CLICK HERE, for endthefed.org. CLICK HERE, for endthefed.org recommended websites. CLICK HERE, for Federal Reserve Act. CLICK HERE, for fractional banking. CLICK HERE, for fractional reserves. CLICK HERE, for a disclosure lawsuit against the Federal Reserve. Spoiler: It’s a private entity. CLICK HERE, for verdict forcing Federal Reserve to disclose who it has been financially bailing out. CLICK HERE, for US Federal debt by year. CLICK HERE, for an article on Fed background. CLICK HERE, for who owns the Federal Reserve.
2. What Is “End The Fed”?
This is a website posted to make people aware of the Federal Reserve. It contains links to books, videos, documentaries, websites, and other information.
The Federal Reserve, “the Fed”, is the central bank of the United States of America that was created in 1913 by Congress. It is a banking cartel that has a government-granted monopoly on the creation of money and credit. The Fed literally loans “money” (Federal Reserve Notes) into existence. Federal Reserve Notes are paper promises backed by nothing of intrinsic value and they are only functioning as money because the government forces them on the public through legal tender laws. Federal Reserve Notes are referred to as dollars but are not. The definition of a dollar is a weight of silver (371 grains). To put it simply, the Fed is a group of banks running a national counterfeiting operation with the protection of the government.
Why Should I Care?
Because you’re being systematically robbed and enslaved. The Fed’s counterfeiting causes the price of goods and services to rise which requires you to work harder in order to purchase them. Even with all the technological advances over the last century, you have to work just as hard or even harder to survive. The Fed is siphoning off the productivity that should have come from those technological advances. The reality is that you are working overtime solely for the benefit of some bankers who the government gave the power to conjure money out of nothing. In addition, the Fed’s counterfeiting finances the tools of the government’s oppression over you: the militarization of the police, the surveillance apparatus, and the endless wars.
If you cherish truth, freedom, justice, and want to leave behind a better world for your loved ones then you must…END THE FED! A free market, where each individual has the freedom to choose what form of money to use rather than one being forced on them, must be allowed to function in its place.
End The Fed is basically a reference site, which connects you to many great tools and resources. It is well worth spending time here. Even those who are Canadian can benefit from it, as many of the same issues the US faces also impact Canada.
3. Quotes From Federal Reserve Act
(From page 15 of 112)
DIVISION OF EARNINGS. SEC. 7. (a) DIVIDENDS AND SURPLUS FUNDS OF RESERVE BANKS.— (1) STOCKHOLDER DIVIDENDS.—
(A) DIVIDEND AMOUNT.—After all necessary expenses of a Federal reserve bank have been paid or provided for, the stockholders of the bank shall be entitled to receive an annual dividend on paid-in capital stock of—
(i) in the case of a stockholder with total consolidated assets of more than $10,000,000,000, the smaller of—
(I) the rate equal to the high yield of the 10 year Treasury note auctioned at the last auction held prior to the payment of such dividend; and
(II) 6 percent; and
(ii) in the case of a stockholder with total consolidated assets of $10,000,000,000 or less, 6 percent.
(B) DIVIDEND CUMULATIVE.—The entitlement to dividends under subparagraph (A) shall be cumulative.
(C) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall annually adjust the dollar amounts of total consolidated assets specified under subparagraph (A) to reflect the change in the Gross Domestic Product Price Index, published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis
So, if you are a stockholder in the Federal Reserve, you are guaranteed at least 6% interest on your “investment”. Talk about predatory lending.
Now, if you think that participating in this system is voluntary for banks, think again. This is from Section 2, Part 5 of the Act:
5. Failure of national bank to accept terms of Act¿ Any national bank failing to signify its acceptance of the terms of this Act within the sixty days aforesaid, shall cease to act as a reserve agent, upon thirty days’ notice, to be given within the discretion of the said organization committee or of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
6. Penalty for violation of Act by national banks¿ Should any national banking association in the United States now organized fail within one year after the passage of this Act to become a member bank or fail to comply with any of the provisions of this Act applicable thereto, all of the rights, privileges, and franchises of such association granted to it under the national-bank Act, or under the provisions of this Act, shall be thereby forfeited. Any noncompliance with or violation of this Act shall, however, be determined and adjudged by any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction in a suit brought for that purpose in the district or territory in which such bank is located, under direction of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, by the Comptroller of the Currency in his own name before the association shall be declared dissolved. In cases of such noncompliance or violation, other than the failure to become a member bank under the provisions of this Act, every director who participated in or assented to the same shall be held liable in his personal or individual capacity for all damages which said bank, its shareholders, or any other person shall have sustained in consequence of such violation
Banks don’t have the choice to “opt-out”. They are in if they want to be in this industry.
Logic dictates that the ideal form of money should be durable, divisible, portable, fungible, scarce, and in demand for purposes other than a medium of exchange. Market supply and demand dynamics demonstrate that precious metals, specifically gold and silver, meet these criteria better than any other good. Many people voluntarily chose to use gold or silver as money throughout history for this reason.
So who has the power to create fiat currency? The answer is central banks. Central banks are banking cartels that have a “government” granted monopoly on the creation of fiat currency. In the United States, it’s the Federal Reserve System (the Fed). In the United Kingdom, it’s the Bank of England (the BoE). In Europe, it’s the European Central Bank (the ECB). In Japan, it’s the Bank of Japan (the BoJ). The model is the same across the world. Central banks loan fiat currency (Federal Reserve Notes, Pounds, Euros, Yen, etc) into existence. These fiat currencies often bear the name of money, such as the Federal Reserve Note bearing the word “dollar” (which is by definition a weight of silver), but they are not money. To put it simply, central banks run “legalized” counterfeiting operations with the protection and enforcement of “government.” Counterfeiting is theft because it steals purchasing power from the current holders of the currency or money and transfers it to the counterfeiter. The Fed has stolen approximately 95% of the purchasing power from the users of the Federal Reserve Note since its creation in 1913 and other central banks have similar track records. Unfortunately, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Central banks use their counterfeiting rackets to rig interest rates, bailout their cronies, fund the welfare state, fund the police state, fund the warfare state, create asset booms and busts, and stifle economic growth. You pay for all of this through lost purchasing power, whether you want to or not.
This artificial system of creating money sets up a system where the only way to pay off existing debt is to use a substantial portion of your currency.
Now, since you have used up a significant amount of your currency making debt payments, a nation now finds itself short on currency to pay for the needs of its people. How do you solve that problem? Answer, by borrowing more. This system creates a dependency where the only solution is to borrow more to pay off existing debts.
5. Fractional Reserve Banking
US banks are not required to holdanywhere near the amount of money they are lending out. They are allowed to only hold a fraction of it, hence the name “fractional banking”.
In 2016, the minimum reserves required were:
In the United States, the reserves are held in the bank’s vault or the nearest Federal Reserve Bank. The Board of Governors of the Fed set the reserve requirements and use it as one of the tools of guiding monetary policy. As at January 2016, commercial banks with deposits of less than $15.2 million were not required to maintain reserves. Banks with deposits valued at $15.2 million to $110.2 million were required to maintain the reserve requirement at 3% while those with more than $100.2 million in deposits were required to keep a reserve requirement of 10%. The Garn-St. Germain Act of 1982 exempted the first $2 million of reserve liabilities from the reserve requirements.
Bank Deposit Total
$15.2M to $100.2M
Let’s take a look at it. If you own a US bank, you can claim $15.2 million in deposits without actually having any. Your bank can be worth billions, and you will only be required to hold 10% of the total amount.
Lending out potentially 10 times the money that you actually have sounds absurd, yet it is entirely legal. Of course this is completely unsustainable.
-Trump added $3T to national debt (~15%)
-Barack Obama added almost $10T to the national debt (~50%)
-Bush Jr. added $4T (~20%)
-Clinton added $1.6T (~8%)
-Bush Sr. added $1.3T (~6.5%)
-Reagan added $1.7T (~9%)
-National debt broke $1T in 1981. More than 95% of national debt has come “after” that benchmark.
Each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks is organized into a corporation whose shares are sold to the commercial banks and thrifts operating within the Bank’s district. Shareholders elect six of the nine the board of directors for their regional Federal Reserve Bank as well as its president. Mullins reported that the top eight stockholders of the New York Fed were, in order from largest to smallest as of 1983, Citibank, Chase Manhatten, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Bankers Trust Company, National Bank of North America, and the Bank of New York (Mullins, p. 179). Together, these banks owned about 63 percent of the New York Fed’s outstanding stock. Mullins then showed that many of these banks are owned by about a dozen European banking organizations, mostly British, and most notably the Rothschild banking dynasty. Through their American agents they are able to select the board of directors for the New York Fed and to direct U.S. monetary policy. Mullins explained,
‘… The most powerful men in the United States were themselves answerable to another power, a foreign power, and a power which had been steadfastly seeking to extend its control over the young republic since its very inception. The power was the financial power of England, centered in the London Branch of the House of Rothschild. The fact was that in 1910, the United States was for all practical purposes being ruled from England, and so it is today’ (Mullins, p. 47-48).
Admittedly, this is difficult to confirm, since the Federal Reserve tries to keep its ownership secret.
8. Conspiracy Theory: JFK’s Assassination Tied To Federal Reserve
There has long been a theory that former US President John F. Kennedy was murdered because of his opposition to the Federal Reserve. Look up “Executive Order 11110”.
Was Kennedy killed for wanting to stop this scam? I don’t know, but it is possible. It certainly was lucrative to the stockholders of the Federal Reserve.
9. System Will Collapse
As should be apparent, this system is not sustainable in the slightest.
This Federal Reserve is a bank creating its own money, and then lending it out, with interest. Note: “shareholders” are to receive a minimum of 6% return on their investments annually.
Banks operate on a “fractional reserve” system, meaning they only need to keep a portion of the actual money they claim to have on hand. Even for the biggest banks, this is capped at 10%. The same money can in fact be loaned out multiple times, since there is no requirement no have much of it on hand.
In order to finance this system, the US Government adds to its debt, year after year. This is debt that will never be paid back. The only way the US can “service the debt” is by continued economic growth. Of course, this is not possible. The dollar “used” to be backed by gold, but that is no longer the case.
The “debt ceiling” will continue to be raised, since no President or member of Congress wants to see it collapse on their watch.
-Right to self-representation
-Federal Court jurisdiction
-Private & Public standing
-Charter Provisions Engaged
35 (Indigenous Rights)
38 (Amending process)
-High burden to strike out
-Amending as an option
1. Written Submissions
-Does the Plaintiff have the right to self represent in this case?
-Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction to hear the case?
-Is there private or public interest standing in this case?
-Are the following Constitutional provisions engaged: 91 (POGG), 15 (equality rights), 35 (Indigenous rights), 38 (amending the constitution)?
-Does allowing fake refugees into Canada violate the doctrine of unjust enrichment?
-Does allowing fake refugees into Canada violate the doctrine of unconscionability?
-Does this motion meet the “very” high burden to strike out?
-Is amending the Claim a better option?
-Does the Government lawyer misrepresent the facts?
Canada the US signed the S3CA in 2002. It came into effect in 2004.
Canada is recognized as a safe country, which provides protection to people seeking genuine asylum
The United States is also recognized as a safe country, and offers protection to people seeking protection from persecution based on: race, religion , political beliefs, and identity
Both Canada and the US receive hundreds of thousands of refugee applications annually.
Although there is a loophole in the agreement (which omits crossings “between” official ports), it was never meant to be a path for illegal immigration, or fraudulent refugee claims.
Crossings from the US into Canada mainly fall into 2 categories:
(a) Those coming to the US on tourist visas, with the intent of using the US as a stopover country,
(b) Those living in the US illegally, who have decided to “asylum shop”
There are AT LEAST 40,000 illegals who have snuck into Canada, likely many more.
The Plaintiff is a self-representing, Canadian citizen, concerned about the impacts of illegal immigration. She is interested both as a private citizen, a taxpayer, and as a Canadian.
Preventing illegal immigration (and bogus refugee claims), is both a private interest, and a public interest.
Self represented people have every right to have their cases heard in court.
Illegal immigration (such as via this loophole) undermines the integrity of the immigration system, costs cities and provinces money they don’t have, and undermines the security of the country
For example, the Mayor of Toronto, John Tory, has reported that illegals have taken up almost half of the available space in homeless shelters
The Federal Government has had to reimburse the Provinces (mainly Quebec and Ontario), over $300 million so far due to costs these “refugee claimants” have racked up.
The Federal Government has also been paying the homeowners near Roxham Road — using taxpayer money — for the damage caused to their properties.
Recently, a group of illegal “refugee claimants” has announced plans to sue Quebec for subsidized daycare.
The flood of fake refugees has caused a strain on the health care system, particularly in Ontario and Quebec.
All of the above statements are not “mere assertions”. They are facts which can be proven in the course of the trial and via discovery.
The Government makes at least 3 serious misrepresentations.
First, the Government’s lawyer, Aman Owais, misrepresents the truth when claiming the loophole was “intentionally” written into the agreement. This is provably false, since even Trudeau has publicly spoken about the need to cut the illegal border crossings.
Second, there is a strawman argument that this is about refugee protections. Wrong, it is about protecting the public from illegal immigration.
Third, and furthermore, Aman Owais suggests that it would be better to have a refugee claimant make this claim. This is complete nonsense. A person using legal channels wouldn’t be impacted by this case. A person using illegal means to enter Canada would have no reason to pursue this, as it would be a big conflict of interest.
4. Applicable Law
22: Self representing litigants: From Pintea v. Johns,  1 SCR 470, 2017 SCC 23 (CanLII)
 As a result, the finding of contempt cannot stand.
 We would add that we endorse the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) (online) established by the Canadian Judicial Council.
B. PROMOTING EQUAL JUSTICE
Judges, the courts and other participants in the justice system have a responsibility to promote access to the justice system for all persons on an equal basis, regardless of representation.
1. Judges and court administrators should do whatever is possible to provide a fair and impartial process and prevent an unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.
2. Self-represented persons should not be denied relief on the basis of a minor or easily rectified deficiency in their case.
3. Where appropriate, a judge should consider engaging in such case management activities as are required to protect the rights and interests of self-represented persons. Such case management should begin as early in the court process as possible.
4. When one or both parties are proceeding without representation, non-prejudicial and engaged case and courtroom management may be needed to protect the litigants’ equal right to be heard. Depending on the circumstances and nature of the case, the presiding judge may:
(a) explain the process;
(b) inquire whether both parties understand the process and the procedure;
(c) make referrals to agencies able to assist the litigant in the preparation of the case;
(d) provide information about the law and evidentiary requirements;
(e) modify the traditional order of taking evidence; and
(f) question witnesses.
23: There is nothing in the Pintea v. Johns ruling that says self-represented people can “only” appear in certain courts or in certain types of cases
Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear the case
24: Consider that the test for determining if a matter is within the Federal Court’s jurisdiction is stipulated in ITO-International Terminal Operators LTD v Miida Electronics, 1986 CanLII 91 (SCC),  1 SCR 752 at 766 [ITO-International]:
1. There must be a statutory grant of jurisdiction by Parliament.
2. There must be an existing body of federal law which is essential to the disposition of the case and which nourishes the statutory grant of jurisdiction.
3. The law on which the case is based must be “a law of Canada” as the phrase is used in s. 101 of the Constitution Act.
Furthermore, the Federal Courts Act (under Rule 25) has original jurisdiction if no other court is designated as such.
Rule 25: The Federal Court has original jurisdiction, between subject and subject as well as otherwise, in any case in which a claim for relief is made or a remedy is sought under or by virtue of the laws of Canada if no other court constituted, established or continued under any of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 has jurisdiction in respect of that claim or remedy.
25: Although designed for Judicial Review Applications, the Federal Court does have authority under Rule 18.1(5) of Federal Courts Act to correct errors in form or technical defects. The Federal Court has the powers (under 47(1) and 53(1) and (2) of Federal Courts Rules), to ask with a wide degree of discretion and to make orders it views as just.
Defect in form or technical irregularity,
(5) If the sole ground for relief established on an application for judicial review is a defect in form or a technical irregularity, the Federal Court may
(a) refuse the relief if it finds that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred; and
(b) in the case of a defect in form or a technical irregularity in a decision or an order, make an order validating the decision or order, to have effect from any time and on any terms that it considers appropriate.
26: Immigration matters are within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. And this case is essentially about illegal immigration and border security. Furthermore, if this case prevailed, it would certainly have an impact on how asylum claims were handled in the future.
27: The Canadian Border Services Agency enforces the border, and enforces approximately 90 different acts. So there is ample Federal law to be looked at here. They are given their authority under the Customs Act.
28: Furthermore, CBSA enforces such acts as
Access to Information Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1]
Aeronautics Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. A-2]
Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act [S.C. 1995, c. 40]
Appropriation Acts [R.S.C. 1985, c. Z-01 ]
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3]
Canada Agricultural Products Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. 20 (4th Supp.)]
Canada Grain Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. G-10]
Canada Post Corporation Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-10]
Canada Shipping Act, 2001 [S.C. 2001, c. 26]
Canada Transportation Act [S.C. 1996, c. 10]
Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 1997, c. 14]
Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 2001, c. 28]
Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 1996, c. 33]
Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 1988, c. 65]
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 [S.C. 1999, c. 33]
Canadian Wheat Board Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-24]
Coasting Trade Act [S.C. 1992, c. 31]
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-38]
Criminal Code [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46]
Cultural Property Export and Import Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-51]
Customs and Excise Offshore Application Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-53]
Customs Tariff [S.C. 1997, c. 36]
Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. A-9]
Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act [S.C. 1994, c. 31]
Department of Industry Act [S.C. 1995, c. 1]
Energy Efficiency Act [S.C. 1992, c. 36]
Excise Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-14]
Excise Act, 2001 [S.C. 2002, c. 22]
Excise Tax Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15]
Explosives Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-17]
Export Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-18]
Export and Import Permits Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-19]
Feeds Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-9]
Fertilizers Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-10]
Financial Administration Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11]
Firearms Act [S.C. 1995, c. 39]
Fish Inspection Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-12]
Fisheries Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14]
Food and Drugs Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-27]
Harbour Commissions Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. H-1]
Hazardous Products Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. H-3]
Health of Animals Act [S.C. 1990, c. 21]
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act [S.C. 2001, c. 27]
Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. I-3]
Industrial and Regional Development Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. I-8]
International Boundary Commission Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. I-16 ]
Meat Inspection Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. 25 (1st Supp.)]
Motor Vehicle Safety Act [S.C. 1993, c. 16]
National Defence Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. N-5]
National Energy Board Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. N-7]
Navigable Waters Protection Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. N-22]
Nuclear Safety and Control Act [S.C. 1997, c. 9]
Pest Control Products Act [S.C. 2002, c. 28]
Pilotage Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-14]
Plant Breeders’ Rights Act [S.C. 1990, c. 20]
Plant Protection Act [S.C. 1990, c. 22]
Precious Metals Marking Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-19]
Preclearance Act [S.C. 1999, c. 20]
Privacy Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21]
Privileges and Immunities (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-24]
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act [S.C. 2000, c. 17]
Radiation Emitting Devices Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. R-1]
Radiocommunication Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. R-2]
Seeds Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. S-8]
Special Economic Measures Act [S.C. 1992, c. 17]
Special Import Measures Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. S-15]
Statistics Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. S-19]
Textile Labelling Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. T-10]
Trade-marks Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13]
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 [S.C. 1992, c. 34]
Visiting Forces Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. V-2]
Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act [S.C. 1992, c. 52]
29: The border clearly is being protected in accordance with Federal laws, and Acts passed by Parliament. So loopholes which make it harder for them to do their job at least conflict with Federal laws.
30: It has also long been held that,
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Constitution does not belong to the federal or provincial governments, but to Canadian citizens (Nova Scotia (AG)), and that it is a tool for dispute resolution, of which one of the most important goals is to serve well those who make use of it: Reference Re Residential Tenancies Act, 1996 CanLII 259 (SCC),  1 SCR 186 at 210.
There private & public interest standing in this case
31: Three cases which are used to determine public interest standing are:
(a) Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, (b) Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, and (c) Minister of
Justice v. Borowski. The trilogy was summarized as follows in Canadian Council of
Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration):
It has been seen that when public interest standing is sought, consideration must be given to three aspects.
First, is there a serious issue raised as to the invalidity of legislation in question?
Second, has it been established that the plaintiff is directly affected by the legislation or if not does the plaintiff have a genuine interest in its validity?
Third, is there another reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the court?
32: First: if this “interpretation” of the S3CA is as the Government claims, then effectively the Canada/US border disappears, except for a small number of official crossings. That is pretty serious. Illegal immigration cannot simply be shrugged off if it is not the government raising the issue.
33: Second: Yes, I am effected by illegal immigration. As a taxpayer, and as a citizen who wants secure borders. Clearly I have a genuine interest here. Why else go to court to do this? It is insulting and misrepresents reality to suggest that citizens are not concerned and interested in the external security of their nation.
34: Third, there doesn’t seem to be another reasonable or effective way to bring it to the Courts. It is the Government itself, with a majority mandate, which seems content to end-run the intent of the law.
35: Note: Public-interest standing is also available in non-constitutional cases, as the Court found
in Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance)
36: Plaintiff submits that there clearly is standing to bring forward these justiciable issues on the facts pleaded. This standing is personal, but it is also public interest-based and is in line with recent jurisprudence: Canada (Attorney General) v Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45 (CanLII); Galati, above.
Following Constitutional provisions engaged:
15 (equality rights),
35 (Indigenous rights),
38 (amending the constitution)
Peace, Order & Good Governance (Section 91)
37: Consider the case of R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd.,  1 SCR 401, 1988 CanLII 63 (SCC).
33. From this survey of the opinion expressed in this Court concerning the national concern doctrine of the federal peace, order and good government power I draw the following conclusions as to what now appears to be firmly established:
1. The national concern doctrine is separate and distinct from the national emergency doctrine of the peace, order and good government power, which is chiefly distinguishable by the fact that it provides a constitutional basis for what is necessarily legislation of a temporary nature;
2. The national concern doctrine applies to both new matters which did not exist at Confederation and to matters which, although originally matters of a local or private nature in a province, have since, in the absence of national emergency, become matters of national concern;
3. For a matter to qualify as a matter of national concern in either sense it must have a singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility that clearly distinguishes it from matters of provincial concern and a scale of impact on provincial jurisdiction that is reconcilable with the fundamental distribution of legislative power under the Constitution;
38: In looking this through the Peace, Order and Good Government (POGG) doctrine, it is worth asking should we allow actions that our laws seem designed to prevent?
34(1)(b.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act prohibits: engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada.
39: Allowing fake refugees to slip in arounf official border ports in order to “jump the queue” seems hardly in keeping with the POGG principle, or Rule 34(1)(b.1). Again, it is submitted that poor wording, not intent is the cause of this loophole.
40: The Court must also consider the national security implications of protecting the border. This should be obvious, but a nation that cannot control its border ceases to be a nation.
41: Currently, illegal border jumpers (fleeing war zones in Minnesota and New York State), are able to illegally enter Canada. They are processed, then released into the public often within hours. There is no public interest in doing this.
42: Given the vast amount of unscreened and unvetted fake “refuges” entering, there is no way to keep the public safe. This is not consistent with POGG in any sense.
43: Again, the Government’s lawyer “claims” that this loophole was intentionally written into the S3CA. This is even while Justin Trudeau and other Government members profess their desire to cut illegal entries. Obviously, both statements can’t be true.
44: As cited above, there are literally dozens of Acts which members of the CBSA are charged with enforcing. Obviously, enforcing the border is a sign of POGG. Now, how does adding a loophole to bypass some of these Acts make any sense?
45: How does it now undermine our national security? Borders are meant to be the protected outer areas of a nation. No one, except the most disingenuous would argue that borders do not matter. However, the Government does an end run around that (violating POGG doctrine), by claiming the loophole in the S3CA was intentional.
46: Border security “doesn’t” matter, apparently, as long as you go around the official checkpoints.
Section 15; Equality Rights:
47: This seems like a strange one to bring up. However, the Government of Canada’s website on Charter cases brought up an interesting argument about equality under the law.
(a) Pre-existing disadvantage, stereotyping, prejudice, or vulnerability experienced by the individual or group at issue
Section 15 has a significant remedial component (Andrews, supra at 171). Therefore, one of the most compelling factors is the impact of the governmental action on individuals or groups who are vulnerable, the object of stereotypes, disadvantaged or members of “discrete and insular minorities” (Law, supra at paragraphs 63-68). A member of a group that historically has been more disadvantaged in Canadian society is less likely to have difficulty in demonstrating discrimination (Law, supra at paragraph 68). When considering intra-group distinctions within a larger disadvantaged group (for example, as between status and non-status Indians, as determined pursuant to the Indian Act), there is no requirement that the claimant group be the more disadvantaged; there is no “race to the bottom” (Lovelace, supra at paragraph 69). Where no such unique disadvantage is established, as distinct from the broader group which provides the basis for comparison, this factor does not play a significant role (Gosselin, supra; Martin; Laseur, supra at paragraph 88).
48: In this case, the disadvantaged people are those who immigrate legally into Canada, and go through proper channels.
True, Canada’s immigration system is slow, expensive, and very complex. But that is a debate for another day. Point is, hundreds of thousands of people follow proper due process every year.
49: They are the ones who suffer as “border jumpers” push ahead of them, and get preferential treatment, and access to benefits. Furthermore, they are the ones who suffer the public backlash as Canadian get fed up with mass, illegal immigration.
50: In short, legal applicants suffer because of the actions of criminals.
Section 35: Indigenous Rights
51: From the case: Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests),  3 SCR 511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII), the issue of duty to consult to brought up.
26 Honourable negotiation implies a duty to consult with Aboriginal claimants and conclude an honourable agreement reflecting the claimants’ inherent rights. But proving rights may take time, sometimes a very long time. In the meantime, how are the interests under discussion to be treated? Underlying this question is the need to reconcile prior Aboriginal occupation of the land with the reality of Crown sovereignty. Is the Crown, under the aegis of its asserted sovereignty, entitled to use the resources at issue as it chooses, pending proof and resolution of the Aboriginal claim? Or must it adjust its conduct to reflect the as yet unresolved rights claimed by the Aboriginal claimants?
27 The answer, once again, lies in the honour of the Crown. The Crown, acting honourably, cannot cavalierly run roughshod over Aboriginal interests where claims affecting these interests are being seriously pursued in the process of treaty negotiation and proof. It must respect these potential, but yet unproven, interests.
52: The case of Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director),  3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII), should also be considered, and for much the same principle.
25 As discussed in Haida, what the honour of the Crown requires varies with the circumstances. It may require the Crown to consult with and accommodate Aboriginal peoples prior to taking decisions: R. v. Sparrow, 1990 CanLII 104 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 1075, at p. 1119; R. v. Nikal, 1996 CanLII 245 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 1013; R. v. Gladstone, 1996 CanLII 160 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 723; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 (SCC),  3 S.C.R. 1010, at para. 168. The obligation to consult does not arise only upon proof of an Aboriginal claim, in order to justify infringement. That understanding of consultation would deny the significance of the historical roots of the honour of the Crown, and deprive it of its role in the reconciliation process. Although determining the required extent of consultation and accommodation before a final settlement is challenging, it is essential to the process mandated by s. 35(1). The duty to consult arises when a Crown actor has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of Aboriginal rights or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect them. This in turn may lead to a duty to change government plans or policy to accommodate Aboriginal concerns. Responsiveness is a key requirement of both consultation and accommodation.
53: It is a serious question here: how much consultation (if any), was done before signing a document that — the Federal Government now claims — eliminates the security of the Canada/US border? Just because there isn’t a claim pending doesn’t mean there are not valid Indigenous interests to be considered
54: No consultation process took place — EVER — which would fulfill the obligations to negotiate in good faith with Indigenous groups. The Government claims that the S3CA was “designed” to allow for entrants from the United States to make refugee claims, as long as they bypass the official border ports.
It would be disingenuous for the Federal Government to claim that it wouldn’t be aware of any obligation to consult prior to “erasing” the US/Canada border.
55: The Government breached is S35 obligations if, by this defense, the S3CA was drawn up with the loophole “intentionally” left in.
Substantial Consent required (section 38)
56: If the Government truly believes that POGG, and other obligations can be circumvented by intentional poor wording, then we need to amend the constitution to change what POGG means.
57: This was decided regarding the issue of changing the Senate rules (Reference re Senate Reform,  1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38). The Court cited the amending procedure.
 The process set out in s. 38 is the general rule for amendments to the Constitution of Canada. It reflects the principle that substantial provincial consent must be obtained for constitutional change that engages provincial interests. Section 38 codifies what is colloquially referred to as the “7/50” procedure — amendments to the Constitution of Canada must be authorized by resolutions of the Senate, the House of Commons, and legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces whose population represents, in the aggregate, at least half of the current population of all the provinces. Additionally, it grants to the provinces the right to “opt out” of constitutional amendments that derogate from “the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province”.
58: If what the Government says is true, then the doctrine of Peace, Order and Good Government (POGG) has been distorted to such a degree that a Constitutional amendment should be required.
59: These constitutional arguments are not exhaustive, and will be expanded on more fully as the case progresses. The point here, is that the case at hand (the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement), engages the same Charter rights as what is cited here.
Doctrine of unjust enrichment
60: The Court must also consider how allowing illegal immigration and fake refugees to gain priority over legal immigrant violates the doctrine of unjust enrichment.
61: Citing from 3 cases:
Kerr v. Baranow,  S.C.J.
Kerr v. Baranow, 2009 BCCA 111
Vanasse v. Seguin, 2009 ONCA 595
62: These cases set the standard for unjust enrichment. (a) the person received a benefit, (b) the claimant suffered a loss corresponding in some way to the benefit, and (c) there was no juristic reason for the benefit and the loss.
63: As stated in the facts, these so-called “refugees” have been accessing public services. This costs money, and takes away from actual citizens.
64: And forget the money factor for a moment. Isn’t Canadian residence or citizenship a thing of value itself? If we consider that being Canadian is something to be valued, then doesn’t obtaining it (or Permanent Residence, or Protected Status) under false pretenses count as illegally obtaining a benefit?
Doctrine of unconscionability
65: From the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, trying to circumvent proper immigration channels should not be rewarded.
34(1)(b.1) engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;
66: If the loophole in S3CA was written in such a way as to circumvent very legitimate national security and immigration concerns, then how valid and enforceable is it?
67: Remember, Aman Owais, (the Government’s lawyer) has pleaded the intent of the agreement was “not” to apply the proper screening rules as long as self-identified “refugees” bypass official border ports. This is claimed to be intentional, not accidental.
68: Notwithstanding that no reasonable person could view it that way, and notwithstanding the Canadian Government has made announcements to cut down on these crossings, how valid are these provisions?
Does this motion meet the “very” high burden to strike out
69: Even if there are deficiencies in the Statement of Claim, they can usually be cured by filing an “amended” Statement of Claim. That must always be considered when asked to strike out. This is settled by a great many cases.
In terms of the general principles that ought to be applied on a motion to strike, the Plaintiffs assert that the facts pleaded by the Plaintiffs must be taken as proven: Canada (Attorney General) v Inuit Tapirasat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC),  2 SCR 735; Nelles v Ontario (1989), DLR (4th) 609 (SCC) [Nelles]; Operation Dismantle, above; Hunt v Carey Canada Inc 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC),  2 SCR 959 [Hunt]; Dumont v Canada (Attorney General), 1990 CanLII 131 (SCC),  1 SCR 279 [Dumont]; Nash v Ontario (1995), 1995 CanLII 2934 (ON CA), 27 OR (3d) 1 (Ont CA) [Nash]; Canada v Arsenault, 2009 FCA 242 (CanLII) [Arsenault].
The Plaintiffs echo the test referenced by the Defendants, asserting that a claim can be struck only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading is bad beyond argument: Nelles, above, at para 3. The Court has provided further guidance in Dumont, above, that an outcome should be “plain and obvious” or “beyond doubt” before striking can be invoked (at para 2). Striking cannot be justified by a claim that raises an “arguable, difficult or important point of law”: Hunt,
The history of our law reveals that often new developments in the law first surface on motions to strike or similar preliminary motions, like the one at issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson. Therefore, on a motion to strike, it is not determinative that the law has not yet recognized the particular claim.
70: This case DOES raise an important point of law, one the Defendant pretends doesn’t exist. Can the Court close a plain and obvious loophole in the S3CA?
71: Can a clearly frivilious, fraudulent, abusive and vexxing defense filed by the Crown be overcome?
72: Note: this does not amount to a rejection of the agreement as a whole. For the most part, it is a fine document.
Amending the Claim a better option
73: The Federal Court has the powers (under 47(1) and 53(1) and (2) of Federal Courts Rules), to ask with a wide degree of discretion and to make orders it views as just.
The novelty of the Amended Claim is not reason in and of itself to strike it: Nash, above, at para 11; Hanson v Bank of Nova Scotia (1994), 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA), 19 OR (3d) 142 (CA); Adams-Smith v Christian Horizons (1997), 3 OR (3d) 640 (Ont Gen Div). Additionally, matters that are not fully settled by the jurisprudence should not be disposed of on a motion to strike: RD Belanger & Associates Ltd v Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd (1991), 1991 CanLII 2731 (ON CA), 5 OR (3d) 778 (CA). In order for the Defendants to succeed, the Plaintiffs state that a case from the same jurisdiction that squarely deals with, and rejects, the very same issue must be presented: Dalex Co v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman (1994), 19 OR (3d) 215 (CA). The Court should be generous when interpreting the drafting of the pleadings, and allow for amendments prior to striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA).
74: The facts as laid out in the above section are not bare assertions. They can be proven in court, going through the discovery and document production phases. It is not at all plain and obvious that the Claim is baseless.
75: Any flaws in the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim could be cured by amending.
Government lawyer misrepresents the facts
76: The Government claims, without any basis, that the S3CA was negotiated with the “loophole” deliberately written in. In essence, they are arguing that although the Canada/US border stretches for thousands of miles, only the few dozen “legal” entry ports should be considered. Anywhere else, people are free to walk across and claim asylum. If this were actually true, it would effectively erase the Canadian border.
77: Bald assertions, without supporting facts, are not sufficient to satisfy the rules of pleading. See Rule 174 and accompanying jurisprudence. This should also applies to motions to strike.
78: Bald assertions, without facts, are baseless. If any part of the claim is “plainly and obviously” without merit, it is the defense raised by the Government.
79: The claim that the S3CA was “intended” to allow illegal border crossings is fraudulent, and an attempt to mislead and deceive the court by Aman Owais. This is plain and obvious given that members of the Government, including Justin Trudeau himself, have publicly stated the need to stop illegal border crossings. The false defense violates Rule 221, as a frivilous, vexous, and abusive misuse of Court procedure.
80: This can and will be proven in a trial.
81: Also worth noting: according to Rule 221, “inconsistent pleadings” can be struck out. So if the Government ever tries to put another spin on this, it will automatically qualify for striking.
82: And to reiterate: the “remedy” suggested makes no sense. A person entering Canada legally would have no interest in the case, since it only covers illegal entry. A person entering Canada illegally would have no reason to pursue the case, as it would be a conflict of interest. This absurd solution wastes court resources.
83: The government also appears to distort the purpose of the case. It is about protecting the Canadian public from illegal immigration, not making things easier for people to cross the border.
84: To add insult, Aman Owais also implies that I have no business attempting this case since I am not a lawyer. Arrogance. Pintea v Johns (2017, SCC) enshrines protections for “all” self-representing litigants. It doesn’t limit it to certain types of cases, or certain Courts.
85: Will closing this loophole have an impact on current and future cases? Hopefully. Otherwise, what would be the point of going to Court?
86: Plaintiff has a right to self represent
87: Federal Court has jurisdiction
88: Plaintiff has both a private interest, and qualifies for public interest standing
90: Allowing fake refugees into Canada violates the doctrine of unjust enrichment & unconscionability
91: Motion doesn’t meet the “very” high burden to strike out
92: Amending the Claim a better option than striking without leave.
93: Note: This is not an attempt to get to court to make a final ruling on the case. Rather, it is to show that there is merit to the case
94: The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Constitution does not belong to the federal or provincial governments, but to Canadian citizens (Nova Scotia (AG))
95: The history of our law reveals that often new developments in the law first surface on motions to strike or similar preliminary motions, like the one at issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson
96: The Court should be generous when interpreting the drafting of the pleadings, and allow for amendments prior to striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA).
5. Order Sought
(a) Dismiss the motion; or
(b) Allow the Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the statement of claim.
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
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.
Christensen  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
. 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” (: 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
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 . 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 .
The MLP thus draws on history and sociology of technology, where processual, contextual explanations are common. Mokyr , 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
• 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.
Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.
All personal court appearances are under “BLOG”
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.
CLICK HERE, for a copy of the claim. CLICK HERE, for link to Chicago Police Department. CLICK HERE, for Tina Tchen and Michelle Obama. CLICK HERE, for talks between Tina Tchen and Kim Foxx. CLICK HERE, for talks between Kim Foxx and Smollett’s family. CLICK HERE, for donations made by George Soros to Kim Foxx. CLICK HERE, for the Soros-Foxx connection. CLICK HERE, for Mark Geragos and Michael Avenatti. CLICK HERE, for Avenatti and Kim Foxx. CLICK HERE, for Avenatti and Geragos backstory. CLICK HERE, for Geragos threatening to depose Mayor Rahm Emanuel. CLICK HERE, for Rahm Emanuel’s mayoral scandal.
Toto, I guess we’re not in MAGA Country anymore.
8. Abel responded to Defendant via text message that he and Ola were scheduled to depart the evening of January 29, 2019.
9. After Abel confirmed the date and time of his trip, Defendant texted Abel, “Might need your help on the low. You around to meet up and talk face to face?”
10. That same day, January 25, 2019, GPS records and video evidence indicate that Defendant drove Abel from Empire’s Cinespace Studio to Abel’s apartment. During the ride, Defendant stated that he was unhappy with the way his employers handled a racist and homophobic letter he had allegedly received three days earlier, and, as a result, he wanted to stage an attack where Abel would appear to batter him.
11. Video evidence shows that Defendant and Abel reached Abel’s apartment at approximately 5:00 P.M. on January 25th. When they arrived, Ola, who was then living with Abel, came out of the apartment and sat with Defendant and Abel in Defendant’s vehicle. Once
inside, Defendant asked Ola if he could trust him and Ola assented.
12. After Ola attested to his trustworthiness, Defendant and Abel and Ola (the “Osundairo Brothers”) discussed their plan to stage a fake racist and homophobic attack on Defendant. Defendant directed the Osundairo Brothers to stage the fake attack on the evening of January 28, 2019, near his apartment building in Streeterville. Defendant and the Osundairo Brothers agreed that the Osundairo Brothers would catch Defendant’s attention, and the fake attack would begin when the Osundairo Brothers called Defendant an “Empire F—– Empire N—.”
In the lawsuit, Chicago claims the entire attack was staged, and that it was rehearsed ahead of time. Regarding the racist letter referred to in Paragraph 10, Smollett is also under investigation for sending it to himself.
48. For the next two weeks, the CPD expended significant resources investigating Defendant’s false report of a high-profile hate crime and physical assault. Over two dozen CPD officers and detectives participated in the investigation, ultimately spending weeks investigating Defendant’s false statements. During the course of CPD’s investigation into Defendant’s false statements, CPD has incurred 1,836 overtime hours, which resulted in the City paying $130,106.15 in overtime pay as result of Defendant’s false statements.
49. Eventually, after an extensive investigation using interviews, surveillance videos, Office of Emergency Management pod videos, in-car taxi camera videos, rideshare records, bank records, and a store receipt, CPD identified the Osundairo Brothers as the perpetrators of the alleged attack.
That is expensive, no question. But a little clarification on the pay rates
$130,106.15/1836hr = $70.86/hr, which is seems high even for overtime
If overtime is double time, it’s $35.43/hr
If overtime is time and a half, it’s $47.24/
50. On February 13, 2019, the Osundairo Brothers returned from Nigeria. They were immediately and separately detained upon their arrival at O’Hare. CPD investigators thereafter obtained testimony and corroborating evidence from the Osundairo Brothers that showed Defendant had orchestrated and staged the attack with the cooperation of the Osundairo Brothers, and that Defendant’s police report was false.
51. On February 14, 2019, CPD officers interviewed Defendant again about the Still Photo that he had said on Good Morning America showed his attackers. Defendant again stated that he was certain that the Still Photo depicted the men who had attacked him.
52. CPD officers then told Defendant that the men in the Still Photo had been identified as the Osundairo Brothers.
53. Defendant made further false statements by claiming that his only relationship with the Osundairo Brothers was as trainers and social acquaintances, claiming that they could not have been his attackers.
The attack was staged, then the brothers fled the country. They were arrested when they returned.
WHAT DO THE LAWS SAY?
About the False Statements Ordinance:
56. Subsection 1-21-010(a) of the FSO provides that:
[a]ny person who knowingly makes a false statement of material fact to the city in violation of any statute, ordinance or regulation, or who knowingly makes a false statement of material fact to the city in connection with any application, report, affidavit, oath, or attestation, including a statement of material fact made in connection with a bid, proposal, contract or economic disclosure statement or affidavit, is liable to the city for a civil penalty of not less than $500.00 and not more than $1,000.00, plus up to three times the amount of damages which the city sustains because of the person’s violation of this section. A person who violates this section shall also be liable for the city’s litigation and collection costs and attorneys’ fees.
Note: While triple the damages is optional, court costs and the fine are not. But this is not the only count Smollett is facing in this civil complaint.
About the Cost Recovery Ordinance:
64. The CRO provides that “[a]ny person who causes the city or its agents to incur costs in order to provide services reasonably related to such person’s violation of any federal, state or local law, or such person’s failure to correct conditions which violate any federal, state or local law when such person was under a legal duty to do so, shall be liable to the city for those costs.” MCC § 1-20-020.
65. Under the CRO, “‘costs’ includes all costs of the city incurred in relation to the provision of services by the city or its agents, regardless of whether the city would have otherwise incurred those costs, including but not limited to wages and benefits of personnel involved in providing such services, reasonable costs of equipment used in the provision of such services, costs of materials expended in providing such services, costs of storing hazardous or any other materials recovered during the course of providing such services, or any other costs allocable to the provision of services.”
66. In addition, “[i]n any action brought under [the CRO], the City of Chicago shall also be entitled to recover a penalty in an amount equal to the city’s litigation and collection costs and attorney’s fees.” MCC § 1-20-060.
67. The City is entitled to recovery of the costs of necessary services provided by the City in order to provide services in investigating and responding to Defendant’s violations of the MCC, together with its litigation and collection costs and attorney’s fees. MCC § 1-20-010
It appears that the City of Chicago is trying to go after Smollett on “both” the FSO and CRO. A bit of double dipping, but let’s see what it adds up to
Under False Statements Ordinance
Fine of $500-$1000.
Up to triple the $130,106.16, or $390,318.45
Under Cost Recovery Ordinance (CRO)
City’s expenses of $130,106.15
Penalty equal to city expenses of $130,106.15
Collection and attorney’s fees
Other costs as directed by the court
In worse case scenario, Smollett would be looking at FIVE TIMES the cost of the investigation, or $650,530.78. This is on top of potentially double the lawyers’ fees and a $1,000 fine.
In short, this could plausibly top $1 million if the Judge came down hard on Smollett. But given Smollett’s connections, it’s possible he could skate on this as well.
WHY WERE THE CHARGES DROPPED?
From the USA Today article: Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx earlier this month released a series of text messages and emails to and from Tina Tchen, a prominent Chicago attorney and former chief of staff to Michelle Obama, and an unnamed Smollett relative.
The messages were sent to convey the family’s unease with how police were handling their investigation of an alleged attack on the actor at a moment when police were still classifying Smollett as a victim, according to Tchen.
“I know members of the Smollett family based on prior work together,” Tchen said in a statement. “Shortly after Mr. Smollett reported he was attacked, as a family friend, I contacted Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, who I also know from prior work together. My sole activity was to put the chief prosecutor in the case in touch with an alleged victim’s family who had concerns about how the investigation was being characterized in public.”
Foxx said she recused herself from the investigation because of her contacts with Tchen and the Smollett family member. The prosecutor wrote to Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson after the contacts to convey that the family wanted the FBI to take over the investigation, according to copies of emails and text released by the State’s Attorney’s Office.
It is openly admitted that Michelle Obama’s Chief of Staff, Tina Tchen reached out to the State’s Attorney, Kim Foxx. Not difficult to conclude that an agreement was made to make the charges disappear.
Jussie Smollett knew Barack and Michelle Obama
Smollett and Obama dislike Trump, who wants strong borders
George Soros (the Open Society), wants to break down national borders.
Soros dislikes Trump’s agenda
Soros donates $408,000 to State’s Attorney, Kim Foxx.
Tina Tchen is Michelle Obama’s former Chief of Staff.
Tina Tchen contacted Kim Foxx, the State’s Attorney.
Foxx claimed to have recused herself, but did not.
Foxx directly contacts Smollett’s relative
Charges are arranged to be quietly dropped
Smollett’s lawyer, Mark Geragos, named as co-conspirator in extortion case.
POLICE WRONG ABOUT MOTIVE?
When Smollett was arrested, the Police Superintendent claimed that it was a publicity stunt in order to gain attention and to attract a higher salary.
But this seems to be a bigger picture.
Smollett is friends with the Obamas.
George Soros is a major donor to the Cook County State’s Attorney.
They all dislike Trump and his border policies
Is there anything to Geragos-Avenatti, or coincidence?
This seems to be a deliberate ask to spring their puppet, Smollett.
Yes, Smollett staged the hoax, but doing it for a pay raise doesn’t seem to be the reason. It’s hard to know where facts end and where conspiracy theories begin.
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 trying to use Notice of Application. CLICK HERE, for trying to get a motion to extend time for A.J.R. CLICK HERE, for background on the loophole. CLICK HERE, for abuse of loophole in S3CA.
CLICK HERE, for the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement. CLICK HERE, for the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
The Federal Court has shot down multiple attempts to use application for judicial review (Section 18 of Federal Courts Act) to correct this problem. So, now the next approach taken: ask for straight-up enforcement of how the agreement was “intended” to be.
Specifically, it was never meant that anyone could bypass the S3CA simply by going around official checkpoints.
NEW ATTEMPT: CLAIM FOR ENFORCEMENT
The Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) was signed between Canada and the United States on December 5, 2002, under then Prime Minister Jean Chretien.
The Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) came into effect on December 29, 2004, under then Prime Minister Paul Martin.
The intention behind this agreement is to recognize that both countries are “safe” countries, and that “asylum seekers”, shouldn’t be “shopping around” for a better country to arrive at.
The Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) remains in effect legally, the only issue is of enforcing it properly.
Recently, however, more than 40,000 economic migrants (fake refugees) have come into Canada from the United States. This poses security and financial burdens.
Instead of deporting these illegal, economic migrants (fake refugees), the Federal Government has decided instead to take them in, at great expense to taxpayers.
By far the most common location is Roxham Road, in Quebec, which shares a border with New York State.
A loophole in the S3CA means this only covers “official ports of entry”, or official land border crossings. This means the law can be circumvented merely by going AROUND any official border crossings.
While the wording in the official agreement may be poor, the intent was to avoid “asylum shopping”.
No reasonable person could interpret the agreement to mean that the agreement could be
bypassed by ignoring official checkpoints. That would reward lawbreakers.
This is even more outrageous when considered that the US gets tens of thousands of asylum applications annually. Hardly a dangerous place.
Law On The Subject
(12) As specified on the Canadian Government’s own website, the point of the Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) is to prevent abuse. Here is a quote:
The Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States (U.S.) is part of the U.S.–Canada Smart Border Action Plan. Under the Agreement, refugee claimants are required to request refugee protection in the first safe country they arrive in, unless they qualify for an exception to the Agreement.
The Agreement helps both governments better manage access to the refugee system in each country for people crossing the Canada–U.S. land border. The two countries signed the Agreement on December 5, 2002, and it came into effect on December 29, 2004.
To date, the U.S. is the only country that is designated as a safe third country by Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Agreement does not apply to U.S. citizens or habitual residents of the U.S. who are not citizens of any country (“stateless persons”).
(13) There is nothing vague or arguable about the intent of the agreement. People seeking asylum are required to apply for asylum in the first safe country they arrive at.
(14) Canada recognises the United States as a safe country. Period.
(15) It is further codified later on the Government website
Section 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) permits the designation of safe third countries for the purpose of sharing the responsibility for refugee claims. Only countries that respect human rights and offer a high degree
of protection to asylum seekers may be designated as safe third countries. To date, the United States is the only designated safe third country.
(16) And from reading Section 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, we gain this information.
102 (1) The regulations may govern matters relating to the application of sections
100 and 101, may, for the purposes of this Act, define the terms used in those sections and, for the purpose of sharing responsibility with governments of foreign states for the consideration of refugee claims, may include provisions
(a) designating countries that comply with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture;
(b) making a list of those countries and amending it as necessary; and
(c) respecting the circumstances and criteria for the application of paragraph
(2) The following factors are to be considered in designating a country under
(a) whether the country is a party to the Refugee Convention and to the
Convention Against Torture;
(b) its policies and practices with respect to claims under the Refugee Convention
and with respect to obligations under the Convention Against Torture;
(c) its human rights record; and
(d) whether it is party to an agreement with the Government of Canada for the
purpose of sharing responsibility with respect to claims for refugee protection.
(17) The United States, being the only officially designated “safe country” certainly means that people are safe there.
(18) To reiterate, it is the complete flaunting of a legitimate international agreement that is the issue. The S3CA was NEVER meant to mean anyone can claim asylum in Canada if they merely bypass official checkpoints.
(19) Under 101(1)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, so called “asylum seekers” who enter Canada illegally via the US would be inadmissible anyways, even without the S3CA.
101(1)(e) the claimant came directly or indirectly to Canada from a country designated by the regulations, other than a country of their nationality or their former habitual residence; or
(20) Again, clearly this would make these illegal economic migrants ineligible.
(21) And to beat a dead horse, these illegal, economic migrants (fake refugees) would be ineligible under 34(1)(1.b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This is on the grounds that it would be subversion against an institution or process.
34(1)(b.1) engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;
(22) Also, allowing these illegal economic migrants (fake refugees), into Canada from the United States arguably violates AMERICAN law. Consider Section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
(42) The term “refugee” means
(A) any person who is outside any country of such
nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in
a particular social group,or political opinion, or
(B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate
consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any
person who is within the country of such person’s
(23) Please note: the Canadian Federal Court is not being asked to rule on the validity of US refugee laws. This is added to acknowledge that the US does offer refugee status to approved asylum applicants. Again, this is not an attempt to amend or alter US law.
(24) Allowing this to happen is not saved by Perogative Powers. True, the Executive Branch of the Federal Government has the power to make treaties, and has legitimate purpose.
(25) However this is a treaty signed by a previous administration, that of Jean Chretien in December 2002. The treaty is valid, binding, and to this date, has never been rescinded. The current federal government must respect that.
(26) If the current administration has no interest in enforcing the S3CA as it was intended, then perhaps they should leave the agreement entirely.
(27) As should be obvious from the content of the Statement of Claim, this case is not about money, or getting rich from it. It is about enforcing the integrity of existing border security laws.
(28) The Federal Government has an obligation to the public to enforce agreements in good faith, and to not allow loopholes to undermine public policy.
(a) To declare the entire Canada/US border an “official port of entry” or an “official border crossing” to close the loophole in the S3CA.
(b) To deport automatically illegal economic migrants (fake refugees) attempting to cross in the future.
(c) To retroactively void/deny or invalidate any existing or previous claims (where these illegal crossings happen) on grounds that it takes advantage of the loophole
CLICK HERE, for Robert Potnam, E Pluribus Unum
In diverse neighbourhoods (US), everyone “hunkers down”.
Links to many different surveys.
CLICK HERE, for Leveraging Diversity To Improve Business.
No improvement in talent or production found.
CLICK HERE, for MIT article on workplace diversity.
“Idea” of diversity preferred to “actual” diversity
Diversity raises profits, but lowers social cohesion
THE MACLEAN’S ARTICLE
Most recently, and perhaps most significantly, Ontario has become the first province in Canada to propose a mandatory employment equity program that would have the effect of requiring privately owned companies to hire and promote women, nonwhites, aboriginals and disabled people.
Ugly: So far, the government’s opponents have taken aim most directly at the proposed labor laws. Business groups and many of the country’s largest employers have argued that the legislation will give trade unions too much power and frighten off investors from Canada’s industrial heartland. Critics also charge that the New Democrats’ approach to empowering vulnerable or disadvantaged members of society—including workers, visible minorities, women, natives, children, the elderly and the disabled—is fundamentally misguided. They claim that some of the programs will hand power to narrowly focused interest groups rather than to needy individuals. Acknowledged one veteran NDP organizer: “We are getting into some very dicey areas. If we are not careful we can create all kinds of tension
Indeed, some analysts say that the NDP’S employment equity proposal is a potentially divisive instrument. Declared University of Toronto historian Michael Bliss: “People are being defined by race and gender, and it is profoundly wrong. In a liberal society you think about people in terms of their character, not the color of their skin.” Bliss said that he is worried that the program could produce an ugly backlash. “The government says that it is trying to stop racism and sexism,” he added, “but I think they are raising the awareness of race and sex almost to a fever pitch.”
WHAT DOES THE CHARTER SAY?
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.
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, everyone is equal, unless you call it affirmative action. Then equality can be thrown to the wind.
GENDER MORE IMPORTANT THAN SPEED
This example is from the Canadian Forces 1.5km run times.
Under 30 Years
10:13 – 11:56
12:36 – 14:26
30 – 34
10:35 – 12:26
12:57 – 14:55
35 – 39
10:58 – 12:56
13:27 – 15:25
40 – 44
11:12 – 13:25
13:57 – 15:55
45 – 49
11:27 – 13:56
14:26 – 16:25
50 – 54
11:57 – 14:25
14:56 – 16:54
55 and over
12:27 – 14:56
15:27 – 17:24
Serious question, how does watering down the standards based on age and sex help strengthen the Canadian Forces?
RACE, CLASS OVER INTELLIGENCE
The next 2 charts have to do with how SAT scores and ACT scores are slanted depending on race or class in order to gain entry to American universities.
ACT (Scale of 36)
SAT (Scale of 1600)
ACT (Scale of 36)
SAT (Scale of 1600)
So, just looking at race, Asian would have a -140, while blacks would have +310, concerning SAT scores. So there would be a 450 point gap, or more than a 25% discrepancy based on race.
Even scoring a perfect 1600, the Asian student would only get 1460, while the black student would only need to achieve an 1150 to beat that Asian. In this case 1150 = 1600. Absurd. Isn’t admission into colleges supposed to be reserved for the most academically accomplished?
Robert Potnam, E Pluribus Unum
Ethnic diversity is increasing in most advanced countries, driven mostly by sharp increases in immigration. In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration.
The evidence that diversity and solidarity are negatively correlated (controlling for many potentially confounding variables) comes from many different settings:
• Across workgroups in the United States, as well as in Europe, internal heterogeneity (in terms of age, professional background, ethnicity, tenure and other factors) is generally associated with lower group cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover (Jackson et al. 1991; Cohen & Bailey 1997; Keller 2001; Webber & Donahue 2001).
• Across countries, greater ethnic heterogeneity seems to be associated with lower social trust (Newton & Delhey 2005; Anderson & Paskeviciute 2006; but see also Hooghe et al. 2006).
• Across local areas in the United States, Australia, Sweden, Canada and Britain, greater ethnic diversity is associated with lower social trust and, at least in some cases, lower investment in public goods (Poterba 1997; Alesina et al. 1999; Alesina & La Ferrara 2000, 2002; Costa & Kahn 2003b; Vigdor 2004; Glaeser & Alesina 2004; Leigh 2006; Jordahl & Gustavsson 2006; Soroka et al. 2007; Pennant 2005; but see also Letki forthcoming).
• Among Peruvian micro-credit cooperatives, ethnic heterogeneity is associated with higher default rates; across Kenyan school districts ethnolinguistic diversity is associated with less voluntary fundraising; and in Himalayan Pakistan, clan, religious, and political diversity are linked with failure of collective infrastructure maintenance (Karlan 2002; Miguel & Gugerty 2005; Khwaja 2006).
• Across American census tracts, greater ethnic heterogeneity is associated with lower rates of car-pooling, a social practice that embodies trust and reciprocity (Charles & Kline 2002).
• Within experimental game settings such as prisoners-dilemma or ultimatum games, players who are more different from one another (regardless of whether or not they actually know one another) are more likely to defect (or ‘cheat’). Such results have been reported in many countries, from Uganda to the United States (Glaeser et al. 2000; Fershtman & Gneezy 2001; Eckel & Grossman 2001; Willinger et al. 2003; Bouckaert & Dhaene 2004; Johansson-Stenman et al. 2005; Gil-White 2004; Habyarimana et al. 2006).
• Within the Union (northern) Army in the American Civil War, the casualty rate was very high and the risks of punishment for desertion were very low, so the only powerful force inhibiting the rational response of desertion was loyalty to one’s fellow soldiers, virtually all of whom were other white males. Across companies in the Union Army, the greater the internal heterogeneity (in terms of age, hometown, occupation, etc.), the higher the desertion rate (Costa & Kahn 2003a).
Increased diversity does not necessarily improve the talent pool. An increase in the diversity of a group at the demographic level (age, gender, race, disability) does not guarantee an increase in diversity of task-related knowledge, skills, abilities, experiences, and other characteristics
Increased diversity does not necessarily build commitment, improve motivation, and reduce conflict. Another expectation is that a happier, more harmonious workplace will result from diversity. Unfortunately, the diversification of the workforce often has the opposite effect.
Increased group-level diversity does not necessarily lead to higher group performance. One cannot, on the basis of the current research in psychology, conclude with confidence that a diverse group is a better-performing group
Peter Dizikes | MIT News Office
“The more homogeneous offices have higher levels of social capital,” Ellison observes. “But the interesting twist is that … higher levels of social capital are not important enough to cause those offices to perform better. The employees might be happier, they might be more comfortable, and these might be cooperative places, but they seem to perform less well.”
Another wrinkle Ellison and Mullin found is that just the perception that firms are diverse was sufficient to produce satisfaction among employees — but this perception did not necessarily occur in the places where more extensive gender diversity accompanied better bottom-line results.
“In offices where people thought the firm was accepting of diversity, they were happier and more cooperative,” Ellison says. “But that didn’t translate into any effect on office performance. People may like the idea of a diverse workplace more than they like actual diversity in the workplace.”
The idea of being tolerant and inclusive is a great theory. However, if forced, it doesn’t stand up to any testing or scrutiny. Despite this being rammed down our throats, people are not receptive to diversity being pushed.
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 AIPAC main page. CLICK HERE, for J-Street. CLICK HERE, for Israeli-American Coalition For Action. CLICK HERE, for Zionist Organization of America. CLICK HERE, for Republican Jewish Coalition. CLICK HERE, for Christians United For Israel. CLICK HERE, for Jewish Institute for National Security of America. CLICK HERE, for American Jewish Committee. CLICK HERE, for Alliance for Israeli Advocacy. CLICK HERE, for military support for Israel. CLICK HERE, for House Resolution 1837. CLICK HERE, for anti-BDS (ban, divest, sanction) laws which prohibit companies from “not” doing business with Israel. CLICK HERE, for Kentucky being 26th State with anti-BDS laws. CLICK HERE, for 2019 Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act. CLICK HERE, for top campaign contributions by Congressperson. CLICK HERE, for various lobbying groups.
A while back, Muslim (and Democrat) representative Ilhan Omar made comments about the impact about the Israeli lobby in American politics. She also suggested that members of Congress were in essence being bought off. This brought about rounds of criticism, and claims that the Muslim woman is an anti-Semite.
Omar faced a public backlash for suggesting that the US Congress was in the pocket of AIPAC, and that it was “all about the Benjamins” (which of course is a reference to money).
Here’s the thing, though: while Omar’s comments were intentionally inflammatory (and likely aided by her Islamic beliefs), they are not unfounded. It is truthful that AIPAC and other such lobbying firms do play a huge role in paying off contributing to political campaigns.
It is also true that the United States spends heavily on the military defense of Israel, and has anti-BDS (ban, divest, sanction) laws. These aid Israel both militarily and economically. Money well spent.
These are just 5 of the Senators and Congresspeople who are being bribed receiving campaign contributions from the Israeli lobby. Going through the list of donations, it appears that almost all members of Congress are on the take.
Kentucky joins 25 other US states that have enacted similar anti-BDS laws or executive orders.
Montana, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Michigan, Texas, Nevada, Kansas, Louisiana and Wisconsin have all passed bills fighting BDS.
The BDS movement promotes financial, academic and cultural boycotts of Israel, ostensibly as a nonviolent protest against the so-called “Israeli occupation.” Critics say its activities are a modern form of anti-Semitism and that its true objective is to destroy the State of Israel.
26 states have anti-BDS laws against Israel. There are no other laws in the US that protect anyone.
STRENGTHENING AMERICA’S SECURITY IN ME ACT
SEC. 111. Findings.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In February 1987, the United States granted Israel major non-NATO ally status.
(2) On August 16, 2007, the United States and Israel signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding on United States military assistance to Israel. The total assistance over the course of this understanding would equal $30 billion
(3) On July 27, 2012, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–150; 22 U.S.C. 8601 et seq.) declared it to be the policy of the United States “to help the Government of Israel preserve its qualitative military edge amid rapid and uncertain regional political transformation” and stated the sense of Congress that the United States Government should “provide the Government of Israel defense articles and defense services through such mechanisms as appropriate, to include air refueling tankers, missile defense capabilities, and specialized munitions”.
(4) On December 19, 2014, President Barack Obama signed into law the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–296) which stated the sense of Congress that Israel is a major strategic partner of the United States and declared it to be the policy of the United States “to continue to provide Israel with robust security assistance, including for the procurement of the Iron Dome Missile Defense System”.
(5) Section 1679 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92; 129 Stat. 1135) authorized funds to be appropriated for Israeli cooperative missile defense program codevelopment and coproduction, including funds to be provided to the Government of Israel to procure the David’s Sling weapon system as well as the Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor Program.
(6) On September 14, 2016, the United States and Israel signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding reaffirming the importance of continuing annual United States military assistance to Israel and cooperative missile defense programs in a way that enhances Israel’s security and strengthens the bilateral relationship between the two countries.
(7) The 2016 Memorandum of Understanding reflected United States support of Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grant assistance to Israel over the 10-year period beginning in fiscal year 2019 and ending in fiscal year 2028. FMF grant assistance would be at a level of $3,300,000,000 annually, totaling $33 billion, the largest single pledge of military assistance ever and a reiteration of the seven-decade, unshakeable, bipartisan commitment of the United States to Israel’s security.
(8) The Memorandum of Understanding also reflected United States support for funding for cooperative programs to develop, produce, and procure missile, rocket, and projectile defense capabilities over a 10-year period beginning in fiscal year 2019 and ending in fiscal year 2028 at a level of $500 million per year, totaling $5 billion.
Are there many Jewish organizations who lobby the US Congress? YES
Does AIPAC spend a lot of money lobbying? YES
Does AIPAC “own” the US Congress? YES
Does Israel benefit militarily from this? YES
Does Israel benefit economically from the anti-BDS laws? YES
Does Ilhan Omar get a free pass? NOT QUITE
Ilhan Omar doesn’t get a free pass on her comments about AIPAC and Israel for one simple reason: hypocrisy.
While she accurately and truthfully calls out Jewish influence, she intentionally omits ISLAMIC influence and lobbying efforts.
Yes, it was a bit misleading to leave this bit out of the title, but it’s the form of “lying by omission” that Ilhan Omar would probably approve of.
CLICK HERE, for the Council on American Islamic Relations. CLICK HERE, for the Islamic Society of North America. CLICK HERE, for Islamic Relief USA (terrorism supporter) CLICK HERE, for the Middle East Policy Council. CLICK HERE, for Muslim Public Affairs Council. CLICK HERE, for Muslims for Progressive values. CLICK HERE, for American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. CLICK HERE, for Islamic Networks Group. CLICK HERE, for Muslim Legal Fund of America.
This is just a list of lobbyists that are on Saudi Arabia’s payroll. Note: that for both Jewish and Islamic lobbyists, there are likely many, MANY more than what are covered here.
But the point in adding this, is that Ilhan Omar is being completely hypocritical to call out Jewish influence in American politics, without at all mentioning the Islamic influence. Some moral consistency would be nice here.
There are also endless demands for accommodation made by Muslims:
Demanding accommodation for Islamic symbols
Demanding removal of OTHER religious symbols
Halal meat only
Prayer rooms built in schools
Build foot wash stations
Paid time off to pray
Sharia compliant swim times
Religious accommodation with uniforms
Refusing to say Merry Christmas
Repeated attempts to ban criticism of Islam
And this is to say nothing of Islamic terrorism, which exists everywhere.
It would be nice if Ilhan Omar would call out bothJewish and Islamic lobbying efforts. But that will never happen.
If nothing else, that this point away from it. Don’t give Ilhan Omar flak for the TRUTH she spoke about AIPAC and such lobbyist groups. Instead, give her flak for the OMISSIONS she made in leaving out the Islamic lobby.
(CBC wants less Canadian children) CLICK HERE, for “we’re only having 1 kids, and that’s okay”. CLICK HERE, for beware of middle child syndrome. CLICK HERE, for criticizing those with too many kids. CLICK HERE, for why I only have 1 child. CLICK HERE, for childless women changing culture. CLICK HERE, for not teaching a daughter to be polite. CLICK HERE, have less children to lower emissions.
(and in case you think CBC just wants less children in general) CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism is critical to Canada. CLICK HERE, for border walls are useless. CLICK HERE, for nothing will stop migration. CLICK HERE, for Europe should have open borders. CLICK HERE, for Hungary’s Orban is a dictator for rejecting migration. CLICK HERE, for bigot Orban wanting a Christian nation. CLICK HERE, for Global Migration Compact is harmless. CLICK HERE, for Canada having 100M people by year 2100.
(and to everyone’s favourite benevolent founder> CLICK HERE, for Soros is misunderstood. CLICK HERE, for Soros bullied out of Hungary. CLICK HERE, for Canada joining UN, Soros, to sponsor refugees.
3. Why This Is Important
There are many, many more links on both subjects, but this should provide sufficient evidence for now. CBC, Canada’s government run “news” agency, consistently reports on both of these topics.
CBC pushes both:
Reducing Canadian birth rate; and
Mass migration of foreigners
What are the consequences of these 2 initiatives? Well, when Canadians have less children, their birthrate falls, and the population declines. When you have mass migration, the declining population of Canadians is replaced by migrants and their descendants.
Think this is hyperbole? Consider these points:
Shame families with many children
Having 1 kid is okay
Childless is the new culture
Have fewer kids to save the planet
….. and on the other side:
Borders are immoral and pointless
Multiculturalism is part of Canada
Only bigots reject migration
Canada’s population needs to be much bigger
4. Consider Both Narratives
First, starting with the fearmongering piece that climate change is destructive and can only be mitigated by altering human behaviour:
>What’s the single best decision you can make if you want to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) being released into the atmosphere?
That’s the question UBC researcher Seth Wynes and his co-author Kimberly Nicholas set out to answer in a new paper published this week.
Their answer? Have fewer children.
The other three choices they identified were eating a plant-based diet, avoiding air travel and giving up personal vehicles. But by their reasoning, having one fewer child overwhelmingly outweighs all other choices, due to all of the GHGs that child would be responsible for emitting over the course of their life.
“To put it simply, adding another person to the planet who uses more resources and produces more carbon dioxide is always going to make a large contribution to climate change,” Wynes said.
And on the flip side of the “have fewer children” message, do you think that these people will recommend much, MUCH reduced immigration so as to reduce emissions? Nope, not a chance. From the “Century Initiative” promotion:
If Canada sticks with current practices, our population will grow to between 51 to 53 million by the end of the century.
A non-profit group called The Century Initiative advocates doubling that, to 100 million. That’s about triple our current population.
“We recognize that it may be counterintuitive,” Shari Austin, CEO of the Century Initiative, told The Sunday Edition’s guest host Peter Armstrong.
It’s the only way, she argued, that Canada can face the economic challenges ahead and strengthen its international influence.
Currently, Canada accepts 310,000 immigrants per year. The Century Initiative suggests that number should be closer to 450,000.
“It’s a big, audacious goal,” she conceded. But it has been done before. Since 1945 to the present day, Canada’s population has tripled.
“A mix of people wanting to contribute to the economy and wanting to have children,” Austin explained.
That doesn’t mean that refugees aren’t welcome.
“We also have ethical obligations to make sure we do our fair share to help bring people to a better life,” she clarified.
She also sees this as a way to create “a more diverse, more interesting, dynamic population.”
“It’s an exciting opportunity to be proactive about what we want to look like in fifty years, in a hundred years. It’s also an opportunity to leave a better world for our kids and our grandkids.”
It is interesting the contrast in the arguments.
CBC uses ENVIRONMENTAL and HEALTH reasons to push for less Canadians to have less children. However,
CBC uses ECONOMIC and MULTICULTURAL claims to push for more immigration (or migration)
To be fair, CBC does have many authors and contributors. However, the overall pattern is impossible to ignore. CBC regularly releases content pushing for Canadians to have less children. At the same time it sings the praises of open borders, mass migration and multiculturalism.
5. George Soros Puff Piece
The financier is also famously active as a philanthropist. Through his Open Society Foundations, he has given billions to NGOs in more than 100 countries to “build vibrant and tolerant democracies,” according to its website.
Why is Soros controversial?
Emily Tamkin, a staff writer for Foreign Policy magazine, compares Soros’s public image to a mirror in the Harry Potter novels. When a character looked in that fictional mirror, they would see what they desired most.
“He’s like that, but with the thing that you revile most,” she told The Current’s Anna Maria Tremonti.
CBC also has done many flattering puff pieces on Soros. They claim he is misunderstood, and that it is bigots projecting their own prejudices onto him. No real objectivity here.
6. Is This Illegal?
Under the letter of the law, probably not. But consider the following:
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.
Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Does this promote hate and harm against Canadians? I would think so, but sadly no judge ever would. The CBC, which uses our tax dollars to advocate for our own replacement is just so wrong.
Fertility rates among Canadian women continue to decrease
The total fertility rate (TFR) for 2015 was 1,563 births per 1,000 women. In 2016, the TFR was 1,543 births per 1,000 women. The TFR in Canada has shown a general decline since 2008, when it was 1,681 births per 1,000 women. The TFR is an estimate of the average number of live births that 1,000 women would have in their lifetime, based on the age-specific fertility rates of a given year.
Taking mortality between birth and 15 years of age into consideration, developed countries such as Canada need an average of around 2,060 children per 1,000 females to renew their population based on natural increase and without taking immigration into account. The last year in which Canada attained fertility levels sufficient to replace its current population was 1971.
While the TFR is a good indicator of fertility in Canada as a whole, this national average can hide major provincial and territorial differences. From 2000 to 2016, Nunavut was the only province or territory to consistently have fertility levels above the replacement rate, with a TFR of 2,986 live births per 1,000 women in 2016. With the exception of the Prairie provinces and the Northwest Territories, every other province and territory had TFRs during this period that rarely exceeded 1,700 births per 1,000 women.
In 2016, for the 16th consecutive year, Saskatchewan had the highest TFR among the provinces, at 1,934 births per 1,000 women. It was followed by Manitoba (1,847), the Northwest Territories (1,793) and Alberta (1,694). British Columbia was the province with the lowest fertility rate at 1,404 births per 1,000 women, followed by Nova Scotia (1,422) and Newfoundland and Labrador (1,425).
Sustainable Development Goals
On January 1, 2016, the world officially began implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development — the United Nations’ transformative plan of action that addresses urgent global challenges over the next 15 years. The plan is based on 17 specific sustainable development goals.
The Births release is an example of how Statistics Canada supports the reporting on the Global Goals for Sustainable Development. This release will be used in helping to measure the following goal:
Forgot to mention, population control is part of Agenda 2030.
Few Canadian Kids + Mass Migration = Demographic Replacement
PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE
1. 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
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for Oregon allowing mentally ill people to starve to death. That is House Bill 4135. CLICK HERE, for a mother who gave birth, killed her child, and claimed it’s basically an abortion. CLICK HERE, for a NY man who killed his pregnant girlfriend, but will only face 1 murder charge. CLICK HERE, for Wikipedia’s “Heartbeat Bill” listings. CLICK HERE, for Florida’s SB 492, to make it a felony for a doctor to perform abortion if heartbeat detected. Also, CLICK HERE, for House Bill 235 in Florida. CLICK HERE, for Georgia Heartbeat Bill, House Bill 481. CLICK HERE, and also CLICK HERE, for Maryland. CLICK HERE, for Missouri, House Bill 126. CLICK HERE, for West Virginia, House Bill 2903. CLICK HERE, for the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. CLICK HERE, for Ohio Planned Parenthood being defunded by taxpayers.
3. Stabbing Baby Post-Birth is “Abortion”
From the Toresays.com article, a 17 year old Texas teenager apparently gave birth, then murdered her infant. Here is a quote:
The infant girl was delivered naturally and there were nine entry wound sites. The infant was stabbed 5 times in her back, once on her side and three times in the neck. This was determined by Dr. Diaz who performed the forensic examination. She also determined that the child was found 12 hours after birth and died to homicidal violence.
Many of them quoted the snippets of coverage by MSM who claimed killing a child up until the time of birth is a “right of women’s health”. All these young children believe they have the right to end the life of an infant because “My Body My Right”.
What this young lady did was murder. She stabbed an innocent young baby girl 9 times and abandoned her in a shed and went straight to back to bed. The rhetoric of the radical leftists MSM along with the educational system that purports radical grievances and ideologies has torn the fabric of basic morals and the sanctity of life. “
This is disgusting. How did we get to the point where not only abortion is legal, but then giving birth and then killing your child is considered “your right”?
Perhaps the rationale here is: “well, I saved the taxpayers some money by not having them pay for a doctor, so I did you a favour.”
But at least there is some good news. The recent surge in pro-death sentiments has led to some backlash, and people reaffirming that life really does matter.
This review will mostly focus on the opening part. This is for a few reasons.
First: The book is fairly long.
Second: It gets very repetitive.
Third: You can get a good understanding just from the introduction.
Despite a resurgence of white-supremacist and fascistic violence across Europe and the United States, most consider the dead and the living to be safe because they believe fascism to be safely dead — in their eyes, the fascist enemy lost definitively in 1945. But the dead were not so safe when Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi described spending time in Mussolini’s prison camps as a “vacation” in 2003 or the French Front National (National Front) politician Jean-Marie Le Pen called Nazi gas chambers a mere “detail” of history in 2015.”
Assuming these details are accurate, Mark Bray lists 2 European leaders making inappropriate remarks as evidence of fascistic violence rising.
This book takes seriously the transhistorical terror of fascism and the power of conjuring the dead when fighting back. It is an unabashedly partisan call to arms that aims to equip a new generation of anti-fascists with the history and theory necessary to defeat the resurgent Far Right. Based on sixty-one interviews with current and former anti-fascists from seventeen countries in North America and Europe, it expands our geographical and temporal outlook to contextualize opposition to Trump and the alt-right within a much wider and broader terrain of resistance. Antifa is the first transnational history of postwar anti-fascism in English and the most comprehensive in any language. It argues that militant anti-fascism is a reasonable, historically informed response to the fascist threat that persisted after 1945 and that has become especially menacing in recent years. You may not walk away from this book a convinced anti-fascist, but at least you will understand that anti-fascism is a legitimate political tradition growing out of a century of global struggle.
Okay, some points to take away from this.
(1) The book’s author admits it is very partisan, and is a call to arms. And as he will show, he means it quite literally.
(2) Opposition to Trump and the Alt-Right? Seems an admission that Trump himself is not Alt-Right.
(3) Militant fascism is appropriate.
As historian Robert Paxton argued, fascists “reject any universal value other than the success of chosen peoples in
a Darwinian struggle for primacy.” Even the party platforms that fascists put forward between the world wars were usually
twisted or jettisoned entirely when the exigencies of the pursuit of power made those interwar fascists uneasy bedfellows with
traditional conservatives. “Left” fascist rhetoric about defending the working class against the capitalist elite was often among the first of their values to be discarded. Postwar (after World War II) fascists have experimented with an even more dizzying array of positions by freely pilfering from Maoism, anarchism, Trotskyism, and other left-wing ideologies and cloaking themselves in “respectable” electoral guises on the model of France’s Front National and other parties
Bray seems not to grasp the hypocrisy here. This so-called Anti-Fascist movement does exactly that: it promotes the success of “marginalised people” in a struggle for supremacy. He is also correct about the “Left’s” claim to defend the working class is the first to be discarded.
Some historians have used this literal, minimalist definition to describe as “anti-fascist” a wide variety of historical actors, including liberals, conservatives, and others, who combated fascist regimes prior to 1945. Yet, the reduction of the term to a mere negation obscures an understanding of anti-fascism as a method of politics, a locus of individual and group self-identification, and a transnational movement that adapted preexisting socialist, anarchist, and communist currents to a sudden need to react to the fascist menace. This political interpretation transcends the flattening dynamics of reducing anti-fascism to the simple negation of fascism by highlighting the strategic, cultural, and ideological foundation from which socialists of all stripes have fought back. Yet, even within the Left, debates have raged between many socialist and communist parties, antiracist NGOs, and others who have advocated a legalistic pursuit of antiracist or anti-fascist legislation and those who have defended a confrontational, direct-action strategy of disrupting fascist organizing. These two perspectives have not always been mutually exclusive, and some anti-fascists have turned to the latter option after the failure of the former, but in general this strategic debate has divided leftist interpretations of anti-fascism.
(1) The author sees liberals and conservatives as unable to stop fascists, though he admits they are opposed to it.
(2) An interesting admission: Apparently legal and non-violent means of stopping fascism are ineffective, hence the need to turn to violence.
At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase incorrectly ascribed to Voltaire that “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” After Auschwitz and Treblinka, anti-fascists committed themselves to fighting to the death the ability of organized Nazis to say anything.
Thus, anti-fascism is an illiberal politics of social revolutionism applied to fighting the Far Right, not only literal fascists. As we will see, anti-fascists have accomplished this goal in a wide variety of ways, from singing over fascist speeches, to occupying the sites of fascist meetings before they could set up, to sowing discord in their groups via infiltration, to breaking any veil of anonymity, to physically disrupting their newspaper sales, demonstrations, and other activities. Militant anti-fascists disagree with the pursuit of state bans against “extremist” politics because of their revolutionary, anti-state politics and because such bans are more often used against the Left than the Right.
A lot to unpack in these passages:
(1) Anti-fascism is illiberal.
(2) Anti-fascists reject free speech ideals.
(3) Anti-fascists don’t believe “Nazis” should have the right to speak at all in any organized way.
(4) Anti-fascism opposes the far right, not just fascism.
(5) Anti-fascists will drown out speakers they don’t like.
(6) Anti-fascists will infiltrate groups they don’t like.
(7) Anti-fascists will commit violence.
Bray makes an interesting comment about bans being used more often against the left than the right. Bray seems completely unaware that his words make such a ban seem popular.
So who does Mark Bray reject?
A/ Nazis, Fascists
B/ Far right individuals
D/ Liberals, or at least liberal beliefs
Or, to be blunt, most of the political spectrum.
Despite the various shades of interpretation, antifa should not be understood as a single-issue movement. Instead, it is simply one of a number of manifestations of revolutionary socialist politics (broadly construed). Most of the anti-fascists I interviewed also spend a great deal of their time on other forms of politics (e.g., labor organizing, squatting, environmental activism, antiwar mobilization, or migrant solidarity work). In fact, the vast majority would rather devote their time to these productive activities than have to risk their safety and well-being to confront dangerous neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Antifa act out of collective self-defense.
(1) This seems like a bogus attempt to give Antifa some legitimacy. Saying it is more than a single issue movement distracts from the harm it does to free societies. Remember, this group openly rejects free speech and liberal ideology.
(2) Just because Antifa members have other things to do with their lives doesn’t whitewash the violence they commit against speakers they disagree with.
(3) Collective self defense? Who is the collective? Antifa has written off everyone who is Liberal and any further right. And attacking people whose viewpoints you don’t like is not “self-defense”.
Finally, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that anti-fascism has always been just one facet of a larger struggle against white supremacy and authoritarianism.
The lack of self awareness here. Mark Bray advocates for a violent, illiberal, ideology that rejects free speech …. but at the same time rejects authoritarianism.
For this reason, it is vital to understand anti-fascism as a solitary component of a larger legacy of resistance to white supremacy in all its forms. My focus on militant anti-fascism is in no way intended to minimize the importance of other forms of antiracist organizing that identify with anti-imperialism, black nationalism, or other traditions. Rather than imposing an anti-fascist framework on groups and movements that conceive of themselves differently, even if they are battling the same enemies using similar methods, I focus largely on groups that self-consciously situate themselves within the anti-fascist tradition.
-Anti-fascism is just part of the bigger picture?
-Your wording is confusing. Is BLACK NATIONALISM a good thing?
-You just focus on the violent groups? Okay.
Mark Bray’s Fall 2017 Book Tour
9/16 Philadelphia: Wooden Shoe Books (w/ George Ciccariello-Maher)
9/18 Durham, NC: Duke University
9/19 Chapel Hill, NC: Flyleaf Books
9/23 Atlanta: A Cappella Books
9/25 Richmond, VA: Babes of Carytown
9/26 Highland Park, NJ: Reformed Church of Highland Park
9/27 Brooklyn: Powerhouse Arena (w/ Kim Kelly)
9/28 Baltimore: Red Emma’s
9/29 DC: Politics and Prose
10/5 Ithaca, NY: Ithaca College
10/7 Rochester, NY: Gay Alliance of the Genesee Valley
10/8 Pittsburgh: National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 84
10/9 Detroit: The International Institute of Metropolitan Detroit
10/10 Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Friends Meeting
10/11 Flint, MI: University of Michigan at Flint
10/12 Chicago: (info tbd)
10/15 Minneapolis (info tbd)
10/16 Madison, WI: A Room of One’s Own
10/17 Detroit: Wayne State University
10/18 Toronto: Workers’ Action Center, 720 Spadina Ave., Suite 223
10/19 Ottawa: Dalhousie Community Center
10/26 Woodstock, VT: Yankee Bookshop
10/27 Montreal: CÉDA, 2515 rue Delisle
10/30 Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University (see below)
No one tried to shut him down. Weak fascists.
This guy is a lunatic, who supports violent, illiberal policies, and opposes free speech. Ironic that he relies on free speech to sell his book, and to promote his ideas.
That was just the introduction covered. But Bray repeatedly conflates speakers and ideas he doesn’t like with fascists. He also conflates right wingers with Nazis and fascists.
Could Antifa Logic Shut Down Antifa?
Serious thought: if you say that violence must be used to prevent violence from happening, could groups of people not pre-emptively attack you? This is the precedent you set.