Category: US

Posted on

Infanticide Part #3: NY & Virginia To Legalise Up-To-Birth Abortion

(NY Governor Andrew Cuomo signs the bill. See this review.)

1. Other Articles on Abortion/Infanticide

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-universities-fighting-against-free-speech-and-free-association-in-court/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/the-new-lindsay-shepherd-statistics-are-now-violence-infanticide-2/

(State legislation in New York)

(State Legislation in Virginia)

2. New York Legislation


It’s now not murder to kill children right up to birth in NY State.

For reference, NY Governor Andrew Cuomo is the brother of CNN host Chris Cuomo, who publicly defended Antifa violence in August 2018.

CLICK HERE, for the New York legislation.

AN ACT to amend the public health law, in relation to enacting the
reproductive health act and revising existing provisions of law
regarding abortion; to amend the penal law, the criminal procedure
law, the county law and the judiciary law, in relation to abortion; to
repeal certain provisions of the public health law relating to
abortion; to repeal certain provisions of the education law relating
to the sale of contraceptives; and to repeal certain provisions of the
penal law relating to abortion

26 ARTICLE 25-A
27 REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT
28 Section 2599-aa. Policy and purpose.
29 2599-bb. Abortion.
30 § 2599-aa. Policy and purpose. The legislature finds that comprehen-
31 sive reproductive health care is a fundamental component of every indi-
32 vidual’s health, privacy and equality. Therefore, it is the policy of
33 the state that:
34 1. Every individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse
35 contraception or sterilization.
36 2. Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to
37 choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to
38 have an abortion, pursuant to this article.
39 3. The state shall not discriminate against, deny, or interfere with
40 the exercise of the rights set forth in this section in the regulation
41 or provision of benefits, facilities, services or information.
42 § 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner’s reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient’s life or health.
50 2. This article shall be construed and applied consistent with and
51 subject to applicable laws and applicable and authorized regulations
52 governing health care procedures.

1 § 5. Sections 125.40, 125.45, 125.50, 125.55 and 125.60 of the penal
2 law are REPEALED, and the article heading of article 125 of the penal
3 law is amended to read as follows:
4 HOMICIDE[, ABORTION] AND RELATED OFFENSES
5 § 6. Section 125.00 of the penal law is amended to read as follows:
6 § 125.00 Homicide defined.
7 Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person [or an
8 unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twen-
9 ty-four weeks] under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in
10 the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, or criminally
11 negligent homicide[, abortion in the first degree or self-abortion in
12 the first degree].
13 § 7. The section heading, opening paragraph and subdivision 1 of
14 section 125.05 of the penal law are amended to read as follows:
15 Homicide[, abortion] and related offenses; [definitions of terms]
16 definition.
17 The following [definitions are] definition is applicable to this arti-
18 cle:
19 [1.] “Person,” when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a
20 human being who has been born and is alive.

That’s right: it is no longer murder to kill a child right up until the moment of birth

CLICK HERE, for the Virginia summary.
CLICK HERE, for the Virginia bill.

SUMMARY AS INTRODUCED:
.
Abortion; eliminate certain requirements. Eliminates the requirement that an abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy and prior to the third trimester be performed in a hospital. The bill eliminates all the procedures and processes, including the performance of an ultrasound, required to effect a woman’s informed written consent to the performance of an abortion; however, the bill does not change the requirement that a woman’s informed written consent be first obtained. The bill eliminates the requirement that two other physicians certify that a third trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman’s death or impairment of her mental or physical health, as well as the need to find that any such impairment to the woman’s health would be substantial and irremediable. The bill also removes language classifying facilities that perform five or more first-trimester abortions per month as hospitals for the purpose of complying with regulations establishing minimum standards for hospitals.

§ 18.2-73. When abortion lawful during second trimester of pregnancy.
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of § 18.2-71 and in addition to the provisions of § 18.2-72, it shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery, to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy or aid or assist in the termination of a human pregnancy by performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage on any woman during the second trimester of pregnancy and prior to the third trimester of pregnancy provided such procedure is performed in a hospital licensed by the State Department of Health or operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services.

§ 18.2-74. When abortion or termination of pregnancy lawful after second trimester of pregnancy.
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of § 18.2-71 and in addition to the provisions of §§ 18.2-72 and 18.2-73, it shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy or aid or assist in the termination of a human pregnancy by performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage on any woman in a stage of pregnancy subsequent to the second trimester, provided that the following conditions are met:

The following are actually REMOVED under this bill:

(a) 1. Said operation is performed in a hospital licensed by the Virginia State Department of Health or operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services.
(b) 2. The physician and two consulting physicians certify certifies and so enter enters in the hospital record of the woman, that in their the physician’s medical opinion, based upon their the physician’s best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.
(c) 3. Measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage must shall be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability.

§ 18.2-76. Informed written consent required.
.
A. Before performing any abortion or inducing any miscarriage or terminating a pregnancy as provided in § 18.2-72, 18.2-73, or 18.2-74, the physician shall obtain the informed written consent of the pregnant woman. However, if the woman has been adjudicated incapacitated by any court of competent jurisdiction or if the physician knows or has good reason to believe that such woman is incapacitated as adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction, then only after permission is given in writing by a parent, guardian, committee, or other person standing in loco parentis to the woman, may the physician perform the abortion or otherwise terminate the pregnancy.

B. At least 24 hours before the performance of an abortion, a qualified medical professional trained in sonography and working under the supervision of a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal transabdominal ultrasound imaging on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of determining gestational age. If the pregnant woman lives at least 100 miles from the facility where the abortion is to be performed, the fetal ultrasound imaging shall be performed at least two hours before the abortion. The ultrasound image shall contain the dimensions of the fetus and accurately portray the presence of external members and internal organs of the fetus, if present or viewable. Determination of gestational age shall be based upon measurement of the fetus in a manner consistent with standard medical practice in the community for determining gestational age. When only the gestational sac is visible during ultrasound imaging, gestational age may be based upon measurement of the gestational sac. If gestational age cannot be determined by a transabdominal ultrasound, then the patient undergoing the abortion shall be verbally offered other ultrasound imaging to determine gestational age, which she may refuse. A print of the ultrasound image shall be made to document the measurements that have been taken to determine the gestational age of the fetus.

The provisions of this subsection shall not apply if the woman seeking an abortion is the victim of rape or incest, if the incident was reported to law-enforcement authorities. Nothing herein shall preclude the physician from using any ultrasound imaging that he considers to be medically appropriate pursuant to the standard medical practice in the community.

C. The qualified medical professional performing fetal ultrasound imaging pursuant to subsection B shall verbally offer the woman an opportunity to view the ultrasound image, receive a printed copy of the ultrasound image and hear the fetal heart tones pursuant to standard medical practice in the community, and shall obtain from the woman written certification that this opportunity was offered and whether or not it was accepted and, if applicable, verification that the pregnant woman lives at least 100 miles from the facility where the abortion is to be performed. A printed copy of the ultrasound image shall be maintained in the woman’s medical record at the facility where the abortion is to be performed for the longer of (i) seven years or (ii) the extent required by applicable federal or state law.

D. For purposes of this section:
“Informed written consent” means the knowing and voluntary written consent to abortion by a pregnant woman of any age, without undue inducement or any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, or other form of constraint or coercion by the physician who is to perform the abortion or his agent. The basic information to effect such consent, as required by this subsection, shall be provided by telephone or in person to the woman at least 24 hours before the abortion by the physician who is to perform the abortion, by a referring physician, or by a licensed professional or practical nurse working under the direct supervision of either the physician who is to perform the abortion or the referring physician; however, the information in subdivision 5 may be provided instead by a licensed health-care professional working under the direct supervision of either the physician who is to perform the abortion or the referring physician. This basic information shall include:

1. A full, reasonable and comprehensible medical explanation of the nature, benefits, and risks of and alternatives to the proposed procedures or protocols to be followed in her particular case;
2. An instruction that the woman may withdraw her consent at any time prior to the performance of the procedure;
3. An offer for the woman to speak with the physician who is to perform the abortion so that he may answer any questions that the woman may have and provide further information concerning the procedures and protocols;
4. A statement of the probable gestational age of the fetus at the time the abortion is to be performed and that fetal ultrasound imaging shall be performed prior to the abortion to confirm the gestational age; and
5. An offer to review the printed materials described in subsection F. If the woman chooses to review such materials, they shall be provided to her in a respectful and understandable manner, without prejudice and intended to give the woman the opportunity to make an informed choice and shall be provided to her at least 24 hours before the abortion or mailed to her at least 72 hours before the abortion by first-class mail or, if the woman requests, by certified mail, restricted delivery. This offer for the woman to review the material shall advise her of the following:
(i) the Department of Health publishes printed materials that describe the unborn child and list agencies that offer alternatives to abortion;
(ii) medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth and neonatal care, and that more detailed information on the availability of such assistance is contained in the printed materials published by the Department;
(iii) the father of the unborn child is liable to assist in the support of her child, even in instances where he has offered to pay for the abortion, that assistance in the collection of such support is available, and that more detailed information on the availability of such assistance is contained in the printed materials published by the Department;
(iv) she has the right to review the materials printed by the Department and that copies will be provided to her free of charge if she chooses to review them; and
(v) a statewide list of public and private agencies and services that provide ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone services free of charge. Where the woman has advised that the pregnancy is the result of a rape, the information in clause (iii) may be omitted.

3. What Is This Exactly?


These are just so wrong.

Even those who are “pro-choice” should be shocked at the idea of killing an infant that within minutes or hours would have been born. Of course, even “clumps of cells” aborted don’t always die. See here.

Apparently it’s no longer an issue of “when” children can be aborted. Guess the new slippery slope is how long after birth can we kill them.
A minute?
An hour?
A day?
A week?
A month?
Just call it a 4th trimester abortion.

Remember kids: it’s not murder as long as your mother is complicit in it.

Posted on

Loophole in Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement

CLICK HERE, for full text for the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement.

THE UNDERSTANDING

From the opening of the agreement


EMPHASIZING that the United States and Canada offer generous systems of refugee protection, recalling both countries’ traditions of assistance to refugees and displaced persons abroad, consistent with the principles of international solidarity that underpin the international refugee protection system, and committed to the notion that cooperation and burden-sharing with respect to refugee status claimants can be enhanced;

DESIRING to uphold asylum as an indispensable instrument of the international protection of refugees, and resolved to strengthen the integrity of that institution and the public support on which it depends;

NOTING that refugee status claimants may arrive at the Canadian or United States land border directly from the other Party, territory where they could have found effective protection;

CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;

AWARE that such sharing of responsibility must ensure in practice that persons in need of international protection are identified and that the possibility of indirect breaches of the fundamental principle of non-refoulement are avoided, and therefore determined to safeguard for each refugee status claimant eligible to pursue a refugee status claim who comes within their jurisdiction, access to a full and fair refugee status determination procedure as a means to guarantee that the protections of the Convention, the Protocol, and the Torture Convention are effectively afforded;

The wording is pretty clear here. Canada and the United States view each other as safe countries. If you land in one country, you “should” not be able to hop to the other and claim refugee status.

It is of interest to read in particular, articles 4, 5, 6

ARTICLE 4
Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, the Party of the country of last presence shall examine, in accordance with its refugee status determination system, the refugee status claim of any person who arrives at a land border port of entry on or after the effective date of this Agreement and makes a refugee status claim.
Responsibility for determining the refugee status claim of any person referred to in paragraph 1 shall rest with the Party of the receiving country, and not the Party of the country of last presence, where the receiving Party determines that the person:
-Has in the territory of the receiving Party at least one family member who has had a refugee status claim granted or has been granted lawful status, other than as a visitor, in the receiving Party’s territory; or
-Has in the territory of the receiving Party at least one family member who is at least 18 years of age and is not ineligible to pursue a refugee status claim in the receiving Party’s refugee status determination system and has such a claim pending; or
-Is an unaccompanied minor; or
-Arrived in the territory of the receiving Party:
With a validly issued visa or other valid admission document, other than for transit, issued by the receiving Party; or
Not being required to obtain a visa by only the receiving Party.
The Party of the country of last presence shall not be required to accept the return of a refugee status claimant until a final determination with respect to this Agreement is made by the receiving Party.
Neither Party shall reconsider any decision that an individual qualifies for an exception under Articles 4 and 6 of this Agreement.

Makes clear about a formal point of entry. However, those who value sovereignty will note with concern there are many exceptions to keep alleged “refugees” in Canada far longer.

ARTICLE 5
In cases involving the removal of a person by one Party in transit through the territory of the other Party, the Parties agree as follows:
Any person being removed from Canada in transit through the United States, who makes a refugee status claim in the United States, shall be returned to Canada to have the refugee status claim examined by and in accordance with the refugee status determination system of Canada.
Any person being removed from the United States in transit through Canada, who makes a refugee status claim in Canada, and:
whose refugee status claim has been rejected by the United States, shall be permitted onward movement to the country to which the person is being removed; or
who has not had a refugee status claim determined by the United States, shall be returned to the United States to have the refugee status claim examined by and in accordance with the refugee status determination system of the United States.

It appears clear cut. You cannot country shop from one to another, and there is a specific agreement to remove those people who try.

ARTICLE 6
Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement, either Party may at its own discretion examine any refugee status claim made to that Party where it determines that it is in its public interest to do so.

So, either Canada or the United States could remove anyone at any time if deemed in national interest.

HERE is the problem:

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

As if plain and obvious, this only applies to border crossings entries. This means that fake refugees can bypass the agreement simply by entering anyplace other than an official border crossing.

That has been happening, by the thousands. See HERE, see HERE, and HERE.

One obvious solution would be to declare the “ENTIRE BORDER” a point of entry. However, there seems to be little willpower in Ottawa to do that.

In fact, Prime Minister Trudeau has no issues with calling a racist anyone who questions the open border.

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #8: Border Walls Are Useless. People Will Go Around

(Walls are pointless. Don’t even bother)

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

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

A lot to go through on this on.
CLICK HERE, for the article.
CLICK HERE, for the full transcript.

Quotes From The Transcript

AMT: Last week President Trump tweeted some statistics that he claims bolster his case. He wrote – and I’m quoting here – “There are now 77 major or significant was built around the world with 45 countries planning or building walls”. And then he continued: “The 800 miles of wars that have gone up in Europe since 2015 have been almost 100 percent successful.” Well as is usually the case for Donald Trump’s tweets some people took issue with those facts. What is true is that the United States is not the only country building walls and fences to protect its border.

Okay, are Trump’s facts wrong? Are border walls not going up across the globe?

SOUNDCLIP
[Music]
NEWSCASTER1: The race is on to get Hungary’s border fence ready by the end of month. It’s being built by prison inmates.
NEWSCASTER1: You’re still on Norwegian soil. Just over there. And you are in Russia. And while this fence is just a few hundred meters long, campaigners for refugees say it’s become something of a symbol of Norway’s changing attitudes.
NEWSCASTER2: The IDF is constantly improving its defensive capabilities. One of those being a wall being built between Lebanon and the 20 some Israeli communities adjacent to the border.
NEWSCASTER3: The King and county town of [unintelligible] clan elders say the border barrier has helped. This is what is meant to keep out Al Shabab fighters based in Somalia, part of a larger government project to protect the porous border

None of the examples cited here seem at all unreasonable. All are meant to reduce the flow of illegal immigration. “Illegal” immigration is something which globalists openly call for, since they don’t believe in sovereign nations.

“AMT: Well my next guest is someone who has studied many of the wars going up around the world right now. And Elisabeth Vallet fundamentally disagrees with Donald Trump. She says more walls are being built not because they work but in spite of the fact that they do not. Elisabeth Vallet is an adjunct professor and scientific director in geopolitics at the Raoul-Dandurand Chair at the University of Quebec at Montreal are and she joins us from Montreal. Hello.
.
AMT: What was your reaction when you saw Donald Trump tweeting those statistics about walls?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: I had seen statistics quoted by extreme right groups before and marginal blogs. I thought I would leave them alone since they didn’t need more exposure. But when the president did so, and argued that they were working, the fact that he was distorting my research really bothered me. And I thought that I had – not as an activist which I am not, but as a researcher – I had to set the record straight.”

Wanting to defend you borders and nation from massive amounts of illegal immigration is “far-right”? An issue that seems to be conflated here: Do you see border walls as 1/ immoral, or 2/ impractical? These are two very different arguments. And not an activist? Good to hear, but we will see.

“AMT: So can you break it down for me? How much of what Mr. Trump had to say was correct?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: So first of all he used the uproar that of our research. There are 77 walls that have been announced, are built so far credibly announced. And 70 of them have been built so far. And [unintelligible] countries have indeed built 70 border walls in the world. So that part was straight. The part about the 100 percent efficiency is that adequate, even in Europe. Because all those walls, some of them, are designed to prevent migration in Hungary are in Norway, but some of them are also designed to keep Russia at bay. This is in the Baltic states are Ukraine. So you’ve got different walls, different functions and in all cases what a wall does? Is a wall will redefine the geo-politics of the area and the geo-politics of the flows? So far while it may look like it is working, but actually it will just reroute and redefine the flows. Sometimes those flows that were taking place in the open will just be more underground, so more dangerous for the people that are trying to cross the border. But in the end they are not working. And this is why usually when you have a wall then you will have military deployed around the wall and technology and robots, drones and sensors. Because a wall per se doesn’t achieve anything apart from scarifying at the borderlands and ruining the local economies.”

We have different walls, different functions, and in all cases, what a wall does? Granted geo-politics differs form region to region. However, the function is the same: to prevent people from illegally crossing.

People will just go underground and it’s more dangerous? So what? You act as if illegal crossings and immigration are human rights.

Walls don’t achieve anything other scarifying at the borderlands and ruining local economies? Considering the amount of benefits that get paid out CLICK HERE, for one example, it could be argued that illegal immigration “strains” local economies.

And what about the rights of citizens to have an independent state and to not be forced to put up with illegal immigration? Do those voices not matter? Or are they all “far-right”?

“AMT: So can you give us an overview of some of the more significant walls that exist and are being built around the world?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: Well we could speak about countries that are literally fencing themselves and India is one of them. India has a huge fence with Pakistan, but of course with Bangladesh. They are actually fencing Bangladesh out of the peninsula. Of course you have the U.S. Mexican border which is fenced, walled on a third of the border. The one between Israel and the West Bank is also an interesting one. Israel was among those countries that is trying to fence itself, fortify itself literally. And then you will find other walls. You spoke about the one between Kenya Somalia. There is one between Botswana and Zimbabwe. Those in the Fergana Valley in Central Asia between China and North Korea. So you have those border walls across the world. A lot of them, the majority of them, has been built after 9/11 and a lot of them has been built after the Arab Spring.
.
AMT: So what do you see is driving the construction of those what?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: There are three reasons why you Bill borrow walls. Few of them now are being built for peace keeping, border enforcing reasons. It’s a way to end a conflict that has no end; between the two Koreas, between the Turkish and Greek part of Cyprus, in a way between India and Pakistan, Ukraine and Russia. Even between Israel and the West Bank it is a way to define a border that if we had a two state solution picking up that would be the final border. And then you have two reasons that dominates the discourse. One of them is smuggling and terrorism and the other one is migration. But those reasons sometimes alternate or overlap. So it’s pretty hard to distinguish them. So two third of them are built for that purpose. “

Walls are being built for peace keeping and border enforcement? Are those people far-right racists as well?

Smuggling and terrorism are 2 valid concerns? Agreed.

Sometimes for migration? Illegal immigration “is” a serious problem in the west. And if you make it a human right, then anyone can migrate. In fact, you acknowledge here that there is overlap between immigration, smuggling and terrorism.

You seem unaware that you are actually debunking your own arguments against walls.

“AMT: We all remember the Berlin Wall coming down. In fact it was 30 years ago this year. I’ve got a clip here that I’d like you to hear. These are two Germans talking about what it felt like to stand on top of the Berlin Wall after the crowds started streaming across the border.
.
AMT: Elisabeth Vallet, how did the fall of that iconic wall affect our ideas around the usefulness or function of walls?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: Well actually if you remember in 1989 it opened a almost a hippie era of international relations, where we believed that it was the end of borders me. Maybe even the end of state sovereignty or even the fading sovereignty of the state. We believed that peace would be dominating and that conflicts would be solved by the international community. It actually showed the good the positive aspects of globalization. And we overlooked the negative aspects of globalization. And when 9/11 arrived, it’s as if that negative aspect of globalization showed its face. And that’s when the only solution to that, governments came up with the one only solution which was building border fences, because there is no way to retain globalization, to contain globalization.”

This quote is so disingenuous that it needs to be called out all on its own. The Berlin Wall was put up in the 1960s by the Soviet Union to keep people in Berlin from leaving. To keep them prisoners. It was not about preventing illegal immigration “into” East Germany.

You thought that breaking down a wall imprisoning people would lead to the end of state sovereignty? You are delusional. Again, you conflate 2 completely different purposes.

Building border fences is the only way to contain globalism? You make that sound as if it’s a bad thing. It would only be bad if you believe nations shouldn’t have sovereignty.

“AMT: Donald Trump has talked about how he wants the border to be impenetrable. What do you think would happen if we had more rigid borders like that?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: Basically nothing because there is always a way to go around. You will see those pictures of ramps where you can drive cars to go over the U.S. Mexican wall which is huge. You will see drones going above. You will see even there is that one catapult that was actually fixed on the border wall to send drugs on the other side. They found a tunnel last week and through the city of Nogales. So there are always ways to go around. And one thing is, the wall doesn’t change a thing in the U.S. case since most of the trucks are coming into the U.S. through their regular ports of entry. So the world doesn’t help anything, doesn’t change anything. A border cannot be impenetrable. I would even say that a border is not meant to be that way.”

First, assuming everything she says is true, should a nation not “try” to defend its borders and independence just because people will try to sneak in? Border defence is difficult, so to heck with it, I suppose.

Second, she is not making a “moral” argument against border walls, but rather a “impracticality” argument. As outlined in earlier comments, she cites: 1/ open conflict; 2/ smuggling; 3/ terrorism, not to mention 4/ mass migration. All of the above are certainly valid reasons to invest heavily in border security.

There is another interview with a historian, David Frye, but compared to the first interview, there is little to criticise.

Overall though, it is interesting how often CBC has open-borders and illegal immigration supporters doing interviews. The globalist slant is very obvious here. Perhaps some balance, or at least provide tougher questions next time.

Posted on

Duke Pesta & Common Core Education

(Duke Pesta in his critique of “Common Core” Education in America)

Not much I can add to this, but Heartland Institution was contacted for information. This is a fascinating, yet morbid review of the new Federal standards of education.

Amendment 10
.
– Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People
.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

From Lennie Jarrett of Heartland Institute

I answered each question below it. Let me know if you need anything else.

This was in regards to some of the videos I had seen of Duke Pesta addressing education in the US. It was fascinating to watch in a morbid way.

1/ Regarding the introduction of Common Core and uniform standards across the states: do you view it as well intended/well meaning, or some malevolent purpose?

I view it as both. Many people had really good intentions but were very naïve in how Common Core (CCSS) would be implemented and managed by a self-serving bureaucracy. I know others wanted national standards so they could control education easily from a centralized bureaucracy. CCSS gave them the closest thing possible to that.

2/ This may be outside your scope, but if the public has never been consulted in any meaningful way, would there be any grounds to invalidate CC requirements?

Unfortunately, no, they could not be invalidated. This is a lesson for many parents, that there is no true local control of education. It’s been controlled by the states and federal interventions for decades.

3/ Could you explain the rationale for making mathematics more complex than needed? (Arithmetic shouldn’t look like introduction algebra)

The rationale is some believe they are making it easier by trying to teach different methods while claiming it is a higher method of learning. As a student of mathematics myself, the methods they are teaching are absurd. Math must be taught systematically starting at its foundation. Without a foundation, the higher learning becomes difficult at best leaving many students unprepared for future careers in the STEM fields.

4/ Why are people with no teaching experience being allowed to write CC or other cirriculum?

Much of the curriculum is created by those wanting to make money off their products. They use CCSS as a tool to try and build their market share regardless of the product’s effectiveness at teaching.

Secondly, there are examples of curriculum written by non-teachers that are excellent. It’s really a matter of subject matter mastery, not necessarily a matter of teaching experience.

5/ Could you offer any solutions to getting children out of this nonsense?

Universal education choice is the only solution. Parents must be fully enabled to find the education that best fits the needs of their child. The selection of schools by parents will drive the curriculum to be the best for the student instead of the bureaucracy driving the curriculum to what is best for them.

6/ Why would people like Bill Gates be supporting this? It seems designed to collapse a nation.

Gates needs STEM ready employees. He was not getting that from the public schools. He thought he could fix the system. He was wrong. He claims to learn from his mistakes, and while he does make changes into his direction, he has yet to realize it’s the system itself that is preventing any significant reform and success.

7/ Anything else you think concerned parents should know?

Stop thinking your school is great, while everyone else’s school is bad. The entire system is the problem. CCSS is just the latest fad with more coming each time one fails. Demand your right to have the money designated for your child to follow your child to the education opportunity of your choice. Simply put, fund children, not bureaucracy.

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #4: More On The “Wage Gap”

(CBC Promoting The Long Debunked “Wage Gap”)

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

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

CBC released this article, today, but included in the references is this article. This review includes them both.

“A new report on the highest-paid CEOs adds evidence to the argument that women face a “double-pane glass ceiling” at the top of Canada’s corporate ladder — first in getting to the executive suite and, once there, earning as much as their male counterparts.
.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) calculates that of the more than 1,200 named executive officers (NEOs) at 249 publicly traded companies in Canada, women earn about 68 cents for every dollar made by their male counterparts.
.
The study says the gap closes to 86 cents when looking at the wages of women and men in senior manager roles, almost in line with the country’s overall pay gap of 87 cents based on Statistics Canada calculations.”

The article will provide no evidence for this claim of a “double-pane glass ceiling” at all. Some actual proof of this claim would be nice.

Interestingly, this article links an older CBC article, see below, which makes the claim that the earnings gap between men and women is explained largely by different personal choices, such as 1/ family life; 2/ employment path; and 3/ education choices.

“The author of the report says the findings, while focused on the executive level where pay is already high, point to a larger equity issue.
.
CEOs make 197 times pay of average worker
.
“This is certainly about executives — that’s what we’re looking at — but I think it’s reflective of what’s happening throughout corporate Canada and the difficulties that women face in getting a fair shake even if they do have the qualifications,” said David Macdonald, the centre’s senior economist.
.
The findings are attached to the left-leaning centre’s annual report on the salaries of Canada’s highest-paid CEOs, who are estimated to earn what an average worker makes in a year by the time lunch rolls around Wednesday.
A review of corporate filings of publicly traded companies shows the top CEOs earned an average of $10 million in 2017, the most recent year available, or about 197 times more than the average worker.”

The report is focused on executive level, where pay is already high, which points to a larger equity issue?!

Do they mean “equality”, which is equal opportunity?

No, they mean “equity”, which is equal outcome

No evidence is provided that women don’t “receive a fair shake” in the corporate world. Again, if you are going to make such claims, back them up.

Yes, CEOs typically make far, far more than the average worker. But that is not proof of discrimination. With this equity push, is this a roundabout argument in favour of communism?

“”But this supposedly more competitive job market is not yielding markedly higher average wages, and ordinary workers aren’t gaining on CEOs,” the report says.
.
An earlier analysis by The Canadian Press that’s cited in the centre’s report found a similar gender gap among the country’s top 60 publicly traded companies. The review of records for 312 NEOs showed only 25 women and they earned an average of 64 cents for every dollar made by male counterparts.”

Once more, merely stating that there are differences is not proof of any discrimination. This article doesn’t seem to account for different industries, length of service, or profitability.

Interviews with about a dozen executives revealed a range of reasons.

Okay, before going any further, it needs to be pointed out: 12 is a low number.

“Old boys’ club hiring
.
They told The Canadian Press about how companies rely on the “old boys’ club” for executive searches. They also spoke about how outdated — and unchallenged — corporate culture in some companies leave women out of top jobs or fail to provide workplace support. The executives also mentioned a lack of confidence and risk-taking among women, an issue highlighted in academic research on executive pay.
.
Macdonald’s report zeros in on three issues:
.
[1] Few women are CEOs — about four per cent of Canadian CEOs and 10 per cent of top executives are women — where pay is the highest.
.
[2] “Performance pay” given to top executives — stock, stock options or cash rewards based on how a company performs — is predominantly higher for men than women. Eliminating bonus pay from the equation shrinks the gap to 82 cents, or almost the gap in the wider workforce.
.
[3] Companies with more women in executive ranks tend to be smaller organizations, and therefore pay less than their larger counterparts, Macdonald said.”

These sections actually largely refute the claims given above.

No workplace support? That is unfortunate, but if you are a senior officer or CEO of a company, then that company effectively is your life. Doubtful men get much support either.

The first reason given — few women are CEOs or executives — is not proof of any bias. This article does not detail any difference in education, work experience, or family or personal circumstances that might genuinely explain why women are not getting involved in high level business.

The second reason given — performance pay — is not discrimination. If a company does better, then it’s top staff will likely get bigger bonuses. Eliminating the bonus pay may shrink the “wage gap”, but it goes against free markets, and is a step towards communism.

The third reason given — women work for smaller companies — would be a valid justification to pay an executive less. Much harder for a smaller company to make the same payouts.

Rather than support the thesis, that there is a “double-pane glass ceiling” for women in business, other parts of the article suggest there are perfectly legitimate reasons women in top positions are earning less on average than men.

Further, this linked article provides a very reasonable explanation for the “wage gap”: men and women, on average, make different life choices. Sure, if we take free choice away, we could obtain wage parity.

“Securities legislation passed in 2017 created a “comply or explain” model for diversity on corporate boards, rather than setting quotas for the number of women, for instance. Macdonald’s report, citing a decade of data from Norway where quotas have increased the number of women on boards, suggests quotas aren’t the answer to closing the pay gap.”

Spoken too soon. There have been efforts to force social engineering on major companies, and the evidence still doesn’t show the difference disappearing.

“About a third of CEO pay is in the form of bonuses, supposedly tied to stock prices, and another quarter is in the form of stock options.
.
The CCPA argues this has the effect of promoting short-term thinking that boosts stock prices, but is not necessarily good management.
.
“With so much of CEO total pay being variable and related to short-term stock price fluctuations, there is a strong incentive to forego long-term investments that may depress present-day profits in favour of short-term decisions, like under-investment, that will boost current profits and stock prices,” the report says.”

This seems to reinforce the earlier suggestion that men in charge of companies have companies that perform better. This may be a knock against capitalism itself, but at no point does it show evidence for the “double-pane glass ceiling” that is keeping women down.

Perhaps there are other factors that explain the “wage gap”.

Men Are Killed More At Work

CLICK HERE, for the recent Bureau of Labor Statistics (US) released in the U.S. on December 18.

Look on page 4, specifically on the divide on gender and occupational injury resulting in death. There were listings for 2016 and 2017 on a per-capita basis (per 100,000 people). Note: it excluded: 1/ children under 16 years of age; 2/ volunteers; and 3/ military personnel.

2016, for women there were 387 deaths per 100,000 workers,
2016, for men there were 4,803 deaths per 100,000 workers.

2017, for women there were 386 deaths per 100,000 workers.
2017, for men there were 4761 deaths per 100,000 workers.

From this, we can determine that men were 12.4 times more likely to be killed at work than women in 2016, and 12.3 times more likely in 2017. At least this is the case in the U.S.

Men Work In More Physical And Dangerous Jobs

CLICK HERE, for a Bureau of Labor Statistic release in 1995. Most of the physical and dangerous jobs are ones with a majority of men.

Men Work More Hours

CLICK HERE, for the actual link.

This one, citing a 2007 data collection, showed men working on average 39.5 hours per week, while woman worked 33.2 hours per week.

CLICK HERE, for another StatsCan graph showing overtime. An interesting split, men were more likely to work “paid” overtime, while women were more likely to work “unpaid” overtime.

Men And Women Have Different Work Patterns
We could go on endlessly about the differences in work, work type, overtime, and danger. However, the data is clear from the research available. These are just a few data sets chosen, from Statistics Canada and the BLS in the United States.

Despite being regularly debunked, the “wage gap” is still thrown around as if there is actually some human right.

Yes, there are difference in how much men and women are paid. But there are legitimate reasons for those differences.

Posted on

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

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

1. Canada’s Bill C-16

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

2. New York City

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

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

1. Failing To Use an Individual’s Preferred Name or Pronoun
.
The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.
.
Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. 10 Many transgender and gender non-conforming people choose to use a different name than the one they were given at birth.
.
All people, including employees, tenants, customers, and participants in programs, have the right to use their preferred name regardless of whether they have identification in that name or have obtained a court-ordered name change, except in very limited circumstances where certain federal, state, or local laws require otherwise (e.g., for purposes of employment eligibility verification with the federal government). Asking someone their preferred gender pronoun and preferred name is not a violation of the NYCHRL

And the penalties for this?

IV. PENALTIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

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

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

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

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

3. California Senate Bill 219

CLICK HERE, for the text of SB 219

1439.50. For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
.
(a) “Gender expression” has the same meaning as defined in Section 51 of the Civil Code.
.
(b) “Gender identity” means a person’s identity based on the individual’s stated gender identity, without regard to whether the self-identified gender accords with the individual’s physical appearance, surgical history, genitalia, legal sex, sex assigned at birth, or name and sex, as it appears in medical records, and without regard to any contrary statement by any other person, including a family member, conservator, or legal representative. An individual who lacks the present ability to communicate his or her gender identity shall retain the gender identity most recently expressed by that individual.

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

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

4. Australia

CLICK HERE, got the tedious guidelines for awarding costs.

CLICK HERE, for the section on gender identity.

The Commission recognises that terminology can have a profound impact on a person’s identity, self-worth and inherent dignity. The use of inclusive and acceptable terminology empowers individuals and enables visibility of important issues.
.
The Commission supports the right of people to identify their sexual orientation and sex and/or gender as they choose. The Commission also recognises that terminology is strongly contested, particularly terminology to describe sex and/or gender identity. The consultation revealed that there is no clear consensus on what is appropriate terminology in this area.
.
This report uses the phrase ‘gender identity’ in two specific contexts. First, international human rights discourse often uses the phrase gender identity. Second, many state and territory laws use a variation of this phrase. As a result, the phrase ‘gender identity’ is used when referring to international human rights agreements or state and territory laws.
.
This report also frequently uses the phrase ‘sex and/or gender identity’. This term is used to refer to the whole spectrum of sex and/or gender in our community. It aims to include all people regardless of whether they identify within or outside of the binary gender.

5. New Zealand

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

The Human Rights Act 1993 makes it unlawful to discriminate based on:
.
Sex – includes pregnancy and childbirth, and discrimination against transgender and intersex people because of their sex or gender identity.
Marital status – includes marriages and civil unions that have ended.
Religious belief – not limited to traditional or mainstream religions.
Ethical belief – not having a religious belief.
Colour, race, or ethnic or national origins – includes nationality or citizenship.
Disability – including physical, psychiatric, intellectual or psychological disability or illness.
Age – people are protected from age discrimination if they are over 16 years old.
Political opinion – including not having a political opinion.
Employment status – being unemployed, on a benefit or on ACC. It does not include being employed or being on national superannuation.
Family status – includes not being responsible for children or other dependants.
Sexual orientation – being heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian or bisexual.
These grounds apply to a person’s past, present or assumed circumstances. For example, it is unlawful to discriminate against someone because they have a mental illness, had one in the past, or someone assumes they have a mental illness.
.
The prohibited grounds for discrimination are covered in detail in part two of the Human Rights Act.

6. Europe

The ECHR refers to the European Court of Human Rights

CLICK HERE, for some decisions over the years.

CLICK HERE, for an ECHR guidebook.

ARTICLE 8

Right to respect for private and family life

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

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

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

7. More Nonsense

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

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

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

Even open minded people are sick of it.