Category: World

Posted on

UN Issues “Human Rights Compliant Guidance” For Treating Returning Terrorists

(1) https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Human-Rights-Responses-to-Foreign-Fighters-web-final.pdf
(2) UNCHR Human Rights Responses to Foreign Fighters or Terrorists
(3) https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/FTF-Report-1-3_English.pdf
(4) https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/4/7/393503_2.pdf
(5) OSCE Guidelines for Addressing the Foreign Terrorists Fighters
(6) https://stepstojustice.ca/steps/1-understand-grounds-detention

“Guidance to States on human rights-compliant responses to the threat posed by foreign fighters”

That title is a direct quote. The UN promotes “human rights-compliant responses” to terrorists who have left their country to take up arms against them, commit atrocities, then expect to be welcomed back.

” In June 2014, it was estimated that up to 12,000 people from more than 80 countries had travelled to Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic to join groups such as the Al-Nusrah Front and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). In September 2015, that number was thought to have grown to almost 30,000 from more than 100 countries. By August 2017, the flow of people to Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic had diminished dramatically in light of the military efforts against ISIL. In October 2017 it was estimated that over 40,000 people from more than 110 countries had joined ISIL, and that at least 5,600 of them had returned home.”

1/ In 2014, 12,000 people across 80 countries travelled to Iraq and Syria.
2/ In 2015, that number thought to be 30,000.
3/ In 2017, thought to be 40,000.
4/ At least 5,600 thought to have returned home.
How is this not a crisis?

“2. There is no clear profile for foreign terrorist fighters. Some are motivated by extremist ideology, while others appear more driven by alienation and boredom. Motivation may also change over time. Motivational factors may also include the desire to belong to a group or to gain peer acceptance; kinship, nationalism or patriotism; and humanitarian reasons, namely to protect the local population. Financial or material gain may also be a factor. The Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy points to prolonged unresolved conflicts, dehumanization of victims of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, lack of the rule of law and violations of human rights, ethnic, national and religious discrimination, political exclusion, socio-economic marginalization and lack of good governance conditions among the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism”

This seems deliberately designed to avoid the obvious: above, 12,000-40,000 people were thought to have joined ISIS. You know what motivates them? ISLAM. This UN report dances around that point, and implies that any form of unhappiness or social exclusion leads to people joining.

“3. The movement of people for the purposes of joining and supporting terrorist groups as well as their return to their countries of origin poses serious challenges to States in their efforts to prevent acts of terrorism. It is crucial that States adopt comprehensive long-term responses that deal with this threat and manage the return of fighters, and that in doing so they comply with their obligations under international human rights law. States have an obligation to protect the lives of individuals subject to their jurisdiction, and this includes the adoption of effective measures to counter the threat posed by foreign fighters. However, in its 2016 review of the Global Counter- Terrorism Strategy, the General Assembly expressed serious concern at the occurrence of violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms committed in the context of countering terrorism and stressed that, when counter-terrorism efforts neglected the rule of law and violated international law, they not only betrayed the values they sought to uphold, but they might also further fuel violent extremism that could be conducive to terrorism.”

That’s right. The UN expects host nations to “manage” the return of foreign fighters, who — to be frank — are overwhelmingly muslim. Nations have an obligation to ensure that “their” human rights are not violated in any way.

Curious to know: how does punishing them “further fuel violent extremism”? They are already violent, and anyone looking to join ISIS is a radical anyway.

“5. In resolution 2178 (2014), the Security Council underscored that respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are complementary and mutually reinforcing with effective counter-terrorism measures, and are an essential part of a successful counter-terrorism effort. It noted the importance of respect for the rule of law so as to effectively prevent and combat terrorism, and that failure to comply with these and other international obligations, including under the Charter of the United Nations, is one of the factors contributing to increased radicalization and fosters a sense of impunity. The Counter-Terrorism Committee has noted the importance, as States revise legislation and policy to stem the flow of foreign terrorist fighters, to recognize that the protection of human rights and the rule of law contribute to the countering of terrorism. Arbitrary arrests, incommunicado detentions, torture and unfair trials fuel a sense of injustice and may in turn encourage terrorist recruitment, including of foreign terrorist fighters”

This is asinine. Somehow, if nations were nice and tolerant to returning terrorists, and ensured they have all the human rights they rejected…. then people won’t turn to terrorism. Perhaps there is a flow of terrorists because host countries are weak. Something to consider.

“7. In December 2017, the Security Council adopted resolution 2396 (2017), building on resolution 2178 (2014) and providing greater focus on measures to address returning and relocating foreign terrorist fighters and their families, and requiring States to strengthen their efforts in border security, information-sharing, and criminal justice. In order to protect public order and safety in the countries to which foreign terrorist fighters return or relocate, resolution 2396 (2017) sets out additional measures beyond those in resolution 2178 (2014), which may raise concerns from a human rights perspective”

Interesting. Not only do we have obligations to terrorists, but to their families as well.

” The document then analyses the gender aspects and the situation of children affected by or involved in foreign fighter activities and provides guidance on how to ensure information exchange, data collection and analysis in conformity with human rights. The document then addresses criminal justice measures, including the definition of terrorism; prosecution, fair trial and due process rights; rehabilitation and reintegration of returnees; and special laws, sunset clauses and review mechanisms. Finally, the document provides guidance on the right to an effective remedy for those whose rights have been violated and on preventing and countering violent extremism and incitement.”

Wouldn’t be the UN without a few gender references.

You read that right: rehabilitation and reintegration of returnees.

“11. Any measures undertaken to implement resolutions 2178 (2014), 2396 (2017) or other Security Council resolutions must comply with general human rights principles grounded in treaty law and customary law. This means that any measures which may limit or restrict human rights must be prescribed by law, be necessary, proportionate to the pursuance of legitimate aims and non-discriminatory. They should also be procedurally fair and offer the opportunity of legal review.“

What do you consider reasonable then? Is leaving to go join ISIS not a valid reason for the host country to fear for the safety of its citizens, should you return? As far as legal process goes: how does one investigate in a war zone across the world?

“13. In a limited set of circumstances, States may also take measures to temporarily derogate from certain international human rights law provisions. As noted by the Human Rights Committee, measures derogating from the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights must be of an exceptional and temporary nature. Two fundamental conditions must be met: the situation must amount to a public emergency which threatens the life of the nation; and the State party must have officially proclaimed a state of emergency. The obligation to limit any derogations to those strictly required by the exigencies of the situation reflects the principle of proportionality which is common to derogation and limitation powers.”

Okay, from your criteria: #1 is met. These fighters are a threat to the public.
As for #2, “why” must a public declaration be made?

14. The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, along with regional refugee instruments,22 are the core legal instruments of the international refugee regime, complemented by customary international law and international human rights law. These instruments define the term “refugee” and establish an international framework for the protection of refugees

These people are not refugees. UN is deliberately obfuscating here. They are terrorists, who “chose” to leave their country.

“16. International humanitarian law is also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict and is applicable to both situations of international or non-international armed conflicts. These rules are enshrined in the four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, as well as in customary rules of international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons, civilians, who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities as well as fighters hors de combat and restricts the means and methods of warfare.“

This is not an official war. People can’t just leave their country, join a foreign army, then expect to return afterwards. They have committed treason. It’s idiotic to claim that humanitarian law would apply to these people.

“18. States have used different measures, whether legislative, administrative or operational, to prevent the departure of foreign fighters to conflict areas as well as to prevent their return. These could include travel bans, the seizure, retention, withdrawal and non-renewal of passports or identity cards, the stripping of citizenship, restrictions on travel or entry to territory and various types of house arrests or preventive detention. All of these measures have a serious impact on a number of fundamental human rights, including the rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement. They also raise a number of serious due process concerns if, for example, decisions are taken following secretive proceedings, in absentia or on the basis of vaguely defined criteria without adequate safeguards to prevent statelessness.“

Here’s the thing: very few people would actually care if any terrorists were left stateless as a result. If you leave to take up arms against a nation or it’s allies, you are a TRAITOR. You have forfeited your rights to be a citizen.

“21. The right to life, liberty and security of person is fundamental in international human rights law. It is the first substantive right protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Deprivation of liberty involves a more severe restriction on motion than merely interfering with freedom of movement. Examples of deprivation of liberty include arrest, imprisonment, house arrest, administrative detention and involuntary transportation, but may also include the cumulative effects of multiple restrictions on freedom of movement when, taken together, they would amount to a de facto deprivation of liberty. International human rights law protects against such deprivation of liberty, except on grounds of and in accordance with procedures established by law. But, even assuming that a deprivation of liberty is lawful, international human rights law also absolutely prohibits any deprivation of liberty that is arbitrary. The prohibition of arbitrary detention is non-derogable and must be understood to incorporate elements of “inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law as well as elements of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality”. The right to life is non-derogable, and the Human Rights Committee has stated that the fundamental guarantee against arbitrary detention is also non-derogable insofar as even situations that allow for derogations in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights cannot justify a deprivation of liberty that is unreasonable or unnecessary under the circumstances.”

It would be nice if the UN at some point starts listing rights and protections that society should have.

I’ll stop it here, but it goes on about ensuring that foreign fighters and terrorists have their human rights met. Ironic, since this group would never extend human rights or life to others.

Noticeably absent is any concern for the populations of these countries. Returning terrorists will pose a risk to the public, most likely for life. However, the UN talks about “managing” those risks.

Canadian Criminal Code:

Purpose and Principles of Sentencing
Marginal note:
Purpose
718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

I think that terrorism would certainly qualify under the first 3 criteria. We must (a) denounce the conduct; (b) deter the offender, and others, and (c) separate the offender from society. The other 3 are of much less concern.

Grounds to Deny Bail

The Crown considers 3 grounds of detention:
Primary – You may not go to court when required.
Secondary – You may commit another crime, or the public may not be safe while you’re out on bail.
Tertiary – Because of the circumstances of your offence, the public might feel that the justice system is not working if you’re let out of custody.

Terrorists would qualify on all 3 grounds.

Regardless, the overwhelming majority of the public does not want these people coming back. Not now, not ever.

Posted on

Canada’s Bill C-74, Deferred Prosecution Agreement, and OECD Anti-Bribery Agreement

1. Important Links

(1) http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-74/royal-assent
(2) http://archive.is/wip/14Scd
(3) https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/alerts/2018/april/11
(4) http://archive.is/wip/q6KsR
(5) https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/jody-wilson-raybould-resigns-from-cabinet/
(6) http://archive.is/wip/BxmzN
(7) https://globalnews.ca/news/5012770/jody-wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-david-lametti/
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkDweZcSO-E
(9) https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/oecd-announces-it-is-monitoring-snc-lavalin-scandal-raising-prospect-canada-has-violated-international-anti-bribery-agreement
(10) http://www.oecd.org/corruption/oecdantibriberyconvention.htm
(11) http://www.oecd.org/daf/anti-bribery/ConvCombatBribery_ENG.pdf

(12) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/clntSmmry?clientOrgCorpNumber=359826&sMdKy=1562758127214
(13) https://www.elections.ca/WPAPPS/WPF/EN/CCS/ContributionReport?returnS

2. Some Context

This is supposedly a budget bill, but is in fact an omnibus bill (a bloated bill with many unrelated provisions), At the very end is Part 6, Division 20. Presumably it was tacked on as an afterthought.

The “Deferred Prosecution Agreement” (or DPA), is a mechanism which corporations can avoid criminal penalties in Canada. Under Canadian law, a company found guilty in criminal court would be prohibited from bidding on government contracts for a period of 10 years. Obviously, this would hurt the company.

Of course, if it looks like Government influence helped a company avoid criminal penalties, it would stink of corruption, as seems to be the case with Quebec engineering firm SNC Lavalin.

Former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould resigned from her post after being pressured by the Trudeau Government to cut such a deal for SNC Lavalin, and help the company avoid criminal penalties.

If that didn’t stink enough, her successor, David Lametti, claimed he knew nothing, about the deal when he took over. He also took Trudeau’s word that nothing inappropriate happened. It doesn’t help that Lametti is from Montreal (as is SNC Lavalin).

Worse still, is that Lametti seems content with letting SNC Lavalin get its DPA anyway, which is what Wilson-Raybould had been pressured to do.

The Organization for Economic Development & Cooperation (OEDC), would also consider such actions to violate the multi-nation Anti-Bribery Agreement. So the fallout seems to be spreading, not being contained.

3. Content Of Deferred Prosecution Agreement

Summary, Part 6, Division 20
Division 20 of Part 6 amends the Criminal Code to establish a remediation agreement regime. Under this regime, the prosecutor may negotiate a remediation agreement with an organization that is alleged to have committed an offence of an economic character referred to in the schedule to Part XXII.‍1 of that Act and the proceedings related to that offence are stayed if the organization complies with the terms of the agreement.
.
Text Of Bill
PART XXII.‍1 
.
Remediation Agreements
.
Definitions
.
715.‍3 (1) The following definitions apply in this Part.
court means a superior court of criminal jurisdiction but does not include a court of appeal.‍ (tribunal)
offence means any offence listed in the schedule to this Part.‍ (infraction)
organization has the same meaning as in section 2 but does not include a public body, trade union or municipality.‍ (organisation)
remediation agreement means an agreement, between an organization accused of having committed an offence and a prosecutor, to stay any proceedings related to that offence if the organization complies with the terms of the agreement. (accord de réparation)
victim has the same meaning as in section 2 but, with respect to an offence under section 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, it includes any person outside Canada.‍ (victime)
.
Acting on victim’s behalf
.
(2) For the purposes of this Part, a third party not referred to in section 2.‍2 may also act on a victim’s behalf when authorized to do so by the court, if the victim requests it or the prosecutor deems it appropriate.
.
Purpose
.
715.‍31 The purpose of this Part is to establish a remediation agreement regime that is applicable to organizations alleged to have committed an offence and that has the following objectives:
(a) to denounce an organization’s wrongdoing and the harm that the wrongdoing has caused to victims or to the community;
(b) to hold the organization accountable for its wrongdoing through effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties;
(c) to contribute to respect for the law by imposing an obligation on the organization to put in place corrective measures and promote a compliance culture;
(d) to encourage voluntary disclosure of the wrongdoing;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to reduce the negative consequences of the wrongdoing for persons — employees, customers, pensioners and others — who did not engage in the wrongdoing, while holding responsible those individuals who did engage in that wrongdoing.
.
Conditions for remediation agreement
.
715.‍32 (1) The prosecutor may enter into negotiations for a remediation agreement with an organization alleged to have committed an offence if the following conditions are met:
(a) the prosecutor is of the opinion that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction with respect to the offence;
(b) the prosecutor is of the opinion that the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence did not cause and was not likely to have caused serious bodily harm or death, or injury to national defence or national security, and was not committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization or terrorist group;
(c) the prosecutor is of the opinion that negotiating the agreement is in the public interest and appropriate in the circumstances; and
(d) the Attorney General has consented to the negotiation of the agreement.
.
Factors to consider
.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)‍(c), the prosecutor must consider the following factors:
(a) the circumstances in which the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence was brought to the attention of investigative authorities;
(b) the nature and gravity of the act or omission and its impact on any victim;
(c) the degree of involvement of senior officers of the organization in the act or omission;
(d) whether the organization has taken disciplinary action, including termination of employment, against any person who was involved in the act or omission;
(e) whether the organization has made reparations or taken other measures to remedy the harm caused by the act or omission and to prevent the commission of similar acts or omissions;
(f) whether the organization has identified or expressed a willingness to identify any person involved in wrongdoing related to the act or omission;
(g) whether the organization — or any of its representatives — was convicted of an offence or sanctioned by a regulatory body, or whether it entered into a previous remediation agreement or other settlement, in Canada or elsewhere, for similar acts or omissions;
(h) whether the organization — or any of its representatives — is alleged to have committed any other offences, including those not listed in the schedule to this Part; and
(i) any other factor that the prosecutor considers relevant.
.
Factors not to consider
.
(3) Despite paragraph (2)‍(i), if the organization is alleged to have committed an offence under section 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest, the potential effect on relations with a state other than Canada or the identity of the organization or individual involved.
.
Notice to organization — invitation to negotiate
.
715.‍33 (1) If the prosecutor wishes to negotiate a remediation agreement, they must give the organization written notice of the offer to enter into negotiations and the notice must include
(a) a summary description of the offence to which the agreement would apply;
(b) an indication of the voluntary nature of the negotiation process;
(c) an indication of the legal effects of the agreement;
(d) an indication that, by agreeing to the terms of this notice, the organization explicitly waives the inclusion of the negotiation period and the period during which the agreement is in force in any assessment of the reasonableness of the delay between the day on which the charge is laid and the end of trial;
(e) an indication that negotiations must be carried out in good faith and that the organization must provide all information requested by the prosecutor that the organization is aware of or can obtain through reasonable efforts, including information enabling the identification of any person involved in the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence or any wrongdoing related to that act or omission;
(f) an indication of how the information disclosed by the organization during the negotiations may be used, subject to subsection (2);
(g) a warning that knowingly making false or misleading statements or knowingly providing false or misleading information during the negotiations may lead to the recommencement of proceedings or prosecution for obstruction of justice;
(h) an indication that either party may withdraw from the negotiations by providing written notice to the other party;
(i) an indication that reasonable efforts must be made by both parties to identify any victim as soon as practicable; and
(j) a deadline to accept the offer to negotiate according to the terms of the notice.
.
Admissions not admissible in evidence
.
(2) No admission, confession or statement accepting responsibility for a given act or omission made by the organization during the negotiations is admissible in evidence against that organization in any civil or criminal proceedings related to that act or omission, except those contained in the statement of facts or admission of responsibility referred to in paragraphs 715.‍34(1)‍(a) and (b), if the parties reach an agreement and it is approved by the court.
.
Mandatory contents of agreement
.
715.‍34 (1) A remediation agreement must include
(a) a statement of facts related to the offence that the organization is alleged to have committed and an undertaking by the organization not to make or condone any public statement that contradicts those facts;
(b) the organization’s admission of responsibility for the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence;
(c) an indication of the obligation for the organization to provide any other information that will assist in identifying any person involved in the act or omission, or any wrongdoing related to that act or omission, that the organization becomes aware of, or can obtain through reasonable efforts, after the agreement has been entered into;
(d) an indication of the obligation for the organization to cooperate in any investigation, prosecution or other proceeding in Canada — or elsewhere if the prosecutor considers it appropriate — resulting from the act or omission, including by providing information or testimony;
(e) with respect to any property, benefit or advantage identified in the agreement that was obtained or derived directly or indirectly from the act or omission, an obligation for the organization to
(i) forfeit it to Her Majesty in right of Canada, to be disposed of in accordance with paragraph 4(1)‍(b.‍2) of the Seized Property Management Act,
(ii) forfeit it to Her Majesty in right of a province, to be disposed of as the Attorney General directs, or
(iii) otherwise deal with it, as the prosecutor directs;
(f) an indication of the obligation for the organization to pay a penalty to the Receiver General or to the treasurer of a province, as the case may be, for each offence to which the agreement applies, the amount to be paid and any other terms respecting payment;
(g) an indication of any reparations, including restitution consistent with paragraph 738(1)‍(a) or (b), that the organization is required to make to a victim or a statement by the prosecutor of the reasons why reparations to a victim are not appropriate in the circumstances and an indication of any measure required in lieu of reparations to a victim;
(h) an indication of the obligation for the organization to pay a victim surcharge for each offence to which the agreement applies, other than an offence under section 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the amount to be paid and any other terms respecting payment;
(i) an indication of the obligation for the organization to report to the prosecutor on the implementation of the agreement and an indication of the manner in which the report is to be made and any other terms respecting reporting;
(j) an indication of the legal effects of the agreement;
(k) an acknowledgement by the organization that the agreement has been made in good faith and that the information it has provided during the negotiation is accurate and complete and a commitment that it will continue to provide accurate and complete information while the agreement is in force;
(l) an indication of the use that can be made of information obtained as a result of the agreement, subject to subsection (2);
(m) a warning that the breach of any term of the agreement may lead to an application by the prosecutor for termination of the agreement and a recommencement of proceedings;
(n) an indication of the obligation for the organization not to deduct, for income tax purposes, the costs of any reparations or other measures referred to in paragraph (g) or any other costs incurred to fulfil the terms of the agreement;
(o) a notice of the prosecutor’s right to vary or terminate the agreement with the approval of the court; and
(p) an indication of the deadline by which the organization must meet the terms of the agreement.

Admissions not admissible in evidence
.
(2) No admission, confession or statement accepting responsibility for a given act or omission made by the organization as a result of the agreement is admissible in evidence against that organization in any civil or criminal proceedings related to that act or omission, except those contained in the statement of facts and admission of responsibility referred to in paragraphs (1)‍(a) and (b), if the agreement is approved by the court.

Optional content of agreement
.
(3) A remediation agreement may include, among other things,
(a) an indication of the obligation for the organization to establish, implement or enhance compliance measures to address any deficiencies in the organization’s policies, standards or procedures — including those related to internal control procedures and employee training — that may have allowed the act or omission;
(b) an indication of the obligation for the organization to reimburse the prosecutor for any costs identified in the agreement that are related to its administration and that have or will be incurred by the prosecutor; and
(c) an indication of the fact that an independent monitor has been appointed, as selected with the prosecutor’s approval, to verify and report to the prosecutor on the organization’s compliance with the obligation referred to in paragraph (a), or any other obligation in the agreement identified by the prosecutor, as well as an indication of the organization’s obligations with respect to that monitor, including the obligations to cooperate with the monitor and pay the monitor’s costs.

Oh, it gets much worse.

4. Anti-Corruption Agreements

Here is the CONVENTION itself:

“HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
.
Article 1
The Offence of Bribery of Foreign Public Officials
.
1. Each Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish that it is a criminal offence under its law for any person intentionally to offer, promise or give any undue pecuniary or other advantage, whether directly or through intermediaries, to a foreign public official, for that official or for a third party, in order that the official act or refrain from acting in relation to the performance of official duties, in order to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage in the conduct of international business.
.
2. Each Party shall take any measures necessary to establish that complicity in, including incitement, aiding and abetting, or authorisation of an act of bribery of a foreign public official shall be a criminal offence. Attempt and conspiracy to bribe a foreign public official shall be criminal offences to the same extent as attempt and conspiracy to bribe a public official of that Party.
.
3. The offences set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 above are hereinafter referred to as “bribery of a foreign public official”.

The document is quite long, and a read it recommended.

5. Liberal Donor Bruce Hartley Is Lavalin Lobbyist

How did this DPA come to be. Perhaps one name can explain it: Bruce Hartley.

Hartley has been a long time Liberal donor. He now is a registered lobbyist with SNC-Lavalin. One of his specific lobbying targets was the creation of the DPA.

(Hartley has made 124+ donations to the Liberal Party and its members since 2005).

(Hartley is registered as a Lavalin lobbyist.)

(Hartley’s job includes lobbying for DPA)

6. Bottom Line

1/ The Federal Government added this “Deferred Prosecution Agreement” into the Criminal Code to allow companies to avoid criminal penalties (and the bulk of financial penalties), under this arrangement. This is stuffed into the end of a completely unrelated budget bill.
2/ Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould resigned after she alleges being pressured to cut a deal with Quebec engineering firm, SNC Lavalin
3/ Federal Government denies this, claims it was a “misunderstanding”
4/ New AG says he sees nothing wrong, and may still give DPA to SNC Lavalin.
5/ Public interest and outrage in story is growing.
6/ This DPA appears to violate international anti-bribery agreement.
7/ Liberal donor Bruce Hartley is now an SNC-Lavalin lobbyist, and is tasked with pushing for the creation of the DPA.

Posted on

The UN’s Hypocritical Stance On Sexual Abuse


1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

CLICK HERE, for TSCE #1: series intro and other listings.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #2: suing for right to illegally enter U.S.

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.unhcr.org/en-my/excom/exconc/3f93b2c44/conclusion-protection-sexual-abuse-exploitation.html
(2) http://archive.is/giPHO
(3) https://oios.un.org/resources/2015/01/ST-SGB-2003-13.pdf
(4) https://www.unocha.org/story/making-zero-tolerance-sexual-exploitation-and-abuse-reality
(5) http://archive.is/yWf6F
(6) https://www.jpost.com/International/UN-staff-allegedly-responsbile-for-over-60000-cases-of-sexual-exploitation-542817
(7) http://archive.is/iyoZV
(8) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-sexualharassment/united-nations-moves-to-help-combat-sexual-abuse-in-its-ranks-idUSKCN1Q900M
(9) http://archive.is/yu3eG
(10) https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-united-nations-is-a-hotbed-of-sexual-harassment/
(11) http://archive.is/KBfKl
(12) https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/un-moves-to-act-on-sexual-abuse-by-staff-and-troops-1.3236017
(13) http://archive.is/u4k8f
(14) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/taxpayers-forced-to-foot-the-bill-for-un-sex-crimes
(15) http://archive.is/bGYM3
(16) https://www.dailywire.com/news/27188/shock-claim-un-aid-workers-have-committed-60000-emily-zanotti
(17) http://archive.is/mq6nc

3. UN Policy, Sexual Exploitation

Section 3 Prohibition of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse
3.1 Sexual exploitation and sexual abuse violate universally recognized international legal norms and standards and have always been unacceptable behaviour and prohibited conduct for United Nations staff. Such conduct is prohibited by the United Nations Staff Regulations and Rules.

3.2 In order to further protect the most vulnerable populations, especially women and children, the following specific standards which reiterate existing general obligations under the United Nations Staff Regulations and Rules, are promulgated:
(a) Sexual exploitation and sexual abuse constitute acts of serious misconduct and are therefore grounds for disciplinary measures, including summary dismissal;
(b) Sexual activity with children (persons under the age of 18) is prohibited regardless of the age of majority or age of consent locally. Mistaken belief in the age of a child is not a defence;
(c) Exchange of money, employment, goods or services for sex, including sexual favours or other forms of humiliating, degrading or exploitative behaviour, is prohibited. This includes any exchange of assistance that is due to beneficiaries of assistance;
(d) Sexual relationships between United Nations staff and beneficiaries of assistance, since they are based on inherently unequal power dynamics, undermine the credibility and integrity of the work of the United Nations and are strongly discouraged;
(e) Where a United Nations staff member develops concerns or suspicions regarding sexual exploitation or sexual abuse by a fellow worker, whether in the same agency or not and whether or not within the United Nations system, he or she must report such concerns via established reporting mechanisms;
(f) United Nations staff are obliged to create and maintain an environment that prevents sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. Managers at all levels have a particular responsibility to support and develop systems that maintain this environment.

3.3 The standards set out above are not intended to be an exhaustive list. Other types of sexually exploitive or sexually abusive behaviour may be grounds for administrative action or disciplinary measures, including summary dismissal, pursuant to the United Nations Staff Regulations and Rules.

Seems well intentioned.
The rules seem pretty specific, and written in such a way as to avoid any misunderstandings or loophole. Credit where credit is due.

But there is this:

4. Daily Wire Article

In a shocking report out this week, a former U.N. official accuses the agency of harboring hundreds, if not thousands, of criminals in its foreign service, and claims that U.N. aid workers have committed more than 60,000 rapes and sexual assaults over the course of the last decade.

The Times of London reports that Andrew MacLeod, the former “chief of operations at the U.N.’s Emergency Co-ordination Centre” told U.N. officials last month that “he estimated that 60,000 rapes had been carried out by UN staff in the past decade, with 3,300 paedophiles working in the organisation and its agencies.”

MacLeod also told officials that he believed sexual predators specifically applied for foreign aid jobs so that they could get closer to vulnerable populations, including helpless women and children living in abject poverty.

“There are tens of thousands of aid workers around the world with paedophile tendencies, but if you wear a Unicef T-shirt nobody will ask what you’re up to,” MacLeod told the Sun newspaper. “You have the impunity to do whatever you want. It is endemic across the aid industry across the world. The system is at fault, and should have stopped this years ago.”

MacLeod’s report does come with caveats: his number is estimated based on extrapolating information contained in a U.N. Secretary General’s report issued last year, which said there had been 103 allegations of sexual abuse made against members of the U.N.’s peacekeeping and foreign aid teams in one segment of Africa in 2016, and half of those allegations had multiple victims.
Assuming only one in 10 cases gets reported, and that the teams in Africa are generally representative of U.N. foreign aid teams overall, MacLeod suggested that tens of thousands of cases could occur every year.

Regardless of whether the 60,000 number is correct, the allegations that the U.N. could be harboring sexual predators in its midst is shocking, and echoes allegations made against other massive foreign aid agencies, like Oxfam. That group, which also has aid workers all over the world, is now accused of covering up hundreds of reports of abuse.

Why are we a part of this organization? If even a small percentage of the accusations are true, then there is rampant sexual abuse that goes on in the UN.

But this hypocrisy is to be expected.

5. UN “Human Rights” Council

The UN Human Rights Council contains Afghanistan, Angola, Australia, Brazil, Chile, China, Croatia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Japan, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Tunisia, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Recently Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Czechia, Denmark, Eritrea, Fiji, India, Italy, Philippines, Somalia, Togo and Uruguay were added.

There doesn’t seem to be a requirement that Human Rights Council members actually believe in human rights.

The UN has many documents and “commitments” to ending sexual abuse and exploitation. Yet, stories about it being rampant within the organization lead to obvious suggestions of hypocrisy.

Posted on

UN Endorses Abortion As “Human Right”, Even For Kids

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/
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-part-3-ny-virginia-to-legalise-up-to-birth-abortion/
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-part-4-leave-no-survivors/

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/ccpr/pages/gc36-article6righttolife.aspx
(2) https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/GCArticle6/GCArticle6_EN.pdf
(3) International Convenant On Civil And Political Rights On Right To Life

3. General Comments

“2. Article 6 recognizes and protects the right to life of all human beings. It is the supreme right from which no derogation is permitted1 even in situations of armed conflict and other public emergencies. The right to life has crucial importance both for individuals and for society as a whole. It is most precious for its own sake as a right that inheres in every human being, but it also constitutes a fundamental right, 2 whose effective protection is the prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights and whose content can be informed and infused by other human rights.

3. The right to life is a right which should not be interpreted narrowly. It concerns the entitlement of individuals to be free from acts and omissions intended or expected to cause their unnatural or premature death, as well as to enjoy a life with dignity. Article 6 guarantees this right for all human beings, without distinction of any kind, including for persons suspected or convicted of even the most serious crimes.

4. Paragraph 1 of article 6 of the Covenant provides that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life and that the right shall be protected by law. It lays the foundation for the obligation of States parties to respect and to ensure the right to life, to give effect to it through legislative and other measures, and to provide effective remedies and reparation to all victims of violations of the right to life.”

So far, this looks pretty good. The UN states very bluntly that it values life.

Individuals should not be subjected to acts or omissions which cause their premature death (a.k.a. murder), and that they should have dignity in their lives.

States of the UN are obligated to respect life. This applies even to people suspected or convicted of committing the most serious crimes. It seems we are going down the line of “serial killers are human too”.

“6. Deprivation of life involves a deliberate3 or otherwise foreseeable and preventable life-terminating harm or injury, caused by an act or omission. It goes beyond injury to bodily or mental integrity or threat thereto, which are prohibited by article 9, paragraph 1.4 “

Nothing in this statement I can disagree with.

“8. Enforced disappearance constitutes a unique and integrated series of acts and omissions representing a grave threat to life and may thus result in a violation of the right to life.7 It also violates other rights recognized in the Covenant, in particular, article 9 (liberty and security of persons), article 7 (prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) and article 16 (right to recognition of a person before the law). “

Nothing in this passage that is offensive either. Forced disappearances “do” cause an obvious threat to life and violate all sorts of regulations.

We will skip over 9, and come back to it.

“10. [While acknowledging the central importance to human dignity of personal autonomy, the Committee considers that States parties should recognize that individuals planning or attempting to commit suicide may be doing so because they are undergoing a momentary crisis which may affect their ability to make irreversible decisions, such as to terminate their life. Therefore,] States should take adequate measures, without violating their other Covenant obligations, to prevent suicides, especially among individuals in particularly vulnerable situations.”

I would agree with this. Taking the effort to engage in intervention to protect potentially suicidal people is definitely worthwhile.

“12. States parties engaged in the use of existing weapons and in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of new weapons, and means or methods of warfare must always consider their impact on the right to life. “

Agree fully.

“14. States parties should monitor the impact on the right to life of less-lethal weapons which are designed for use by law-enforcement agents and soldiers charged with lawenforcement missions, including electro-muscular disruption devices (Tasers),29 rubbercoated metal bullets, and attenuating energy projectiles. The use of such weapons must be restricted only to law-enforcement agents who have undergone appropriate training, and must be strictly regulated in accordance with international protocols for their use.”

Try not to kill suspects? Sure, good idea.

“20. The Covenant does not provide an enumeration of permissible grounds for deprivation of life. Still, article 6, paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 implicitly recognize that countries which have not abolished the death penalty and that have not ratified the Second Optional Protocol may continue to apply the death penalty with regard to the most serious crimes subject to a number of strict conditions. Other procedures regulating activity that may result in deprivation of life, such as conditions for use of lethal weapons by the police or protocols for new drug treatment, must be established by law, accompanied by effective institutional safeguards designed to prevent arbitrary deprivations of life, and be compatible with other provisions of the Covenant.”

Limit the death penalty to the most serious crimes? Sure.

“28. Persons with disabilities, including psychosocial and intellectual disabilities, are entitled to special measures of protection so as to ensure their effective enjoyment of the right to life on equal basis with others. Such measures of protection shall include reasonable accommodation of public policies which are necessary to ensure the right to life, such as ensuring access of persons with disabilities to essential goods and services, and special measures designed to prevent excessive use of force by law enforcement agents against persons with disabilities.”

People with physical and intellectual disabilities are also entitled to life and dignity. Agreed.

“42. Under no circumstances can the death penalty be imposed as part of a policy of genocide against members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Article 6, paragraph 3 reminds all States parties who are also parties to the Genocide Convention of their obligations to prevent and punish the crime of genocide, which include the obligation to prevent and punish all deprivations of life, which constitute part of a crime of genocide.”

So, where does the problem exist?
See paragraph #9.

“9. Although States parties may adopt measures designed to regulate terminations of pregnancy, (1) such measures must not result in violation of the right to life of a pregnant woman or her other rights under the Covenant, including the prohibition against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. Thus, (2) any legal restrictions on the ability of women to seek abortion must not, inter alia, jeopardize their lives or subject them to physical or mental pain or suffering which violates article 7. States (3) parties must provide safe access to abortion to protect the life and health of pregnant women, and in situations in which carrying a pregnancy to term would cause the woman (4) substantial pain or suffering, most notably where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or when the foetus suffers from fatal impairment. States parties may not regulate pregnancy or abortion in a manner that runs contrary to (5) their duty to ensure that women do not have to undertake unsafe abortions. [For example, they should not take measures such as (6) criminalizing pregnancies by unmarried women or applying criminal sanctions against women undergoing abortion or against physicians assisting them in doing so, when taking such measures is expected to significantly increase resort to unsafe abortions]. Nor should States parties (7) introduce humiliating or unreasonably burdensome requirements on women seeking to undergo abortion. The (8) duty to protect the lives of women against the health risks associated with unsafe abortions requires States parties to ensure access for women and men, and, in (9) particular, adolescents, to information and education about reproductive options, and to a wide range of contraceptive methods. States parties must also (10) ensure the availability of adequate prenatal and post-abortion health care for pregnant women.”

Now we get to the real problem,
UNBORN CHILDREN DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE

4. About The Bolded Comments

1/ States can “regulate” abortion, but not if it means violating her rights, or anything she may find cruel, inhumane or degrading. Screw the child.
2/ No legal restrictions if it jeopardises the “mental” health of the mother. Not the physical health or life, but the mental health, which can mean anything.
3/ States must provide access to abortion if it endangers health, and yes, that means mental health. I guess as long as the child in an inconvenience.
4/ Again, they consider “suffering” to be mental as well.
5/ States have to provide abortion to ensure that women won’t “unsafely” kill their children
6/ Remove any penalties for abortion, if it would lead to “unsafe” abortions.
7/ Unreasonably burdensome? Would a therapist or medical exam be considered burdensome? Would telling the mother to think it over be too much?
8/ Again, since women may engage in “unsafe” abortions, states are obligated to provide it.
9/ Why the hell are we giving children advice on reproductive options?
10/ Kill the child or birth it, we still have to give the same care to the mother?!?!

UN doesn’t seem to see how inconsistent this attitude is with other provisions of the same document.

22. The second sentence of paragraph 1 provides that the right to life “shall be protected by law”. This implies that States parties must establish a legal framework to ensure the full enjoyment of the right to life by all individuals. The duty to protect the right to life by law also includes an obligation for States parties to take appropriate legal measures in order to protect life from all foreseeable threats, including from threats emanating from private persons and entities.

24. States parties must enact a protective legal framework which includes effective criminal prohibitions on all forms of arbitrary deprivations of life by individuals, including intentional and negligent homicide, disproportionate use of firearms, infanticide, “honour” killings, lynching, violent hate crimes, blood feuds, death threats, terrorist attacks and other manifestations of violence or incitement to violence that are likely to result in a deprivation of life. The criminal sanctions attached to these crimes must be commensurate with their gravity, while remaining compatible with all provisions of the Covenant.

UN prohibits infanticide, unless it is being done by the mother.
Abortions for everyone.
Abortions for children.

Posted on

UN Declaration On Rights Of Indigenous Peoples (BC and Feds)

(BC Premier John Horgan)

1. Important Links

(1) https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf
(2) http://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=8160636
(3) http://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=8936657
(4) http://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=9630600
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/canadas-bill-c-69-impact-energy-navigation-acts/
(6) https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/b-c-commits-to-being-1st-province-in-canada-to-put-undrip-into-legislation-1.5018447

The Government of British Columbia has announced that it will enact legislation to enforce UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Currently, there is a Federal version (Bill C-262) working its way through the Canadian Senate.

For reference, links to both C-48 (oil transportation), and C-69 (amend environmental acts) are both included. Canada is a nation that relies on resource development. Both of these bills will make these industries harder to function.

The UNDRIP, however, although “non-binding” may now be implemented at the Federal level and/or in British Columbia. This will give veto power to any development that may occur across of near “traditional lands”.

2. From The CBC Article

“”We need to address reconciliation in British Columbia, not just for social justice… but for economic equality for all citizens, Indigenous and non-Indigenous.”

Horgan’s NDP campaigned on a promise to implement UNDRIP, which includes 46 articles meant to recognize the basic human rights of Indigenous Peoples’ along with their rights to self-determination.

Article 32 is among those in the declaration often cited by Indigenous leadership. It directs states to obtain free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous groups before approving projects that would affect their lands or territories.

“For too long uncertainty on the land base has led to investment decisions being foregone, and I believe that that hurts Indigenous people and it hurts other British Columbians,” Horgan said on Tuesday.”

Okay, so what is this Article 32? It is right here:

Article 32
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.
2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.
3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.

A/ Take steps to mitigate social, cultural or spiritual impact? Industry now has be developed “around” religion or spirituality?
B/ Is this a right to veto any such projects? Or is this a right to demand “tolls” or “commissions”?
C? Is this an acknowledgement that Canada doesn’t have control over its own lands?

3. What Else Is In UNDRIP

Article 4 Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

Interesting. Not necessary to actually be part of a nation when it is inconvenient.

Article 5 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.

So it is not necessary to choose. A person “can” be part of both the state, and a separate collective, depending on what is convenient at that time.

Article 8
1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.
2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;
(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;
(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.

The UN believes that Indigenous People’s should never be forced to assimilate. UN “also” views assimilation of migrants to not be important. This will lead to fracturing and balkanizing nations.

The next several articles go on about the host country not being forced to assimilate of change. Perhaps we can use it against future waves of migration.

Article 27 States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process, giving due recognition to indigenous peoples’ laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems, to recognize and adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their lands, territories and resources, including those which were traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. Indigenous peoples shall have the right to participate in this process.

If this wording is to be taken literally, it looks like parallel legal systems can be used. This makes any uniformity or justice unlikely.

Article 31
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.
2. In conjunction with indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights.

Would be nice if the rest of Canada was entitled to keep our identity, rather than this multicultural, post-nation state that is forced upon us.

Article 45 Nothing in this Declaration may be construed as diminishing or extinguishing the rights indigenous peoples have now or may acquire in the future.

Okay, this list is not exhaustive, and new “rights” may be added later, or other previous rights will also be enacted.

Admittedly, there are some good things in this declaration. However, getting any major projects going will be difficult if several groups are able to veto at any time for any reason.

There is evident a double standard when it comes to protecting identity.

So, what does Bill C-262 say?

In short, it has a short introduction to adopt UNDRIP, then quotes it all

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
.
3 The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations as General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on September 13, 2007, and that is set out in the schedule, is hereby affirmed as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law.
.
Consistency
.
4 The Government of Canada, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples in Canada, must take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
.
National Action Plan
.
5 The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples, develop and implement a national action plan to achieve the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Like many United Nations initiatives, this looks fairly innocuous and harmless. However, once it is implemented, the actual consequences are far from clear.

It could be a sign of goodwill, and a way to ensure autonomy.

Or it could help destroy the Canadian economy. Time will tell.

Posted on

UN Global Citizenship Education

 

1. Important Links

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/duke-pesta-common-core-education/
(2) https://en.unesco.org/themes/gced

UNESCO Stated Grounds, Bases, Pretexts
(1) https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245656
(2) https://en.unesco.org/themes/gced/sdg47progress
(3) https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Education/Training/WPHRE/ThirdPhase/Pages/ThirdPhaseIndex.aspx
(4) https://en.unesco.org/preventing-violent-extremism/education
(5) https://en.unesco.org/themes/gced/languages
(6) https://en.unesco.org/themes/gced/rule-law
(7) https://en.unesco.org/themes/gced/action
(8) https://en.unesco.org/genderequality
(9) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-4.html

 

2. UNESCO Main Page

UNESCO Main Page

Global citizenship education
While the world may be increasingly interconnected, human rights violations, inequality and poverty still threaten peace and sustainability.

Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is UNESCO’s response to these challenges. It works by empowering learners of all ages to understand that these are global, not local issues and to become active promoters of more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, secure and sustainable societies.

GCED is a strategic area of UNESCO’s Education Sector programme and builds on the work of Peace and Human Rights Education. It aims to instil in learners the values, attitudes and behaviours that support responsible global citizenship: creativity, innovation, and commitment to peace, human rights and sustainable development.

UNESCO’s work in this area is grounded in its own Constitution which aims to ‘build peace in the minds of men and women,’ the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Education 2030 Agenda and Framework for Action, notably Target 4.7 of the Sustainable Development Agenda, the Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1974), and the World Programme for Human Rights Education
(link is external)
(2005-ongoing).

Under the GCED umbrella, UNESCO has several special themes: Preventing violent extremism through education, Education about the Holocaust and genocide, Languages in education and the promotion of the rule of law through global citizenship education
UNESCO collaborates with an extensive global network to disseminate GCED including its own Category 1 institutes, other UN agencies and inter-governmental organizations, including regional organizations, most notably: the UNESCO Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable Development (MGIEP), the International Institute for Capacity Building in Africa (IICBA), the UNESCO Institute for Statistic (UIS), the Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding (APCIEU), the UNESCO Associated Schools Project Network (ASPNet) and UNITWIN/UNESCO Chairs.

3. UNESCO Tramples on Provincial/State Jurisdiction For Education

Sections 91/92/93 of Canadian Constitution lay out areas of jurisdiction

Education
Marginal note:
Legislation respecting Education
93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:
.
(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union;
.
(2) All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen’s Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen’s Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec;
.
(3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen’s Subjects in relation to Education;
.
(4) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far only as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section.

10th Amendment stresses the States’ rights

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

UNESCO’s “Human Rights” Push Violates Prov/State Rules
Section 91(13) Property and Civil Rights in the Province — clearly Provincial matter

Likewise in the US, human rights/civil rights are decided at the “State” level.

UN Obsession With Immigration Intrudes Prov/State Rights
(Note: This is somewhat off topic, but worth mentioning)

Section 95 of Canadian Constitution

Concurrent Powers of Legislation respecting Agriculture, etc.
95. In each Province the Legislature may make Laws in relation to Agriculture in the Province, and to Immigration into the Province; and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of Canada may from Time to Time make Laws in relation to Agriculture in all or any of the Provinces, and to Immigration into all or any of the Provinces; and any Law of the Legislature of a Province relative to Agriculture or to Immigration shall have effect in and for the Province as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada<.p>

CLICK HERE, for an immigration article State v Federal rights:

Jurisdiction and the Supremacy Clause
The federal government’s jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.
However, many states have passed legislation that limits undocumented immigrants’ access to public benefits, directs state and local police to check the legal residence status of arrestees and other directives that affect immigrants. Lawmakers pressing for immigration-related state laws typically cite a lack of federal enforcement and the need to conserve limited state resources, while some cite security concerns.

But are such state laws constitutional? While state lawmakers have articulated a genuine interest in limiting illegal immigration, there is no clear line in the sand. See State Immigration Laws for a regularly updated, state-by-state directory.

Immigration Laws at the State Level
Perhaps the most notorious state attempt at regulating immigration is Arizona’s S.B. 1070, signed into law in 2010. The U.S. Dept. of Justice (DOJ) stated in a brief that Arizona lawmakers “crossed a constitutional line” with the new law. A federal judge blocked four of the most controversial elements, including the requirement that police check the immigration status of anyone they stop or suspect is in the state illegally.

Other states have passed laws with similar police directives, including Oklahoma and Utah. In addition to enforcement measures, many of the state laws addressing immigration mandate the use of E-Verify to check the employment eligibility of job applicants; require identification for voting purposes and impose restrictions on public benefits, such as food stamps and non-emergency medical care at state clinics.

Lawmakers in Arizona and Indiana directly challenged the 14th Amendment’s provision granting automatic citizenship to those born on U.S. soil, proposing legislation that would do just that. Proponents of such laws argue that the amendment’s interpretation should be narrowed to exclude children who are born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants, positioning their controversial bills for eventual review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Note: Both in Canada and the US, immigration is generally seen as a Federal matter, though Provinces/States do have some wiggle room.

Since the UN views itself as a “global citizen education” provider, it should come as no surprise that it is creeping towards having a common education curriculum.

Local and regional control is incrementally being phased out.
National pride is being replaced by global acceptance.

UN Leading To Death Of Nations
Put all this in a bigger context:

Global citizens, with global values, a global education, and global “rights”;

  • Cultures, customs, traditions replaced by “tolerance”
  • Borders replaced by “integrated mechanisms”
  • Facilitated by global agreement for free migration;
  • A global ban on criticizing “religions” like Islam;
  • Global access to internet, but governed by the UN;
  • Endless EDA initiatives like Agenda 21, 2030, Paris Accord;
  • Governed by a world parliament

Please read this policy idea, first posted on Canucklaw over 3 months ago. You will very likely agree with the conclusion.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress