CANZUK — Erasing Canada’s Borders and Sovereignty

(CPC party convention in Halifax, 97%-3% vote in favour of partially erasing Canadian borders)

(Canzuk video on its website)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for CANZUK International.
CLICK HERE, for prior article of Conservative party endorsing a variety of globalist policies.
CLICK HERE, for possible expansion of CANZUK Zone.
CLICK HERE, for nations which Queen Elizabeth is head of.

CLICK HERE, for a proposed “CANZUK Army”.

2. CANZUK’s Political Advisors

A lot of members of the “Conservative” Party of Canada. Have to wonder exactly what they’re “conserving” here. Also worth mentioning that Andrew Scheer, a “Conservative” also appears on the site with enthusiastic support for the agenda.

It was bad enough to see Scheer chugging a milk at his acceptance speech, (as his win was provided by Dairy Cartel rigging). This is arguably much worse. The erasure of Canada and Canadian borders marketed as opportunity.

3. CANZUK’s Official Mission

CANZUK International (CI) is the leading group advocating closer ties between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, known amongst diplomats at the United Nations as the ‘CANZUK Group’.

Free Trade
CANZUK International seeks to establish a comprehensive multi-lateral free trade agreement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Customs duties and other barriers to commerce would be removed. Such a union would give its constituent members more collective bargaining power in dealing with large trading partners such as the USA, China, India and the European Union.
.
Freedom of movement within the CANZUK Group for citizens of the four realms would be an essential ingredient for a successfully open market. As these nations have compatible economic profiles, this form of immigration would be unlikely to lead to distortions in labour markets. Not only would an arrangement of this kind make good economic sense, it would reinforce a feeling of solidarity amongst the four kindred peoples. The Trans-Tasman Travel Agreement between Australia and New Zealand is a working model upon which to build. Although freedom of movement exists for citizens of both countries, there is an exclusion provision for those deemed to be a threat to the national interest. In this way mobility can foster trade and economic growth without jeopardising security.

Foreign Policy
CANZUK International endeavours to promote greater cooperation amongst the CANZUK Group with respect to foreign policy, defence and intelligence gathering. The ‘Five Eyes’ (FVEY) agreement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America has been highly effective in gathering signals, military and human intelligence. It provides a useful starting point for a more comprehensive diplomatic alliance for the nations of the CANZUK Group, which would compliment the work of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). An association comprising Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom would enjoy a more balanced relationship with the United States. Collectively, these countries could be global rather than merely regional players in the geopolitical arena.

Constitutional Affairs
The shared Sovereign would be an essential aspect of any CANZUK Group association. The monarch, who represents a global institution, has played an important role as a symbol of a common heritage and parliamentary tradition. Furthermore, the Crown has been the cornerstone of democratic government and the rule of law over a long history of peaceful constitutional development. It is instructive to note that the English speaking countries which have retained the monarchy have been far more successful in avoiding civil unrest than their republican counterparts.
.
In concrete terms, the existing dialogue between viceregal representatives and the judiciary of the CANZUK Group should be encouraged. This initiative could build upon meetings that already occur between the Governors-General of the various Commonwealth realms every two years. The joint decision to revise the royal succession laws through the Perth Agreement of 2011 is a good example of effective collaboration in regard to matters of constitutional law.

One interesting thing is that this only talks about such closer cooperation between the “CANZUK” nations: Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the UK. A lot of this seems very reasonable.

However, in a different part of the website, CANZUK International talks about extending memberships far beyond the original 4 members. And it is quite a long list.

Remember: it is pitched to the general populations as increased cooperation between 4 nations of fairly similar language, culture and customs. That is how to sell it. Once it is sold and operational, the goal becomes to expand its size and influence.

Nice bait-and-switch.

4. CANZUK Could Expand To Other Countries

Using political, social and economic analysis, CANZUK International’s Research Associate, Luke Fortmann, explores the future possibilities of other countries joining a free movement and trade alliance with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

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

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

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

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

But, whether founded or not, the notion that free immigration was causing problems for the UK was undoubtedly a primary motivation for its departure from the European Union. A CANZUK union would seek to avoid such issues by moving slowly and steadily with the original four members, providing economic assistance to the realms before allowing their eventual membership.

Additionally, it’s been noted that, particularly concerning the more populous realms such as Jamaica and Papua New Guinea, immediate free movement would generate a rush of emigrants who may be poorly equipped for employment in the CANZUK countries; while at the same time enticing the more skilled minority away from their homeland in search of better-paying positions in the richer nations, ridding schools and hospitals of vital staff.

Instinctively, the next place to turn is to the Commonwealth as a whole. Broadening our vision in this way does present some of the same issues, as well as some new ones. A complete Commonwealth union would of course be dominated by India, with a population of over 1.3 billion, along with Pakistan (193 million), Nigeria (186 million), and Bangladesh (163 million) who would dwarf the CANZUK countries in terms of inhabitants, rendering them merely minor players.

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

At first, the project will be challenging enough, and caution will be required. Having said that, and as previously mentioned, CANZUK’s immense potential truly knows no bounds, and, down the line, further options can always be explored.

Theoretically, who could become part of CANZUK at some point in the future? Here is the list, based on the above criteria and comments:

  • Anguilla
  • Antigua
  • Australia
  • Bahamas
  • Bangladesh
  • Barbados
  • Belize
  • Canada
  • Christmas Island
  • Cook Islands
  • Grenada
  • Guernsey
  • India
  • Isle of Mann
  • Jamaica
  • Jersey
  • New Zealand
  • Nigeria
  • Pakistan
  • Papua New Guinea
  • Saint Lucia
  • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Solomon Island
  • Tuvalu
  • United Kingdom

Really? We were told this was an agreement between 4 first world, developed nations. Now we are bringing in half of the third world.

Let’s be clear: marketing with the 4 nations (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK) is just a sales pitch. The agreement could very well expand once this is in motion. And it likely will.

5. Possible CANZUK Joint Defense Force

The first objective of any government is to protect its own citizens from external danger. How can CANZUK help achieve that goal?

Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have a common military heritage, and this shows in things as diverse as ranks, camouflage patterns and banners. They have a high degree of inter-operability – and in some cases, citizens of one nation can join the armed forces of another.

The nations have strategic similarities as well. Three out of four are island nations, whilst the fourth, Canada has the longest coastline of any nation. This places a premium on naval power – all the nations have considerable dependence on trade, vulnerability to blockades and an interest of open sea-lanes.

No joke. They are open about joint military and naval ventures. Interesting to note: aren’t this countries all part of NATO? How exactly would that square with those obligations, especially as Canada can’t afford to pay for its NATO commitments anyway?

To be fair, this soldier-swap already exists to a degree. The UK accepts Commonwealth citizens in its military. To a limited degree, Canada, Australia and New Zealand allow foreigners in as well. This seems a way to do it on a much bigger scale.

6. Where Is CANZUK Going?

CANZUK International was founded in January 2015 as The Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation, and is the world’s leading non-profit organisation advocating freedom of movement, free trade and foreign policy coordination between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (the “CANZUK” countries).

Our campaign advocates closer cooperation between these four nations so they may build upon existing economic, diplomatic and institutional ties to forge a cohesive alliance of nation-states with a truly global outlook.

This seems harmless enough, but this will not be the end of it. The group will want to expand its sphere of influence and start controlling more issues and policies.

Remember, before the EU, there was a 6 nation bloc (France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Belgium). They started a trade agreement amongst themselves. Today, it is 28 nations — though the UK is leaving — and controls everything from budgets to agriculture to immigration. It swelled far beyond its original purpose.

It is very easy to see the “CANZUK 4” become 6, 8, 12, or 15. And those innocuous issues discussed on the website may morph into foreign bodies actually controlling national agendas.

As is obvious, the Conservative Party of Canada is an enthusiastic supporter of the CANZUK agenda. This is apparently regardless of the long-term erosion of national sovereignty. Globalists.

(Not Quite) Infanticide #7: China’s Organ Harvesting Of Live People

1. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for China Tribunal.
CLICK HERE, for China Tribunal, forced harvesting of organs from China’s political prisoners.
CLICK HERE, from China Tribunal’s December 2018 findings.
CLICK HERE, for firstthings.com, and then US Vice President Joe Biden’s attitude to what went on in China.
CLICK HERE, for 2015 on China’s organ trafficking.
CLICK HERE, for Lifesite article on China.
CLICK HERE, for NBC article, China promises to phase out practice.
CLICK HERE, for an NBC article on China’s practice.

In This Series
CLICK HERE, for Part 1, New York and Virginia.
CLICK HERE, for Part 2, Kill The Survivors.
CLICK HERE, for Part 3, UN Endorses Abortion As Human Right.
CLICK HERE, for Part 4, Fallout and Pushback.
CLICK HERE, for Part 5, ONCA ruling doctors “must” provide referrals if they are not willing to do the work themselves.
CLICK HERE, for Part 6, 9th Circuit Rules Against Planned Parenthood Federal Funding,

2. China Tribunal’s Findings


From the December 2018 interim report:

“The Tribunal’s members are certain – unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt – that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”

That was part of the interim report. But now the final report goes on even further:

The Tribunal has considered evidence, in its many forms, and dealt with individual issues according to the evidence relating to each issue and nothing else and thereby reached a series of conclusions that are free of any influence caused by the PRC’s reputation or other potential causes of prejudice.
These were as follows;
• That there were extraordinarily short waiting times (promised by PRC doctors and hospitals) for organs to be available for transplantation;
• That there was torture of Falun Gong and Uyghurs;
• That there was accumulated numerical evidence (excluding spurious PRC data) which indicated:
o the number of transplant operations performed, and
o the impossibility of there being anything like sufficient ‘eligible donors’ under the recently formed PRC voluntary donor scheme for that number of transplant operations;
• That there was a massive infrastructure development of facilities and medical personnel for organ transplant operations, often started before any voluntary donor system was even planned; That there was direct and indirect evidence of forced organ harvesting.

And this led to the conclusion that:

forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale and that Falun Gong practitioners have been one – and probably the main – source of organ supply. The concerted persecution and medical testing of the Uyghurs is more recent and it may be that evidence of forced organ harvesting of this group may emerge in due course. The Tribunal has had no evidence that the significant infrastructure associated with China’s transplantation industry has been dismantled and absent a satisfactory explanation as to the source of readily available organs concludes that forced organ harvesting continues till today.

However, on the topic of “genocide” China Tribunal pussyfoots around the issue and says they cannot conclude there is intent for genocide. This despite stating that the actions met the other elements.

The Tribunal considered whether this constituted a crime of Genocide; The Falun Gong and the Uyghurs in the PRC each qualify as a ‘group’ for purposes of the crime of Genocide. For the Falun Gong, the following elements of the crime of Genocide are clearly established:
• Killing members of the group;
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
Thus, bar one element of the crime, Genocide is, on the basis of legal advice received, clearly proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. The remaining element required to prove the crime is the very specific intent for Genocide. Accepting legal advice about proving this intent, the Tribunal cannot be certain that the requisite intent is proved and thus cannot be certain that Genocide itself is proved.

That’s right. Due to legal advice, China Tribunal cannot actually conclude there is intent to commit genocide, despite the prolonged actions that would justify the claims.

China Tribunal then “appears” to condemn what happens to Falun Gong and the Uyghurs, but waters down the language to “criminality”, despite the included detail. The tribunal claims the “elements have been met for crimes against humanity”.

Commission of Crimes Against Humanity against the Falun Gong and Uyghurs has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by proof of one or more of the following, legally required component acts:
• murder;
• extermination;
• imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
• torture;
• rape or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
• persecution on racial, national, ethnic, cultural or religious grounds that are universally recognised as impermissible under international law ;
• enforced disappearance
in the course of a widespread and systematic attack or attacks against the Falun Gong and Uyghurs.

This seems to be splitting hairs. It meets the criteria for crimes against humanity. Yet China Tribunal, on advice from their lawyers, refuse to state there is intent to qualify as “genocide”.

The report ends with a very interesting comment about the power of media and citizen journalists.

Governments and international bodies must do their duty not only in regard to the possible charge of Genocide but also in regard to Crimes against Humanity, which the Tribunal does not allow to be any less heinous. Assuming they do not do their duty, the usually powerless citizen is, in the internet age, more powerful than s/he may recognise. Criminality of this order may allow individuals from around the world to act jointly in pressurising governments so that those governments and other international bodies are unable not to act.

The China Tribunal has no power to actually do anything. However, it seems to believe that by spreading word online it can put pressure on governments to act.

3. Firstthings.com Article


Firstthings.com quotes former VP Joe Biden, on his take on China’s one-child policy.

But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable. So hopefully we can act in a way on a problem that’s much less severe than yours, and maybe we can learn together from how we can do that.

In order to maintain the 1-child policy, China has had to result to extreme and inhuman measures:

  • forced abortion
  • sex-selective abortions against girls
  • sterilizations
  • eugenics

Biden seemed critical that the declining birth rate would be able to sustain the retired population. However he seemed to have no concern over the mass aborting and sterilizations that went on.

4. NBC Coverage Of Issue


American news outlet NBC reported here, and also reported that:

In 2014, state media reported that China would phase out the practice of taking organs from executed prisoners and said it would rely instead on a national organ donation system.

The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday was not immediately available to comment on the tribunal’s findings.

In a statement released alongside the final judgment, the tribunal said many of those affected were practitioners of Falun Gong, a spiritual discipline that China banned in the 1990s and has called an “evil cult.” The tribunal added that it was possible that Uighur Muslims — an ethnic minority who are currently being detained in vast numbers in western China — were also being targeted.

China had been promising for years to end this practice, but it doesn’t seem to have happened.

5. Lifesite Take On The Situation

Still, there has been too much reporting for too long about this profound human-rights abuse to ethically continue to look the other way. The question thus becomes: Will the U.S. specifically outlaw traveling to China for the purpose of buying an organ — just as we do participating in pedophilia tourism overseas? (Spain, Israel, Italy, and Taiwan have passed such laws already.) I can’t think of one argument against pursuing such a course.

If we don’t at least do what we can, it seems to me that we make ourselves complicit in allowing the demand for black-market organs forcibly harvested from murdered prisoners to continue unimpeded — and the blood of the slaughtered victims will also be on us.

(Lifesite article here) This echoes what China Tribunal has been saying: that political pressure is needed to put a stop to this practice.

6. My Take On This Story


If the allegations are true, and they seem to be, then this is abhorrent.

At some level this is no different that what abortion industries like Planned Parenthood do: snuff out lives in order to obtain a commodity, their organs. If we subscribe to the idea that life is valuable, then this is little — though more heinous — than a common murder and robbery.

While donation of organs (for after death), should be encouraged, this is an entirely different matter. This is premeditated mass murder in order to steal those parts. The practice is barbaric.

Consider the flack Canada has taken over the Government’s genocide claims over Indigenous women and girls. Most of the deaths and disappearances (at least where it is known) were at the hands of Indigenous men they knew. That is apparently a “genocide”. Yet what is going on in China is not really worth the attention apparently.

But good luck getting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to openly condemn the practice.

Kirsten Jenkins: Humanizing Sociotechnical Transitions Through Energy Justice

1. Go Check Out Uppity Peasants Site


This is a fairly new site, however, it has some interesting content on it. Well researched, it will give some alternative views on how we are really being controlled. It you haven’t been there, what are you waiting for?

2. About The Authors


CLICK HERE, for the profile of Kirsten Jenkins. Side note: no shocker she has cited Frank Geels.

CLICK HERE, for Benjamin Sovacool.

He is a Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), due to be published in 2022, and an Advisor on Energy to the European Commission’s Directorate General for Research and Innovation in Brussels, Belgium.

He has played a leadership role in winning and managing collaborative research grants worth more than $19.6 million, including those from the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. National Science Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Energy Technology Development and Demonstration Program of Denmark, the Danish Council for Independent Research, and the European Commission. In the United Kingdom, he has served as a Principal Investigator on projects funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, Natural Environment Research Council, and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

CLICK HERE, for Darren McCauley.

3. The Paper Itself

Humanizing sociotechnical transitions through energy justice: An ethical framework for global transformative change
Kirsten Jenkins, Benjamin K. Sovacool, Darren McCauley

Not even kidding. That is the title of the paper.

ABSTRACT
Poverty, climate change and energy security demand awareness about the interlinkages between energy systems and social justice. Amidst these challenges, energy justice has emerged to conceptualize a world where all individuals, across all areas, have safe, affordable and sustainable energy that is, essentially, socially just. Simultaneously, new social and technological solutions to energy problems continually evolve, and interest in the concept of sociotechnical transitions has grown. However, an element often missing from such transitions frameworks is explicit engagement with energy justice frameworks. Despite the development of an embryonic set of literature around these themes, an obvious research gap has emerged: can energy justice and transitions frameworks be combined? This paper argues that they can. It does so through an exploration of the multi-level perspective on sociotechnical systems and an integration of energy justice at the model’s niche, regime and landscape level. It presents the argument that it is within the overarching process of sociotechnical change that issues of energy justice emerge. Here, inattention to social justice issues can cause injustices, whereas attention to them can provide a means to examine and potential resolve them

This article is the first time I have encountered the term “energy justice”. Rather than simply dealing with a problem in a scientific and factual way, the authors add some social-justice element to it. The abstract doesn’t really explain how this works. Hopefully the body will.

Thus, it calls for greater engagement with the three-tenet energy justice approach (distributional justice, procedural justice and justice as recognition) when planning for more sustainable transitions.

Energy justice apparently consists of:

  • Distributional justice
  • Procedural justice
  • Justice as recognition

Okay, but that doesn’t really explain what it is.

Amidst serious sustainability challenges, transitions frameworks have evolved to either conceptualize or facilitate decarbonised energy systems that provide both security of supply and universal access to energy; a process that it is widely acknowledged will require new ways of producing, living and working with energy (Bridge et al., 2013; Heffron and McCauley, 2018; IEA, 2008; Mernier, 2007). In aiming to implement sociotechnical solutions, governments are increasingly utilising the language of transitions, and the concept has begun to feature in the energy policies of countries including Denmark, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (UK)

Some points that should be addressed:

  • They are quite blunt (and proud it seems) that their language is filtering into government activity.
  • Provide universal supply of energy? Is this meant to be some sort of socialist or communist idea?
  • Has it sunk in that if you remove all Carbon forms of energy that it will reduce supply, and make your universal supply harder to obtain?
  • When you say a “new way of living”, does this mean reducing the standard of living in the West to ensure that everyone has access to the same amount of energy?

Yet despite ongoing debates about ethics or justice across many fields of literature (including extended discussions between antagonist camps that have gone on across the history of political philosophy), one social element missing from transitions frameworks is explicit, practice oriented engagement with the energy justice concept and related approaches to justice concerns. Eames and Hunt (2013) draw attention to the fact that considerations of equity and justice are underrepresented within the sociotechnical transitions literature and the wider energy transitions debate, despite the fact that the concept of sustainable development, the target of many transition plans, is inherently rooted in these core notions (Hopwood et al., 2005). Transitions literatures can also fail to give due consideration to issues of landscape, health and existing property values too (Jefferson, 2017).

More points to be looked at:

  • This seems a shameless attempt to turn what is supposed to be an environmental issue into a “social justice”, and hence blur the lines.
  • “Equity and justice” and terms that need to be rammed into discussions.
  • It appears that including “social justice” would be a way to better market their ideas. They don’t seem to make an actual connection though.
  • If a platform needs to latch on to overused buzzwords to sell itself, then it’s probably not a very good platform.

Failure to adequately engage with questions of justice throughout the transition process is dangerous. It may lead to aggravated poverty, entrenched gender bias and non-participation as outcomes or by-products of ‘blinkered’ decision-making. Indeed, without a focus on justice, transitions may fail to acknowledge the burdens of having too much energy, such as waste, over-consumption and pollution, or from not having enough, where some individuals lack access, are challenged by under-consumption and poverty, and may face health burdens and shortened lives as a consequence of restricted energy choices (Sovacool et al.,2016a). This paper therefore utilizes the energy justice concept as a way of engaging with these ethical dilemmas within pre-existing transitions frameworks.

More nonsense which requires a response:

  • There is an obsession with redefining terms to suit an agenda.
  • This is energy we are talking about, not poverty, gender bias, or non-participation. That’s right, they really played the “gender” card here.
  • Burden of having too much? Can I assume the solution is to force sharing? Or rather, to force “rich” nations to hand over energy supplies?
  • Engaging with these ethical dilemmas? You haven’t demonstrated any sort of cause and effect yet.

The origins of the energy justice literature is largely reported as coming from activist accounts of energy issues using the environmental justice frame – a precursor to the energy justice concept which shares overlapping philosophical groundings

That’s right. A bunch of activists made this up.

Specifically, as environmental justice is commonly defined as the distribution of environmental hazards and access to all natural resources; it includes equal protection from burdens, meaningful involvement in decisions, and fair treatment in access to benefits……….. This approach forms the basis of the energy justice approach and framework. However, mentions of its core notions also appear elsewhere, including in the guise of the “three A’s” of availability, accessibility and affordability

It reads like the sort of nonsense one would get in a gender studies class. Only thing is that “energy” is being substituted for here.

note in this regard, that even ‘a “low-carbon” transition has the potential to distribute its costs and benefits just as unequally [as historical fossil-based transitions] without governance mindful of distributional justice’ or, as an extension, without attention to the issues of justice as recognition and due process–energy justice tenets we explore below. We argue that the energy justice concept provides one way of filling this gap.

Here, we get into some straight up Communism. Is it true that costs and benefits don’t impact everyone equally? Yes. However, there is no practical way to do this. Either you would have to forcefully arrange differences in benefits and costs to “make things right”, or you would have to alter everyone’s standard of living so that they were equal.

Guess the road to Hell could use a re-paving.

Throughout, we present three main claims, each coinciding with a level in the MLP model; the niche, regime, and landscape:

(1) That the energy justice concept can expose exclusionary and/or inclusionary technological and social niches before they develop, leading to potentially new and socially just innovation;

(2) That in addition to using the MLP to describe regimes, the energy justice framework provides a way for these actors to normatively judge them, potentially destabilising existing regimes using moral criteria;

(3) That framing energy justice as a matter of priority at the landscape level could exert pressure on the regime below, leading to the widespread reappraisal of our energy choices, and integration of moral criteria.

(1) Sounds like a way to vilify or outcast technology that is scientifically sound, because it doesn’t meet their criteria.
(2) Appears to be a method of using peer pressure and social pressure as a way of destabilizing systems.
(3) Comes across as more overt propaganda.

This governance focus means that the socio-technical literature increasingly acknowledges the political dynamics related to the process through which innovations scale, diffuse or entrench. We focus here on the most prominent socio-technical transitions framework, the multi-level perspective (MLP). The MLP takes the form of a series of nested levels, the niche, regime, and landscape

Nothing scientific. Purely political manoeuvering.

Analysis through the energy justice lens reveals that although electric vehicles (EVs) do have laudable environmental (and social) attributes, they can be exclusionary in the sense that they can perpetuate already widening gaps between the wealthy and poor, as well as potentially raising new forms and geographies of injustice – distributional and justice as recognition concerns.

I thought the point was protecting the environment. But here, they talk about how electric cars will not impact everyone equally, even if they do have considerable environmental benefits. Again, is this an argument in favour of socialism or communism?

Equal opportunity v.s. equal outcome.

In addition to applications in niches, the energy justice framework can support the current role of the MLP to describe regimes by providing a means for policy actors to normatively judge them—exposing unjust practices and resultantly, increasing regime ‘humanisation’. We illustrate this first through the exploration of nuclear power and hydroelectric power production, regimes in which there is some consensus that technological development and lock-in raises issues of justice, or injustice. We identify that the metrics, frameworks, or checklists presented above – as well as the three-tenet framework of energy justice more generally – provide a means of normatively judging both planned and current energy and future sociotechnical regimes, leading to potential re-evaluation of our energy selection criteria. These approaches also recognise the need to politicise the actualisation of energy justice itself.

Finally some honesty. This is a political agenda.

And working to “humanize” a movement? What happened to simply relying on scientific consensus?

4. Conclusions From The Paper

Energy decisions are all too frequently made in a moral vacuum, culminating in a strong normative case for combining the literature on sociotechnical transitions with concepts arising from energy justice. Moreover, we illustrate that energy justice can play a role at each level of one of the more expansive sociotechnical transitions frameworks, the MLP. Within this latter contribution, (1) the energy justice concept could expose exclusionary niches, (2) provide a means for actors to normatively judge regimes, and (3) through the framing of energy justice at the landscape level foster the reappraisal of our energy choices and integration of moral principles. Across all stages of this argument, we present a case for not only mitigating environmental impacts of energy production via sociotechnical change, but doing so in an ethically defensible, socially just way.

To repeat, this is not about environmental protection. It is about blending a social justice causes and lingo into an unrelated topic.

Our caveats come as recognition of the intricacies of politics and political processes around energy transitions and energy justice. For as Meadowcroft (2009) highlights, long-term change is likely to be even messier and more contested than the transitions literature discusses. Indeed, there are likely to be political aspects that approaches such as the MLP are ill equipped to negotiate, and trade-offs that a tenet approach to energy justice cannot entirely resolve.

This may be the most honest thing they say. Politically, this is a very tough sell. They also admit that there “energy justice” approach will not answer the hard questions.

Nonetheless, they still cover those facts in academic jargon.

5. My Own Thoughts

The authors keep repeating that they are just “framing the issue”. In reality, they are publishing propaganda.

There is nothing scientific that the paper adds. There is no building on previous work, or fact checking of previous research. It is entirely about manipulating people to their cause by pretending it is a “social justice” issue. This is blatant activism, masquerading as science.

I also noticed a lot of overlap with the Frank W. Geels article. Do they merely cite each other, or do they just republish the same articles over and over again?

This environmental movement seems to have a lot of self-inflicted problems. For example, this obsession with “energy justice” and other non-issues actually stonewalls progress that they could have made.

Frank Geels & Disruptive Innovation Framework (Climate Change Scam #6)

(From actual academic writing: Frank W. Geels)

(More academia: Sustainable Consumption Institute, Manchester University)

(Clayton Christiansen and “Disruptive Innovation” video)

(From the Uppity Peasants site)

1. Go Check Out Uppity Peasants Site


This is a fairly new site, however, it has some interesting content on it. Well researched, it will give some alternative views on how we are really being controlled.
Go check out “Uppity Peasants“.

2. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for the Sustainable Consumption Institute & Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, The University of Manchester, Denmark Road Building, M13 9PL, Manchester, United Kingdom.
CLICK HERE, for Clayton Christiansen and “Disruptive Innovation”.
CLICK HERE, for SCI Collective Action & Social Movements.
CLICK HERE, for SCI Social Inequality.
CLICK HERE, for Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability.
CLICK HERE, for a Wiki explanation of disruptive innovation.
CLICK HERE, for removing the innovator’s dilemma.

CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.

3. Quotes From The Geels Article

Disruption and low-carbon system transformation: Progress and new challenges in socio-technical transitions research and the Multi-Level Perspective

This will be elaborated on, but is about subverted the status quo, or “disruption”. Worth pointing out, that although these types of articles are published and marketed as “science”, they are anything but.

As this title would suggest, the article is extremely political. The concern is not about science itself, but how to “sell” the science. And the agenda here is searching for political methods of implementing the transition to a Carbon free

ABSTRACT
This paper firstly assesses the usefulness of Christensen’s disruptive innovation framework for low-carbon system change, identifying three conceptual limitations with regard to the unit of analysis (products rather than systems), limited multi-dimensionality, and a simplistic (‘point source’) conception of change. Secondly, it shows that the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) offers a more comprehensive framework on all three dimensions. Thirdly, it reviews progress in socio-technical transition research and the MLP on these three dimensions and identifies new challenges, including ‘whole system’ reconfiguration, multi-dimensional struggles, bi-directional niche-regime interactions, and an alignment conception of change. To address these challenges, transition research should further deepen and broaden its engagement with the social scienceseconomy.

The usefulness of Christiansen’s disruptive innovation framework? While used in a business sense, it appears to be a way for entrepreneurs to get into a market or business. However, in this context it is used as disrupting an environmental policy.

It is mildly (or downright) creepy that the author, Frank Geels, openly suggests that research should broaden its engagement with social sciences. In plain English, this means merging, where scientific research is viewed through a “social” lens.

Christiansen’s “Disruptive Innovation Framework” is explained in the above video. Also see “disruption in financial services“.

Christensen [4] made important contributions to the long-standing debate in innovation management about new entrants, incumbents and industry structures. He argued that disruptive innovations enable new entrants to ‘attack from below’ and overthrow incumbent firms. Christensen thus has a particular understanding of disruption, focused mainly on the competitive effects of innovations on existing firms and industry structures. His framework was not developed to address systemic effects or broader transformations, so my comments below are not about the intrinsic merits of the framework, but about their usefulness for low-carbon transitions.

Christensen’s disruptive innovation framework offers several useful insights for low-carbon transitions (although similar ideas can also be found elsewhere). First, it suggests that incumbent firms tend to focus their innovation efforts on sustaining technologies (which improve performance along established criteria), while new entrants tend to develop disruptive technologies (which offer different value propositions). Second, it proposes that disruptive technologies emerge in small peripheral niches, where early adopters are attracted by the technology’s new functionalities. Third, incumbent firms may initially overlook or under-estimate disruptive technologies (because of established beliefs) or are not interested in them, because the limited return on-investments associated with small markets do not fit with existing business models. Fourth, price/performance improvements may enable disruptive technologies to enter larger markets, out-compete existing technologies and overthrow incumbent firms

Worth pointing out right away, Geels has no interest in the “intrinsic merits” of the disruptive innovation framework that Christiansen talks about. Rather, he focuses on applying that technique to reducing/eliminating Carbon emissions from society.

Christiansen’s idea could be applied fairly practically to business, where new players want to establish themselves. However, Geels “weaponizes” this idea and wants to apply it with the climate-change agenda.

Geels also makes it obvious that overthrowing incumbents is a priority. Again, Christiansen’s writings were meant with the business approach, and trying to start your own, but Geels “repurposes” it.

While Christensen’s framework focuses on technical and business dimensions, the MLP also accommodates consumption, cultural, and socio-political dimensions. Although co-evolution has always been a core concept in the MLP, this is even more important for low-carbon transitions, which are goal-oriented or ‘purposive’ in the sense of addressing the problem of climate change. This makes them different from historical transitions which were largely ‘emergent’, with entrepreneurs exploiting the commercial opportunities offered by new technology

[27]. Because climate protection is a public good, private actors (e.g. firms, consumers) have limited incentives to address it owing to free rider problems and prisoner’s dilemmas. This means that public policy must play a central role in supporting the emergence and deployment of low-carbon innovations and changing the economic frame conditions (via taxes, subsidies, regulations, standards) that incentivize firms, consumers and other actors. However, substantial policy changes involve political struggles and public debate because: “[w]hatever can be done through the State will depend upon generating widespread political support from citizens within the context of democratic rights and freedoms” ([28]: 91).

Again, Geels hijacking a legitimate business concept, but using it for his enviro agenda.

How to implement this? Taxes, subsidies, regulations, standards for businesses and consumers. Use these to regulate and influence behaviour.

Geels rightly says that widespread political support will be needed. But he frames the climate change scam as a way to protect rights and freedoms. Nice bait-and-switch.

Conceptually, this means that we should analyse socio-technical transitions as multi-dimensional struggles between niche-innovations and existing regimes. These struggles include: economic competition between old and new technologies; business struggles between new entrants and incumbents; political struggles over adjustments in regulations, standards, subsidies and taxes; discursive struggles over problem framings and social acceptance; and struggles between new user practices and mainstream ones.

Despite Geels’ article being published in the Journal, “ENERGY RESEARCH AND SOCIAL SCIENCE”, this anything but scientific. If anything, it seems analogous to the “lawfare” that Islamic groups perpetuate on democratic societies.

While Geels promotes economic competition, this is anything but a fair competition. He also calls for:

  • Political struggles over regulations
  • New standards
  • Subsidies
  • Taxes
  • Discursive struggles over problem framings & social acceptance
  • Struggles between new and mainstream user practices

There is nothing scientific here. This is a call for using “political” manoeuvering for achieving social goals.

The importance of public engagement, social acceptance and political feasibility is often overlooked in technocratic government strategies and model-based scenarios, which focus on techno-economic dimensions to identify least-cost pathways [32]. In the UK, which is characterized by closed policy networks and top-down policy style, this neglect has led to many problems, which are undermining the low carbon transition.

• Onshore wind experienced local protests and permit problems, leading to negative public discourses and a political backlash, culminating in a post-2020 moratorium.

• Shale gas experienced public controversies after it was pushed through without sufficient consultation.

• Energy-saving measures in homes were scrapped in 2015, after the Green Deal flagship policy(introduced in2013) spectacularly failed, because it was overly complicated and poorly designed, leading to limited uptake.

• The 2006 zero-carbon homes target, which stipulated that all new homes should be carbon-neutral by 2016, was scrapped in 2015, because of resistance by major housebuilders and limited consumer interest.

• The smart meter roll-out is experiencing delays, because of controversies over standards, privacy concerns, and distribution of benefits (between energy companies and consumers).

While these points are in fact true, Geels suggests that problems could have been avoided if there was sufficient public consultation. This is wishful thinking.

These points raise many legitimate concerns with the eco-agenda. Yet Geels shrugs them off as the result of not engaging the public enough.

Christensen and other innovation management scholars typically adopt a ‘point source’ approach to disruption, in which innovators pioneer new technologies, conquer the world, and cause social change. Existing contexts are typically seen as ‘barriers’ to be overcome. This ‘bottom-up’ emphasis also permeates the Strategic Niche Management and Technological Innovation System literatures. While this kind of change pattern does sometimes occur, the MLP was specifically developed to also accommodate broader patterns, in which niche-innovations diffuse because they align with ongoing processes at landscape- or regime-levels [9].

The MLP thus draws on history and sociology of technology, where processual, contextual explanations are common. Mokyr [58], for instance, emphasizes that “The new invention has to be born into a socially sympathetic environment” (p. 292) and that “Macro-inventions are seeds sown by individual inventors in a social soil. (.) But the environment into which these seeds are sown is, of course, the main determinant of whether they will sprout” (p. 299). So, if radical innovations face mis-matches with economic, socio-cultural or political contexts, they may remain stuck in peripheral niches, hidden ‘below the surface’.

Since low-carbon transitions are problem-oriented, transition scholars should not only analyse innovation dynamics, but also ‘issue dynamics’ because increasing socio-political concerns about climate change can lead to changes in regime-level institutions and selection environments. Societal problems or ‘issues’ have their own dynamics in terms of problem definition and socio-political mobilization as conceptualized, for instance, in the issue lifecycle literature [59,50]. Low carbon transitions require stronger ‘solution’ and problem dynamics, and their successful alignment, which is not an easy process, as the examples below show.

These passages go into marketing strategies, and ways to “frame an argument”. Notice not once does Geels suggest doing more research, or checking the reliability of existing data. Instead, this is a push for emotional manipulation and shameless advertising.

Invention has to be born into a socially sympathetic environment. Science be damned.

There are also positive developments, however, that provide windows of opportunity. Coal is losing legitimacy in parts of the world, because it is increasingly framed as dirty, unhealthy and old-fashioned, and because oil and gas companies are distancing themselves from coal, leading to cracks in the previously ‘closed front’ of fossil fuel industries. The UK has committed to phasing out coal-fired power plants by 2025 and several other countries (Netherlands, France, Canada, Finland, Austria) also move in this direction, providing space for low-carbon alternatives, including renewables.

I would actually agree that coal being phased out would benefit society. However, Geels makes it a “marketing” issue rather than a scientific one. Coal is “increasingly framed” as dirty. Notice that the actual science, such as from this site, are very rarely described.

Following chemical reactions takes place in the combustion of coal with the release of heat:
C + O2 = CO2 + 8084 Kcal/ Kg of carbon (33940 KJ/Kg)
S + O2 = SO2 + 2224 Kcal/Kg of sulfur (9141 KJ/Kg)
2 H2 + O2 = 2 H2O + 28922 Kcal/Kg of hydrogen (142670 KJ/Kg)
2C + O2 = 2CO + 2430 Kcal/Kg of carbon (10120 KJ/Kg)

4. Geels’ Conclusions

The paper has also identified several research challenges, where the transitions community could fruitfully do more work. First, we should broaden our analytical attention from singular niche-innovations (which permeate the literature) to ‘whole system’ change. This may involve changes in conceptual imagery (from ‘point source’ disruption to gradual system reconfiguration) and broader research designs, which analyze multiple niche-innovations and their relations to ongoing dynamics in existing systems and regimes. That, in turn, may require more attention for change mechanisms like add-on, hybridisation, modular component substitution, knock-on effects, innovation cascades, multi regime interaction.

Second, we should better understand regime developments. Existing regimes can provide formidable barriers for low-carbon transitions. Incumbent actors can resist, delay or derail low-carbon transitions, but they can also accelerate them if they reorient their strategies and resources towards niche-innovations. The analysis of niche-to-regime dynamics (as in the niche empowerment literature) should thus be complemented with regime-to-niche dynamics, including incumbent resistance or reorientation. Additionally, we need more nuanced conceptualizations and assessments of degrees of lock-in, tensions, cracks, and destabilisation.

Third, we need greater acknowledgement that socio-technical systems are a special unit of analysis, which spans the social sciences and can be studied through different lenses and at different levels. The recent trend towards deepening our understanding of particular dimensions and societal groups is tremendously fruitful, because disciplinary theories offer more specific causal mechanisms. But, as a community, we should complement this with broad analyses of co-evolution, alignment, multi-dimensionality and ‘whole systems’.

This all sounds elegant, but read between the lines. It is about influencing public perception. Whenever academics, lawyers or politicians seem to make things confusing we need to ask: are they trying to obscure their goals?

5. More About Frank W. Geels

Selected publications of Geels
If you would like a broader cross section of Geels’ work, perhaps these publications will be of interest.

  • Geels, F.W., Berkhout, F. and Van Vuuren, D., 2016, Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions, Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 576-583
  • Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Fuchs, G., Hinderer, N., Kungl, G., Mylan, J., Neukirch, M., Wassermann, S., 2016, The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (19902014), Research Policy, 45(4), 896-913
  • Turnheim, B., Berkhout, F., Geels, F.W., Hof, A., McMeekin, A., Nykvist, B., Van Vuuren, D., 2015, Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges, Global Environmental Change, 35, 239–253
  • Penna, C.C.R. and Geels, F.W., 2015, ‘Climate change and the slow reorientation of the American car industry (1979-2011): An application and extension of the Dialectic Issue LifeCycle (DILC) model’, Research Policy, 44(5), 1029-1048
  • Geels, F.W., 2014, ‘Regime resistance against low-carbon energy transitions: Introducing politics and power in the multi-level perspective’, Theory, Culture & Society, 31(5), 21-40
  • Geels, F.W., 2013, ‘The impact of the financial-economic crisis on sustainability transitions: Financial investment, governance and public discourse’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 6, 67-95
  • Geels, F.W., 2012, ‘A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: Introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies’, Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 471-482
  • Geels, F.W., Kemp, R., Dudley, G. and Lyons, G. (eds.), 2012, Automobility in Transition? A Socio Technical Analysis of Sustainable Transport, New York: Routledge
  • Verbong, G.P.J. and Geels, F.W., 2010, ‘Exploring sustainability transitions in the electricity sector with socio-technical pathways’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(8), 12141221 Verbong, G.P.J. and Geels, F.W., 2007, ‘The ongoing energy transition: Lessons from a sociotechnical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960-2004)’, Energy Policy, 35(2), 1025-1037
  • Geels, F.W., 2002, ‘Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study’, Research Policy, 31(8/9), 1257-1274

Frank Geels publicly available CV
Education
• Ph.D., Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, Twente University of Technology (Jan. 1998- July 2002), Netherlands. Supervisors: Arie Rip and Johan Schot. Title PhD thesis: Understanding the Dynamics of Technological Transitions: A co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis.
• Masters degree in Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society, Twente University of Technology (1991-1996)
• Bachelor degree in Chemical Engineering, Twente University of Technology (1989-1991)

For what it’s worth, his formal education is pretty impressive. Where I lose respect is when he deviates from scientific argument in favour of political discourse. What could be very interesting work is corrupted be having an agenda.

His undergraduate degree is chemical engineering, which again, is very respectable. However, his Masters and PhD show a deviation from science and research.

While there are many other such authors, Frank W. Geels is a good case of what happens when political agendas and manoeuvering creep into science.

A morbidly fascinating topic. Check out some of his other publications.

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

    (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 Support Citizenship For 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 and 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.