Category: World

Posted on

UCLG — United Cities & Local Gov’t (Globalist Stormtroopers)


(UCLG Propaganda Film)

1. Important Links

(1) https://www.uclg.org
(2) https://www.uclg.org/en/agenda/global-agenda-of-local-regional-governments
(3) https://www.uclg.org/en/organisation/structure/constitution-rules
(4) https://www.uclg.org/sites/default/files/bogota_commitment.pdf
(5) https://www.uclg.org/en/issues/migration
(6) https://www.uclg.org/sites/default/files/8.5.eng_paris_eb_c2c_migration_project.pdf
(7) https://www.uclg.org/sites/default/files/pressrelease_strategicpartnership_development_en.pdf

2. Global Agenda Of Local Gov’t

Note: This is “their” headline.

They have specific plans for each of:

(a) Local Action
(b) National Action
(c) International Action

Note: lip-service is being paid to the power and authority that local communities an (to a lesser degree) nations will have. However, this is illogical. As more and more parties become involved, the voice and authority of each becomes less and less.

Furthermore, the further away the power brokers are, the less the effected people will be able to make decisions. Now, what are the specifics the UCLG are advocating?

LOCAL ACTION

Realization of the New Urban Agenda on the ground
As a result of the growing links between global and local challenges, local and regional governments now play a greater role in the regulation of the urban fabric and territories, and the protection of the commons. However, they often lack the resources to meet these new challenges, putting pressure on their ability to fulfil pre-existing responsibilities. To contribute to what in the SDGs is termed a ‘transformed world’, local and regional governments across all world regions must be proactive and commit to the following actions:

  1. Improve their strategic management capacity.
  2. Boost participation by fostering a buoyant and autonomous civil society to co-create cities and territories.
  3. Harness integrated urban and territorial planning to shape the future of cities and territories.
  4. Ensure access to quality and resilient infrastructures and basic services for all.
  5. Foster local economic opportunities to create decent jobs and social cohesion.
  6. Put the ‘Right to the City’ at the centre of urban and territorial governance.
  7. Lead the transition toward low carbon, resilient cities and regions.
  8. Promote local heritage, creativity and diversity through people-centred cultural policies

NATIONAL ACTION

A new multilevel governance system
Local leadership will only flourish if there is a national enabling environment for local and regional governments with adequate legal frameworks and resources, as well as a transformation of top-down approaches. Moreover, it can only succeed if the uneven decentralization found in many countries and regions is urgently addressed. National governments should:
1. Renew institutional frameworks to promote shared governance and effective decentralization.
2. Build coherent and integrated national urban and regional policies in consultation with sub-national governments.
3. Rethink sub-national financing systems to reconcile financing with sustainability.
4. Involve local and regional governments in the follow-up of the SDGs and the New Urban Agenda, supported by accurate territorialized data.

INTERNATIONAL ACTION

Local and regional governments’ rightful place at the global table
For global policies and agreements to properly harness local experience and commitment, the place of local and regional governments in international policymaking needs to change. They must be part of a structured consultation as a recognized and organized global constituency rather than subject to ad hoc consultation processes. The efforts of local and regional governments to organize and produce informed inputs must be acknowledged as part of the decision making process by taking the following steps:
1. Include organized local and regional government networks in the governing structures of international development institutions
2. Create new instruments to finance local sustainable infrastructure and services
3. Support decentralized and city-to-city cooperation, learning and knowledge-sharing to foster innovation.

You know what is absent here?
Any talk of sovereignty.
Any talk of having control over one’s own affairs.
This is all about globalism, down to the municipal level.

3. All Migrants, All Citizens

“According to the International Organization for Migration, migration can be defined as the movement of a person or group of people, either crossing an international border or within a state. There is now agreement not only on the importance of better exploiting the economic, social and cultural benefits of international migration, but also the downsides of this phenomenon that could be better handled.

Migration, integration, inclusion and the protection of migrants’ rights have hitherto been largely regulated and debated at state level, with states developing policies tailored to their countries’ needs as a whole. Thus, the central role of states as main actors in migration management and dialogue somewhat neglects a very basic fact of international migration – in reality, migratory flows, whether rural-to-urban or urban-to-urban, link cities across and between regions. Migration is a challenge that needs short and long term solutions and a review of policies must take the current role of cities into account.”

1/ So migration is “agreed” to be a good thing. Why was the public never consulted?
2/ How the downsides could be better handled? You mean like not doing migration in the first place?
3/ “Migrants’ rights”? And what right would those be? Is migration itself a right? Are entitlement programs a right?

4. Partnership With European Union

““For the first time ever, local and regional governments and the European Commission commit to work side by side to pursuit objectives that will contribute to achieve democracy, human dignity, equality, justice for all and in the spirit of solidarity throughout the world. Local and regional governments help shape strong local communities and contribute to economic prosperity and social and cultural well-being. We look forward to developing our programmes in cooperation with the European Commission to take this forward.””

How can this possibly be a good thing? EU is autocratic, and is on the verge of breaking apart.

1/ EU tried to pull voting rights of Hungary and Poland

2/ UK voted to leave (Brexit)

3/ Italy had its national budget vetoed

4/ German open borders forced the dissolution of Schengen free travel zone, and reinstitution of border controls

5/ Visegrad nations openly reject migrant quotas

6/ Openly nationalist leaders in Europe winning elections

7/ May 2019 EU elections may lead to collapse of EU agenda

But beyond this, the EU is a great example of globalist control working out.

5. Financial Instruments

“The Global Observatory on Local Finance hosted a cross-cutting study, launched by UCLG Committee on Local Finance for Development, to improve and fine-tune its advocacy on local finance in preparation for Habitat III and Financing for Development follow-up meetings.”

“The conditions for the mobilization of local resources for sustainable urban development. This study aims at analyzing the triggering factors of success of public policies dedicated to financing urban development, with a focus by territory on the main financing sources of local governments:“

Will this be a bigger version of the “financial flows” that the carbon taxes (Paris Accord) are designed to bring in?

This will come as a shock to no one, but UCLG supports:
(a) Agenda 2030,
(b) SDA
(c) Gender Agenda
(d) Climate Change

This organization completely erases sovereignty of nations, and autonomy of cities. Instead, it promotes the idea that it is all one “global community” and that everyone should have a say in it.

What it DOESN’T mention, is by that logic, everyone else will have a say in running “your” community. Think you have sovereignty now? Well you won’t for very long.

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

UN Security Council: Legalized Aggression


(Then President George W. Bush, arguing for an invasion of Iraq under blatantly false pretenses. The UN Security Council approved the use of force in 2002 by a 15-0 vote. War was launched on March 20, 2003).


(A critique on the problem with veto power)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for UN Security Council home page.
CLICK HERE, for the page on sanctions.
CLICK HERE, the UN Charter.
CLICK HERE, for Article 41 of the UN Charter (Sanctions).
CLICK HERE, for an index of voting records.
CLICK HERE, for Wikipedia page on “Proxy Wars”.

2. Stated Mission

Peace and Security

The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It has 15 Members, and each Member has one vote. Under the Charter of the United Nations, all Member States are obligated to comply with Council decisions.

The Security Council takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of settlement. In some cases, the Security Council can resort to imposing sanctions or even authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.

That is correct. 15 nations can decide what is “in the interest of global peace and security”. Hardly seems that other nations get much of a say in international matters. Would your own sovereignty be limited by what these 15 members of the “Global Community” have to say?

Even more undemocratic is the make up of the Security Council. There are 15 members, 5 of which are permanent, and 10 others which are chosen on a rotational basis.

The 5 permanent members are: 1/ the United States; 2/ Russia (formerly the Soviet Union); 3/ Britain; 4/ France; and 5/ China. These were the “winners” of World War II, when the UN was founded. Each of the 5 permanent members has “veto” power, meaning they can unilaterally block any resolution from passing.

In order to pass a Security Council resolution, a majority of members have to approve it. Additionally, none of the “Permanent 5” can veto. They each have to abstain or support.

3. Non Military Options

What if the UN doesn’t opt for military force? There are less direct, but more passive-aggressive measures called “sanctions”. These are essentially punishments the Security Council imposes.

(From Article 41)

“The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.”

From the page on sanctions:

“Security Council sanctions have taken a number of different forms, in pursuit of a variety of goals. The measures have ranged from comprehensive economic and trade sanctions to more targeted measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, and financial or commodity restrictions. The Security Council has applied sanctions to support peaceful transitions, deter non-constitutional changes, constrain terrorism, protect human rights and promote non-proliferation.”

The UN Security Council also lists who it has imposed sanctions upon: “Since 1966, the Security Council has established 30 sanctions regimes, in Southern Rhodesia, South Africa, the former Yugoslavia (2), Haiti, Iraq (2), Angola, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Eritrea, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Liberia (3), DRC, Côte d’Ivoire, Sudan, Lebanon, DPRK, Iran, Libya (2), Guinea-Bissau, CAR, Yemen, South Sudan and Mali, as well as against ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida and the Taliban.”

4. UN Contributing To World Peace?

Does UN Security Council Create World Peace?
Not really. This is especially true when one of the “Permanent 5” has veto power over any resolution to stop or condemn the aggression. Though the major powers may not directly be involved, they may provide aid to others and fight proxy wars.

Though not always the best site, Wikipedia is great for a quick reference.

Chinese Civil War (1944–1949)
Greek Civil War (1944–1949)
Iran crisis of 1946 (1945–1946)
First Indochina War (1946–1954)
Paraguayan Civil War (1947)
Malayan Emergency (1948–1960)
Internal conflict in Myanmar (1948– )
Balochistan conflict (1948– )
Arab–Israeli conflict (1948–present)
Korean War (1950–1953)
Mau Mau Uprising (1952–1960)
Second Indochina War (First Taiwan Strait Crisis (1953–1975))
Algerian War (1954–1962)
First Sudanese Civil War (1955–1972)
Suez Crisis (1956–1957)
Second Taiwan Strait Crisis (1958)
Lebanon crisis (1958)
Tibetan uprising (1959–1962)
Central American crisis (1960–1996)
Congo Crisis (1960–1965)
Portuguese Colonial War (1960–1974)
Xinjiang conflict (1960s–present)
First Iraqi–Kurdish War (1961–1970)
Eritrean War of Independence (1961-1991)
North Yemen Civil War (1962–1970)
Dhofar Rebellion (1962–1976)
Sarawak Communist Insurgency (1962–1990)
Sand War (1963)
Aden Emergency (1963–1967)
Insurgency in Northeast India (1963–present)
Rhodesian Bush War (1964–1979)
Dominican Civil War (1965)
Communist insurgency in Thailand (1965–1983)
Bolivian Campaign (1966–1967)
Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–1969)
South African Border War (1966–1990)
Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970)
Naxalite–Maoist insurgency (1967–present)
Communist insurgency in Malaysia (1968–1989)
Operation Condor (1968–1989)
Al-Wadiah War (1969-present)
Civil conflict in the Philippines (1969–present)
Yemenite War (1972)
Angolan Civil War (1974–2002)
Ethiopian Civil War (1974–1991)
Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990)
Western Sahara War (1975–1991)
Indonesian occupation of East Timor (1975–1999)
Cabinda War (1975–present)
Insurgency in Laos (1975–present)
Civil conflict in Turkey (1976–present)
Shaba I (1977)
Ogaden War (1977–1978)
Cambodian-Vietnamese War (1977–1991)
Mozambican Civil War (1977–1992)
Chittagong Hill Tracts conflict (1977–1997)
Shaba II (1978)
Uganda–Tanzania War (1978–1979)
NDF Rebellion (1978–1982)
Chadian–Libyan conflict (1978–1987)
Yemenite War of (1979)
Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989)
Sino-Vietnamese War (1979
Internal conflict in Peru (1980–present)
Ethiopian–Somali Border War (1982)
Sri Lankan Civil War (1983–2009)

This isn’t even a complete list. But when researching conflicts, you will find that it is most often one or more of the “Permanent 5” behind these conflicts. How can the UN actually help world peace when its own Security Council members can flaunt the principles without consequences?

Why are a nation’s well being and sovereignty dependant on the will of 15 nations, 5 of whom appointed themselves as permanent members with a veto.

This is not to say that nations should not be free to enter into military alliances and pacts. However, this arrangement seems stacked against smaller and weaker nations.

5. What Does UN Say About It?

Under the United Nations Charter, the functions and powers of the Security Council are:
.
-to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;
-to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction;
-to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;
-to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;
-to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;
-to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;
-to take military action against an aggressor;
-to recommend the admission of new Members;
-to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in “strategic areas”;
-to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.

There has been much speculation within Canada that Justin Trudeau is being so “UN compliant” because he is aiming for a seat on the Security Council. Not sure if this is true, though it’s certainly possible.

Military aggression. But “democratically performed” military aggression.”

6. Who’s Behind US Military Aggression?

In a word: Israel.

The State of Israel has been influencing US military policy, particularly in the Middle East, for decades. Western (Christian) nations go to war against Muslim nations. This in turn creates refugees who are forced to take shelter in other countries. Of course Israel won’t take them, but will help ship them off to the West.

Posted on

UN Principles For Responsible Investment (& ESG Agenda)

(1) https://www.unpri.org/
(2) http://archive.is/8Iyl
(3) http://archive.is/WcmOi
(4) https://www.unpri.org/pri/about-the-pri
(5) https://www.unpri.org/download?ac=5981
(6) https://www.unpri.org/annual-report-2018
(7) https://www.unpri.org/signatories/signatory-directory
(8) https://twitter.com/PRI_News
(9) https://www.unpri.org/credit-ratings/statement-on-esg-in-credit-ratings/77.article

What is UN Principles for Responsible Investment?

What is the PRI?
.
The PRI is the world’s leading proponent of responsible investment.
.
It works to understand the investment implications of environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors and to support its international network of investor signatories in incorporating these factors into their investment and ownership decisions. The PRI acts in the long-term interests of its signatories, of the financial markets and economies in which they operate and ultimately of the environment and society as a whole.
.
The PRI is truly independent. It encourages investors to use responsible investment to enhance returns and better manage risks, but does not operate for its own profit; it engages with global policymakers but is not associated with any government; it is supported by, but not part of, the United Nations.

Environmental, Social Governance
6 Principles of Investing

Principle 1: We will incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes.
Principle 2: We will be active owners and incorporate ESG issues into our ownership policies and practices.
Principle 3: We will seek appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities in which we invest.
Principle 4: We will promote acceptance and implementation of the Principles within the investment industry.
Principle 5: We will work together to enhance our effectiveness in implementing the Principles.
Principle 6: We will each report on our activities and progress towards implementing the Principles.

1/ Social justice to be incorporated into decision making
2/ Social justice to be incorporated into ownership
3/ Social justice to be considered when making investment decisions
4/ Social justice to be actively promoted
5/ Social justice to be group effort
6/ Effects of social justice to be reported

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
-Climate change
-Water
-Sustainable land use
-Fracking
-Methane
-Plastics

SOCIAL ISSUES
-Human rights and labour standards
-Employee relations
-Conflict zones

GOVERNANCE ISSUES
-Tax avoidance
-Executive pay
-Corruption
-Director nominations
-Cyber security

United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (UN PRI) is a marriage of sorts between the financial sector and the SJW/NPC groups in the world.

Here’s possibly the worst part:

Credit Ratings Initiative
.
The ESG in credit ratings initiative aims to enhance the transparent and systematic integration of ESG factors in credit risk analysis. The PRI is facilitating a dialogue between credit rating agencies (CRAs) and investors to cultivate a common language, discuss ESG risks to creditworthiness and bridge investor-CRA disconnects.
.
The initiative kicked off with the launch of the Statement on ESG in credit ratings, still open to sign and so far supported by 149 investors with $29.6 trillion of AUM, and 18 CRAs. There are three reports planned as part of the initiative and roundtables that the PRI is organising around the world for credit practitioners.
.
See below the work we have done so far, and contact us if you have any questions.

That is what it appears to be. Credit ratings and creditworthiness are to be based at least in part on a person or party’s commitment to the ESG agenda. Here are the signatories:

CREDIT RATING AGENCY SIGNATORIES
Axesor Rating
Liberum Ratings
Beyond Ratings
Microfinanza Rating
China Chengxin International Credit Rating Co., Ltd
Moody’s Corporation
Dagong Global Credit Ratings Group
RAM Ratings.
Fedafin AG
Rating-Agentur Expert RA GmbH
Fitch Group, Inc
Rating and Investment Information, Inc
Golden Credit Rating International Co., Ltd..
Scope Ratings
Japan Credit Rating Agency
Spread Ratings
JCR Eurasia Rating
S&P Global Ratings

Not only are credit rating agencies on board with this, but so are dozens of major investors. Here is the list provided by UN PRI.

INVESTOR SIGNATORIES
Aberdeen Standard Investments
ACTIAM
Addenda Capital Inc.
AEGON Asset Management
Alberta Investment Management Corporation
Alliance Bernstein
Allianz Global Investors
Challenger Limited
IVM Caring Capital
PGGM Investments
Christian Brothers Investment Services, Inc.
Janus Henderson Investors
PIMCO
Church of Sweden
Jarislowsky, Fraser Limited
PineBridge Investments
CIBC Asset Management Inc.
Kempen Capital Management NV
Principal Global Investors
Colchester Global Investors Limited
KfW Bankengruppe
Prudential Portfolio Managers (South Africa)
Colonial First State Global Asset Management (including First State Investments)
KLP
Public Investment Corporation (PIC)
Commonfund
La Française Group
Public Sector Pension Investment Board
Allianz SE
Compass Group
Länsförsäkringar AB
QBE Insurance Group Limited
AlphaFixe Capital Inc.
Connor, Clark & Lunn Investment Management Ltd.
Legal & General Investment Management (Holdings)
QIC
AMP Capital Investors
DDJ Capital Management, LLC
Leith Wheeler Investment Counsel Ltd.
RBC Global Asset Management
APG Asset Management
Delta Alternative Management
Local Government Superannuation Scheme
Régime de Retraite de l’Université de Montréal
Ardea Investment Management
Domini Impact Investments
LocalTapiola Asset Management Ltd
RobecoSAM AG
ASR Nederland N.V.
EGAMO
Lombard Odier
Royal London Asset Management
Australian Ethical Investment Ltd.
Element Investment Managers
Longfellow Investment Management Co., LLC
Sanlam Investment Management (SIM)
AustralianSuper
ERAFP – Etablissement de Retraite Additionnelle de la Fonction Publique Pension Scheme
M&G Investments
Sarasin & Partners LLP
Aviva Investors
Erste Asset Management GmbH
Maple-Brown Abbott Limited
Saturna Capital
AXA Group
ESG Portfolio Management
Mariner Investment Group, LLC.
Schroders
AXA Investment Managers
Federal Finance
MFS Investment Management
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken (SEB) AB
Bank J. Safra Sarasin Ltd
Fidelity International
Mirova
SKY Harbor Capital Management
Barings LLC
Fiera Capital Corporation
MN
Sparinvest S.A.
Bâtirente
First State Superannuation Scheme
Mondrian Investment Partners Limited
Stone Harbor Investment Partners LP
BlueBay Asset Management LLP
Fonds de réserve pour les retraites – FRR
Moneda Asset Management
Svenska Handelsbanken AB (Publ)
BMO Global Asset Management
Franklin Templeton Investments
Montrusco Bolton Investments Inc. (MBII)
T&D Asset Management Co., Ltd.
BNP Paribas Asset Management
Futuregrowth Asset Management
Neuberger Berman Group LLC
Tareno AG
Brandywine Global Investment Management, LLC
Galliard Capital Management, Inc.
Nikko Asset Management Co. Ltd.
TD Asset Management (TD Asset Management Inc.)
Breckinridge Capital Advisors
Generation Investment Management LLP
NN Investment Partners
Tokio Marine Asset Management Co., Ltd. Japan
British Columbia Investment Management Corporation
Geroa Pentsioak EPSV
Nomura Asset Management Co., Ltd.
TPT Retirement Solutions
British Columbia Municipal Pension Plan
Global Evolution
Norwegian Government Pension Fund Norway (Norwegian Ministry of Finance and Folketrygdfondet)
Treehouse Investments, LLC
Brown Advisory
Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM)
OFI Asset Management
Triodos Investment Management B.V.
BT Pension Scheme
Gramercy Funds Management
Ohman
UBS Asset Management
Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec
Hermes Investment Management
Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan
Union Asset Management Holding AG
Caja Ingenieros Gestión SGIIC, SAU
HESTA Super Fund
OP Wealth Management (OP Asset Management Ltd, OP Fund Management Ltd and OP Property Management Ltd)
Union Bancaire Privée, UBP SA
California Public Employees’ Retirement System CalPERS
HSBC Global Asset Management
Ostrum Asset Management
University of Toronto Asset Management Corporation (re University of Toronto Endowment)
Calvert Research and Management
IFM Investors
Partners Group AG
Vancity Investment Management
Candriam Investors Group
Income Research & Management
Payden & Rygel
Victorian Funds Management Corporation
CCOO, FP
Insight Investment
Pegaso – Fondo pensione complementare
Wellington Management Company LLP
CDC – Caisse des dépôts et consignations
Investec Asset Management
Pension Protection Fund
Wespath Investment Management (General Board of Pension and Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church)

This is pretty messed up. Major credit ratings agencies and major investors committed to the same globalist and social justice agendas that comprise the UN. Sound financial decisions will take a backseat to these SJW causes.

Also, this seems eerily like China’s “Social Credit” system, where a person’s livelihood is impacted by irrelevant details. Will finance, business and trade be limited by one’s “social credit”?

Guess we will see.

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

Canada, the World Statistics Hub & StatsCan

1. Interesting Canadian Laws

CLICK HERE, for the Privacy Act.
CLICK HERE, for the Financial Administration Act.
CLICK HERE, for the Federal Accountability Act.
CLICK HERE, for the Access to Information Act.

2. StatsCan and UN SDG Data Hub

CLICK HERE, for the Information Hub.
CLICK HERE, for world data hub. This shows instant access to information on foreign investment.
CLICK HERE, for transparency & reporting.
CLICK HERE, for the UN Stats Open SDG Data Hub.
CLICK HERE, for a surprisingly informative handbook on Agenda 21.
CLICK HERE, for SDG Data Hub (Gender).
CLICK HERE, for SDG Data Hub (Income inequality).
CLICK HERE, for the SDG catalogue.
CLICK HERE, for the SDG “indicators” list.

Recent Scandal In Canada
Remember this one?
CLICK HERE, for StatsCan wanting to seize bank records of Canadians as “research tools”.
CLICK HERE, for the Privacy Commissioner throwing StatsCan under the bus.

Not only did the Liberal Government oppose a 2010 initiative to make the long-form census “VOLUNTARY”, but they were actually okay with StatsCan raiding bank accounts for information on customers. 500,000 per year.

This data was supposed to be “anonymised”, meaning that once the entire personal profile is complete, the identifiers will be stripped away and it will only used for research purposes.

Under very public backlash, the Federal Government halted. And due to complaints filed with the Privacy Commissioner, the matter had to be suspended. According to the Canadian Banker’s Association (as of March 4, 2019), the plan is still halted. Here is that message from a follow-up with CBA rep, Aaron Boles:

“At this point, the project is on hold, per the letter StatsCan sent to affected banks on November 16, 2018, where StatsCan said, “Statistics Canada is not expecting any personal data from your institution in January 2019.” The CBA and its members are also encouraged that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has launched an investigation into Statistics Canada’s data request, which we understand will be underway until this spring. The banking sector continues to emphasize the central importance of protecting the privacy and security of customer financial data and personal information.
.
Best regards,
.
AEB”

Not only does the Canadian Government not value Canadian privacy with regards to banking and financial information, but there is a legitimate question of whether this information is shared globally.

A more cynical person (or black pilled person), would think this bank data seizure is being done in order to find innovative ways to tax citizens, to finance the One-World Agenda. Nope, couldn’t be that.

3. Countries In World Stats Hub

1/ Australia
2/ Belgium
3/ China
4/ France
5/ Germany
6/ Hong Kong
7/ India
8/ Italy
9/ Japan
10/ Mexico
11/ Netherlands
12/ Norway
13/ Singapore
14/ South Korea
15/ Spain
16/ Switzerland
17/ United Kingdom
18/ United States

** Note: This list comes from the StatsCan website.

CLICK HERE, for a page on reporting and disclosure by the Canadian Government. This page may actually prove very useful.

4. Will UN Use This Data?

Certainly appears to be that way.

The SDG API
An API to retrieve information and metadata on the Sustainable Development Goals
The Sustainable Development Goals indicators database provides transparency on the data used for global reporting. The database contains data on the global Sustainable Development Goal indicators used in the Sustainable Development Goals Report 2018, and includes country-level data as well as regional and global aggregates.

The global Sustainable Development Goal indicators API gives programmatic access to the global indicators database using the OpenAPI specification.

The database, maintained by the Statistics Division, released on 20 June 2018 contains over 1 million observations. However, this is not the number of unique observations, as several indicators and their data are repeated. For the complete list of the indicators that are repeated in the indicator framework please see https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/indicators-list/ .

The following global indicator framework was developed by the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) and agreed upon, including refinements on several indicators, at the 48th session of the United Nations Statistical Commission held in March 2017.

The global indicator framework was later adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2017 and is contained in the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/71/313), Annex. Annual refinements of indicators will be included in the indicator list as they occur. The official indicator list below includes the global indicator framework as contained in A/RES/71/313 and refinements agreed by the Statistical Commission at its 49th session in March 2018 (E/CN.3/2018/2, Annex II).

The list includes 232 indicators on which general agreement has been reached. Please note that the total number of indicators listed in the global indicator framework of SDG indicators is 244. However, since nine indicators repeat under two or three different targets (see below), the actual total number of individual indicators in the list is 232.
Indicators in the global indicator framework that repeat are the following:

So when Statistics Canada demands our personal information in census forms, where does the information go?

When employers, schools, and medical centers are forced to turn over information to StatsCan for “research purposes”, what exactly happens to our personal information? How much of it is shared? How much is shared outside of Canada?

That October 2018 scandal of StatsCan (under Liberal direction) trying to seize Canadians’ financial information is merely the tip of the iceberg. But then again, we are not Canadians, but rather “global citizens”, living in a post-national world.