormones; unchecked emotion; attention-seeking; and fashion rivalry. Am just quoting the author’s description here.

    “In hindsight, I should have learned the lessons of my past – at my mixed secondary school I was bullied by a gang of nasty, name-calling girls, so I knew only too well how nasty groups of women could become.”

    Now we get to the heart of it. Samantha Brick knew full well how women can be in groups, then decided to launch this all-female project anyway, using her mortgaged home as collateral.

    “I hired a team of seven staff and set up an office in Richmond upon Thames, Surrey. While the women I interviewed claimed to be enthused by the idea, they still insisted on high salaries. Fair enough, I thought at the time – they are professionals, and I knew most of them were talented and conscientious because I’d worked with them before.

    But within a week, two cliques had developed: those who had worked together before and those who were producing ‘new ideas’.

    Most days would bring a pointed moment when some people were invited out for lunch or a coffee break – and some weren’t. Nothing explicit was ever said; the cutting rejection was obvious enough.

    Even when we all went to the pub after work, strict divisions remained, made clear according to who sat where around the table and who would be civil – or not – to whom.

    Fashion was a great divider, though in this battlefield everyone was on their own. Hideously stereotypical and shallow as it sounds, clothes were a huge source of catty comments, from sly remarks about people looking over-dressed to the merits of their fake tan application.

    I always felt sorry for anyone who naively showed off a new purchase in the office, because everyone would coo appreciatively to their face – then harshly criticise them as soon as they were out of earshot. This happened without exception.”

    Someone less idealistic who had their personal wealth (and home) tied up in this venture would have started looking to replace these women after a week or two. It is not worth dragging down a company, and these women are clearly too petty to be productive.

    “My deputy, Sarah, the general manager, first showed how much style mattered when she advertised for an office assistant and refused to hire the best-qualified girl because she could not distinguish Missoni from Marc Jacobs. This girl would have been making tea and running errands. But I didn’t challenge the decision not to hire her because I had a policy of picking my battles carefully.”

    Had that been me, Sarah would have been let go that day. A manager who refuses to hire good talent for such a trivial reason is not someone who should be a manager. However, Samantha doesn’t see that she shows the same flaw: not dismissing a poor manager because she wants to ”pick her battles”.

    “Employees considered it acceptable to take time off for beauty treatments – and not out of their holiday allowance. One girl regularly came in late because she was getting her hair coloured, and when I mentioned this she blew up in outrage. Though at least she had a reason; most just turned up late regardless, and huffed ‘That’s the time my train gets in’ if I pointed at the clock.

    In hindsight, I can see I should have been more strict. My idealism was my downfall because I tried to see the best in people – I was convinced they would behave as they were treated, so I treated everyone kindly.”

    At least Samantha is taking some responsibility for allowing this to happen. However, a half way decent boss would have let them go a long time ago.

    “Though Sarah, my general manager, was present, she refused to get involved because she didn’t want to be the ‘bad cop’.

    Despite being in charge, she was scared at the prospect of being bitched about – it was as though, in a women-only environment, staff were unable to keep their defined roles.

    Soon, arguments became a daily occurrence. It would start with snide comments between two people then, as others joined in, emotion and anger would grow until an eruption – shouting, screaming, swearing – which always left someone in tears.

    Then the friends of the woman who was upset would follow her to console her, leaving one group in the office and another group in the ladies. Both would then bitch unreservedly about each other – and do absolutely no work.

    It reached the point that I even wrote a handbook for staff on how to be nice to each other. The advice centred on being respectful to everyone and treating people equally – taking phone messages properly whether the call was for me or a junior.”

    Again, Sarah should have been let go. She is clearly not management material.

    Samantha needs to own up for this. If this is becoming a daily pattern, and no work is getting done, I would be getting new staff (and a new manager) lined up right away. Remember, you did re-mortgage your house for this,

    “But the biggest force wasn’t personality type, it was hormones. When one woman started having IVF, she unleashed her rage without warning and without apology.

    At ‘that time of the month’ – which in an office staffed only by women meant someone was always at that point – any bad mood was swiftly passed on to the rest of team as if by osmosis.”

    Still waiting for some justification as to why these women haven’t all been replaced. For all the whining about how men are only on top because of discrimination, Ms. Brick provides example after example of how an all-women workforce causes nothing but problems. These issues do not exist in male-majority places. Hence, there may be a valid reason that there are more men in management.

    While skipped over in this review for expediency, the actual article does provide many more examples of the problems caused by this all-female staff. And remember, the author tells us that they were “very accomplished” women.

    “In this climate, I didn’t dare employ any men because of the distraction and – even worse! – catfights they created. I hate how much that sounds like stereotyping, but I’m afraid it’s what I found to be true.

    And while I stand by my initial reason for excluding male employees – because they have an easy ride in TV – if I were to do it again, I’d definitely employ men. In fact, I’d probably employ only men.”

    And this takes us to the final blow: Samantha Brick has learned absolutely nothing from the experience. She “stands by her reason” for creating an all-women workforce, because men have “an easy ride”. It had nothing to do with the 1/ constant bitchiness; 2/ surging hormones; 3/ unchecked emotion; 4/ attention-seeking and 5/ fashion rivalry so fierce it tore her staff apart. These are the author’s own observations.

    It never seems to dawn on her that perhaps men are having an easier time because these issues don’t come up, or at least nowhere near as often.

    When Ms. Brick refers to this group as “accomplished women” I really have to wonder how detached from reality she is. They seem like 14 year old children.

    Final Thoughts
    Though the article contained several topics, there is one theme that was hopefully clear: unity. We need a society that is strong and cohesive, not something that divides along gender, linguistic, cultural, or other grounds. What we need, as Canadians, is a national identity. Not some mash up of ”whatever” or ”diversity is our strength”, but something that is unabashedly ours.

    Multiculturalism, feminism, (and separate hate crime laws), do nothing to bring us together as a society, but rather make the divide bigger.

    The video of Vladmir Putin and the Samantha Brick article were added to contrast two very different ideas of unity.

    (1) While the Brick case is extreme: it does help to illustrate the point that merit should be the driving factor in employment, school, or any other competition. Affirmative action, quotas, or accepting everything “as diversity” are really bad ideas.

    (2) Vladmir Putin, by comparison, comes across as very reasonable and realistic in this video. Someone who actually puts country ahead of identity, be it racial, gender, or otherwise.

    CPC Endorses Globalism: Canzuk; Birth Tourism; Citizenship for “Refugees”; Islam, UN Migration

    (CPC party convention in Halifax, to partially erase Canadian borders)

    (Canzuk video on its website)


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

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE


    Yes, this is rather late to the punch, but here are some highlights of the CPC, as of August 2018, when the Halifax Policy Convention was held. Quotes are from CPC website.

    (1) Conservatives Endorse “Canzuk”, Open Borders

    <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)

    This organization, seen here, is pushing for open borders between Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. Under the pretext of: “free trade, and free movement of people”, it is pushing for the elimination of barriers.

    Unfortunately, there is scant information available on this organization, but here from the FAQ:

    Is CANZUK International a charity? Is my donation tax-deductible?

    CANZUK International is a nonprofit advocacy organization headquartered in Vancouver, Canada. Under Canadian law, charities are restricted to spending 10% or less of their budget on political advocacy. CANZUK International’s campaign is highly effective because so much of our work involves advocating for policy change. We just couldn’t do the work we do as a charity under the current rules. Your donation is a very powerful contribution to helping achieve free movement, trade and foreign policy cooperation between the CANZUK countries, but unfortunately, it’s not tax-deductible at this time.

    Are you affiliated with any political parties?

    We are strictly a non-partisan organization, but we support individuals who align with our campaign, no matter who they may be affiliated with themselves. We frequently speak with political leaders and their staff to raise awareness of our campaign and seek their support for our proposals. This, in turn, helps develop change in each of the four respective parliaments.

    How does CANZUK International spend public donations?

    100% of CANZUK International’s contributions come from individual donors like you. Our monthly donors, giving an average of $10 a month, form the backbone of our support and help us campaign for freer movement, trade and foreign policy between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

    In 2017, 80% of our donations went to campaigning — this means the resources we need to run highly effective campaigns, publications, meetings, advertisements and action tools for our supporters. The other 20% went to operation and administrative costs, such as website maintenance and domain renewal.

    On the surface, it seems harmless enough, but there are many questions that should be asked, including where specifically their funding comes from.

    Recently, CanuckLaw covered this propaganda piece. The CBC released a piece advocating Canada increase its population to 100 million by the year 2100. It came from a globalist “non-profit” called Century Initiative.

    Interesting, all of these non-profits working to boost immigration and eliminate borders. Almost would think this was a conspiracy.

    (2) Conservatives Support “Birth Tourism”

    The August 2018 Halifax Convention was reported to have passed a resolution to ban “birth tourism”. This is a the practice woman having a child in a foreign country for the sole purpose of it granted automatic citizenship. The child, now a legal citizen, can then sponsor its parents for citizenship. Indeed, that is what was reported by the media.

    But the fact is the CPC didn’t do any such thing. Rather, they passed a non-binding resolution aimed at “ending abuse”, which is something entirely different.

    “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.

    Conservatives recognize there are many Canadians who have been born in Canada by parents who have come here to stay and have contributed greatly to our country. I will not end the core policy that facilitates this. Unlike Justin Trudeau, I will safeguard it against abuse.”

    To make this very clear, the CPC has not actually rejected, or promised to reject or repeal the practice. Rather they will “safeguard it from abuse”. What is abuse? No one is saying, and the http://conservative.ca website does not list policy on it.

    (3) Conservatives Would Give Citizenship to Fake Refugees

    From this link, there is information on refugees.

    “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.”

    At no point does the CPC say they will “deport” those jumping the border and flaunting the immigration rules. Rather, they will “integrate” people better, and come come up with a “better plan” than the Liberals would. Of course, no actual details or plan are listed.

    (4) Conservatives Embrace Islam

    Nothing says “I am Canadian”, quite like the pandering seen here.

    “Tonight, Muslims in Canada and across the world will celebrate Eid al-Adha, also known as the ‘Festival of Sacrifice’ that commemorates the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son.
    “Eid al-Adha marks the end of the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca that is one of the five pillars of Islam. Undertaken by Muslims at least once in their lifetime, it is estimated that over two million Muslim pilgrims travel to Mecca for the Hajj each year.

    “In addition to the religious importance of this holiday, Eid al-Adha is a time for many Muslims to give back to their respective communities and to help the less fortunate. It is also a period where families and friends come together and exchange gifts, share meals, donate to charities, and join one another in prayer.

    Never mind how completely incompatible Islam is with Western society. Never mind the barbaric culture: (a) FGM; (b) Honour killings; (c) Skinning animals alive; (d) Death to infidels/kafirs; (e) Burka/Niqab; (f) Inequality for women; (g) Killing gays; (h) Killing Jews; etc….

    Diversity is our strength! Right …. ?

    (5) Conservatives Won’t Oppose UN Global Migration Compact

    That was covered in this previous article. While they claim to be “studying” the issue, fact is the CPC is not putting up any public resistance to it. Nor do they intend to.

    So called “Shadow Minister” Michelle Rempel talks in circles on the issue (starting at about 4:50 in the video), but never gives a clear answer on it.

    Note: this article was published on November 16, 2018. 4 days later, the CPC flipflopped and now claimed to opposed the UN Global Migration Compact. Might have something to do with THIS BOMBSHELL being spread around.

    (6) Other Globalist Agreements

    1. Agenda 21, signed by Brian Mulroney in June 1992
    2. Agenda 2030, signed by Stephen Harper in September 2015
    3. Paris Accord, supported by Andrew Scheer, despite mandated Carbon tax, June 2017
    4. United Nations selecting refugees for Canada

    These Are “Conservatives”?

    To recap, this party supports:
    (a) Canzuk — free movement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK
    (b) Birth Tourism
    (c) Citizenship for border jumping illegal immigrants
    (d) Pandering to Islam
    (e) UN Global Migration Compact
    (f) Agenda 21, signed June 1992
    (g) Agenda 2030, signed September 2015
    (h) Paris Accord, voted in June 2017
    (i) UN making decisions on refugee choices

    This will seem rather cynical, but how exactly are these people “Conservative”? What does this party actually conserve? This is not conserving a society. This is open borders globalism.

    Voting Eligibility (Part 2) — Identification

    Kudos to Rants Derek for his suggestion to cover this topic. Derek is a Canadian YouTuber, with his own style of humour in creating videos. Go watch his stuff.

    This topic has to do with a fairly straightforward topic: Do you need I.D. to vote? For extra information, here is more information on other countries.

    Canadian:
    There are “options” when it comes to showing I.D., the information is available here.
    (Option 1) Show 3 pieces of I.D.
    (Option 2) 2 pieces of “I.D.” as long as something has your address on it. These “forms” include: library card, utility bill, credit card bill, or a variety of other documents.
    (Option 3) If you don’t meet the “requirements” of Option 2, you can just swear or affirm an oath, and get someone to vouch for you.
    Note: Provinces have their own requirements, this just focuses on Federal elections.

    American:
    Voting requirements appear to be left to the individual states to decide. Definitely a range:
    (Option 1) Strict photo ID – Wisconsin, Kansas, Virginia
    (Option 2) Non-Strict Photo ID — Arizona, North Dakota, Ohio
    (Option 3) Photo ID Requested — Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas
    (Option 4) ID Requested — Washington State, Iowa, Alaska
    (option 5) No Documents at all — California, Nevada, Oregon

    That is correct, in about 1/3 of states, no ID required at all to vote

    British:
    Almost unbelievably, there are no mandatory voter ID laws, although there are pilot projects underway to change that.
    However, that is currently being challenged.

    Australian:
    In Australia, you are asked a few questions prior to voting, but ID isn’t required. Voting is mandatory, but ID is not required. Like the UK, efforts are being made to have a nationwide requirement for voting. And like the UK, that also is being challenged.

    New Zealander:
    Like Australia, voting is mandatory for citizens and permanent residents. However, citizens away for 3+ years, and permanent residents away for 1+ years cannot vote. ID is not necessary, just present you voting card.

    Some Thoughts
    The above list covered 5 English speaking, Common Law countries. It seems a bit unsettling to see that, aside from some U.S. states, ID is not necessary.

    Seems that this type of system is ripe for abuse. If no ID is required, or no photo ID needed, then what is to stop large groups of people from potentially altering elections?

    Critics of photo ID requirements claim that it discriminates against poor and marginalized people, and that there is no documented cases of abuse.

    However, those arguments do not hold water. (1) If people are to be entrusted with voting on the future of a nation, then are we to expect that legal residents cannot get any ID whatsoever? (2) There may be no documented cases of abuse. Though if voters are undocumented, as lefties like to call them, then how would there be any documentation in the first place?

    Clearly, each nation will have their own ways of doing things, but it appears that some safeguard must be put in place to ensure that the integrity of democratic systems is intact.

    Voting Eligibility (Part 1) — Crime & Citizenship


    (Image by WordPress)

    Who is allowed to vote?

    Well, depending on where you go, you will get a very different answer. Do you have to be of good character? Can you currently vote while in prison? Do you even have to be a citizen?

    This topic could fill several books, but this is just a starter piece. The article focuses on 2 main areas: criminality and non-citizenship

    Canada, Criminality:
    The Canada Elections Act of 1985 used to prohibit a person from being able to vote if they are serving a federal sentence (2 years or more). However, that was struck down in 2002. The Crown conceded it violated Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that everyone had the right to vote in elections to govern the country. To be fair though, the dissenting Justices thought that the violations were reasonable. As things stand now, even persons in custody are allowed to vote, and jail officials must make accommodation for them to do so.

    American, Criminality
    The case of Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), held that the 14th Amendment, Section 2, was not violated in barring felons form voting (called felony disenfranchisement). Since then, the 50 states have written their own laws, and they widely vary widely, from Maine, which allows voting while incarcerated, to voting after release, to Idaho and voting after probation ends, to never voting, to Florida requiring a petition.

    Australian, Criminality
    Things are a bit different here. For starters, voting is mandatory. There are arguments both for and against it. In the past, anyone serving a sentence of 1 year or more was unable to vote. As it stands now, only those serving a sentence of at least 3 years cannot vote until the sentence is finished.

    British, Criminality
    The UK is having to revise their policies on letting prisoners and convicts vote, because of the European Court of Human Rights. Originally, they couldn’t, but that is changing. Interestingly, Members of Parliament can keep their seat if they have been sentenced to 1 year or less. So they could hold office, but not vote.

    Much Europe has some restriction of voting rights, such as type of offense, and is the sentence fully served.

    Laws vary widely around the world. However, the main argument against letting cons, or ex-cons vote is that they have violated the social contract with the people, and hence should not be a part of forming its laws.

    Voting by Non-Citizens

    While this list is too extensive to go through, many countries do allow permanent residents to vote if they have lived their for a long enough period.

    Also many cities, such as San Francisco, Toronto, Hamilton, Calgary, Vancouver, allow voting for permanent residents.

    One argument against letting non-citizens vote is that it weakens what it means to be a citizen. What then, distinguishes a citizen from a resident? A second is that the longer time to obtain citizenship is necessary to fully adapt to the new homeland. A third is that it leads to divided loyalty from Members of Parliament/Congress, who will look towards future voters more than current ones. All have some merit.

    A push over the years from leftist politicians has been to let “undocumented immigrants” (a.k.a.) “illegal immigrants” vote in elections, as well as to reduce or eliminate voter identification requirements.

    Note: Women are now allowed to vote in Western countries as well as many others. New Zealand and Australia led the way.

    Author’s Views:
    However, things do, or at least should have a limit.

    (1) There have been many challenges to Voter ID laws, claiming that it discriminates against people who can’t get identification. The usual claim is wither poverty, or that the community lacks these services. Really, a legal citizen, or at least permanent resident can’t get I.D.?! Of course, if they are “undocumented”, that may be why they can’t get “documents”.

    (2)So-called “Sanctuary Cities” are letting illegal immigrants vote which seems bizarre. Why should people in the country illegally be helping to vote in people to draft laws? Seems like a serious conflict of interest here.

    It seems that items (1) and (2) are very much linked. Could objecting to voter I.D. requirements be to enable, or help cover up, illegal immigrants voting? Hard to say, there is no “documentation”. Could it be to help “elect” candidates who would push for more immigration and easier citizenship paths?

    As for convicts voting, obviously everyone has different ideas. My personal choice would be: (a) not while in jail or parole; and (b) not for serious crimes such as murder/treason/terrorism/drug trafficking/sex offenses.

    Rebuilding Your Life After Doing Something Stupid

    (Screenshot of the Main Page of New Zealand’s “Clean slate Scheme”)

    What happens to a person long after committing a criminal offense? Once a person has paid all obligations (prison, probation, fine) the charge still follows them around, right? Well, yes and no. While the convictions themselves do not disappear, there are options for getting the person back into society. Since a record limits people’s prospect for travel, work, education, adoption, etc… there are ways to get around this depending on the circumstances.

    This article looks at 5 Common Law Countries: (a) UK; (b) US; (c) Canada; (d) Australia; and (e) New Zealand.

    (a) UK: Spent convictions

    Here is a link to the U.K. branch. The 1974 rehabilitation of offenders act refers to charges as ”spent” or ”unspent”. Spent charges are to have no impact on the person in most circumstances.

    The waiting period differs. For example, community orders are spent a year after they are completed. Custody sentences range from 2 years, to 4 years, to 7 years, to permanently ineligible.

    Also, the act has been amended. It used to be 30 months was the cut off period for charges being spent. It is now 48 months (4 years).

    (b) US: Pardons

    Click Here for more information.

    This is still largely a political process, and can be done at the State level (by a Governor), or at the Federal level (by the President). Critics however believe that it largely leads to political and connected people getting the break. Those with minor charges do still get them often.

    (c) Canada: Pardons, a.k.a. “Record Suspensions”

    Click Here for the National Parole Board

    For summary (misdemeanors) it is 5 years after the sentence is served

    For indictable (felonies) it is 10 years after sentence is served.

    In 2010 the rules were changed to prevent longer term and series criminals from getting their records sealed. Notorious pedophile Graham James discovered to have gotten one. This was 2010, and the rallying cry for reform became ”pass these reforms, or Karla Homolka also gets a pardon”.

    However, those have been struck down for Ontario and BC residents, at least as far as those who finished a sentence before 2010. See here.

    Note: to Canadian traveller’s going to the US — Homeland Security specifically says it does not recognise a Canadian pardon/suspension and a waiver must still be applied for.

    One other thing of note: there are restrictions on those who can get one, (a) anyone serving a life sentence; (b) anyone declared a dangerous offender; (c) those with 3 or more felonies if they resulted in 2+ years in prison; (d) sex offences are still flagged in vulnerable persons checks; (e) drug trafficking if still flagged in U.S. access.

    (d) Australia: Spent Convictions

    Click Here for the link to the Australian site.

    Australia ”spends” convictions, though it appears that the rules differ somewhat if the crime was committed in Australia v.s. abroad

    (e) New Zealand: Clean Slate Scheme

    Click Here, and also Click Here for information on the New Zealand site.

    This scheme only refers to NZ society, and acknowledges that it isn’t recognized in many other places.

    In order to be eligible, no jail sentence must ever have been imposed.

    SOME THOUGHTS

    This looked at 5 Common Law Countries: UK/US/Australia/New Zealand and Canada. While the result is much the same, one major difference is that the US system seems to be politically based.

    Still, good news for those looking to move on. Doing something stupid (any fairly minor), shouldn’t be a lifetime hinderance for people looking to rebuild their lives.

    In almost all circumstances, a pardon/suspension/spending can be revoked if the person commits more crimes. Makes sense, as its intended use is for people who have moved on. According to sources within the Canadian justice system, 96% of people who get a record seal do not commit other crimes. That is 24 out of every 25 people. Being able to clear a record is helpful for the vast majority of people.

    Understandably, it does upset some people that ex-cons are able to seal or move on afterwards. In particular, many victims and their families take issue with this. And depending on the circumstances, they are absolutely right. However, these options seem much more geared towards minor offences and not towards serious, repeat offenders.

    The 5 Common Law countries listed here all have this option, to varying degrees. Not sure where else it exists, but worth a close look.

    Silencing Free Speech in the UK

    Here is a reuploading of the original video.

    (Mark Meechan, a.k.a. “Count Dankula”)

    August 8, 2018 — Mark Meechan, who goes by the nickname “Count Dankula”, was arrested for posting content that was deemed to be “grossly offensive” and that violated the Communications Act of 2003. Here is an exerp:

    127
    Improper use of public electronic communications network
    (1)
    A person is guilty of an offence if he—
    (a)
    sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
    (b)
    causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
    (2)
    A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
    (a)
    sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
    (b)
    causes such a message to be sent; or
    (c)
    persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
    (3)
    A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
    (4)
    Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42))

    Dankula had been arrested for posting indecent content in April 2016, when, as a joke, he taught his girlfriend’s dog to do the Hitler salute in response to the words “Sieg Heil” and “Gas the Jews”. A self described “shit poster”, stated repeatedly that he is not a Nazi, and only posted the video to annoy his girlfriend. As he said, “she would never shut up about it.”

    Dankula was convicted in March 2018 seehere, and sentenced, fined £800 in April. The Court didn’t care that Meechan had done it as a joke, and merely to annoy his girlfriend. Not only was Count Dankula fined, the Court said he was lucky to not have actually received a prison sentence for doing this.

    In August, he had his appeal denied by Sheriff Appeal Court, see here, and here. The Appeals Court found that:

    This was a deeply unpleasant offence in which disgraceful and utterly offensive material was very widely distributed by the appellant. This was to the considerable distress of the [Jewish community] and — just as disturbingly — to the apparent approval of a large number of persons who appear to share the appellant’s racist views,

    Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court rejected Meechan’s claim that the video was meant as a joke. Instead, they claim that it was meant to stir up anti-Semitism and suggested that Meechan shared those views.

    Meechan, for his part, claims he will not pay the fine, and would have to be forced to prison for non-compliance. He seems to prefer taking a principled stand rather than “bending the knee”, as he refers to it. He has gone very public on the matter, and is now a free speech champion.

    It offers some consolation to Meechan that there is widespread public support for his challenge. See: (a) here; (b) here; (c) here; (d) here; (e) here; (f) here, (g) see here, (h) see here and (i) see here. Comedians, politicians, and commentators inside and outside the UK condemn such a crackdown on free speech. As distasteful as this stunt was, it does not warrant an arrest, nor a trial, conviction and fine. The wider public sees this video was meant as a joke.

    Meechan/Dankula may be sent to prison if he refuses to either: (a) pay the fine; or (b) appeal further. This matter is not over it seems.

    Bigger than this case, the Sentencing Council seems to be pushing for harsher punishment for what it deems “offensive“.

    Other Instances:

    Like most of the commenters about this story, this is shocking, though not surprising abuse of power. Agreed, teaching the dog to do a Nazi salute is of very questionable taste. However, in seeing Meechan online, it is far more likely that it is immaturity/bad humour, not actual promotion of hate. Admittedly, I had a chuckle at how juvenile this 30 year old man is. This is not worthy of criminal charges at all.

    (1) Unfortunately, the UK is moving towards censoring of ideas, words and jokes deemed “offensive”. In March 2018, three activists: Lauren Southern, Brittany Pettibone, and Martin Sellner, were refused entry into the UK for “hate speech”. Southern was actually detained under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act. The trio are now suing the UK, on the grounds that they were discriminated against primarily based on political beliefs.

    (2) Also in March, Tommy Robinson, had been arrested for livestreaming outside a UK Court, regarding the “Grooming Gangs” trial. The 13 month sentence and conviction is under appeal. Interestingly, Brittany Pettibone had gone to the UK to do an interview of Robinson.

    However, people should not be tricked into thinking the UK is an intolerant nation after all. Even if you fight for ISIS, you are still welcome back. But those with right-wing opinions, just stay away.

    While it is depressing to see freedom being whittled away, I get some hope in seeing people fight back.