Category: World

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #5: Resistance (And Borders) Are Futile

(CBC produces another “pro-illegal immigration” article)

Okay, securing borders is a tough job, so why even bother?

For my grandparents, divorce was unthinkable. My parents’ generation did that. For my parents’ generation, gay marriage was unthinkable. My generation did that. For my generation, more open borders is probably unthinkable. The next generation will do that.

An actual quote from the article.

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

CLICK HERE, to reach the CBC Propaganda Masterlist. It is far from complete, but being added to regularly.
Okay, where to start with this gem? CLICK HERE, for the article itself.

“In 2015, there were 244 million international migrants — nearly seven times the population of Canada.
The total includes the more than 65 million people forcibly displaced from their homes by conflict and persecution. It is the highest number on record, surpassing even the years following WWII.
.
It also includes people whose homelands have cracked apart in earthquakes, withered in droughts or suffered through famines.
.
Some migrants are pushed from their homes by poverty and drawn to countries in the global north by the promise of a better life. Others cross borders to join their families or pursue an education.”

An interesting start. And some things we can take from it.

First, it says 244 million (yes, million) international migrants. That is absurd. But don’t worry, some globalist bodies (EU, UN) will force countries to take them in.

Second, there are 244 million “migrants”, yet only 65 million of them are “refugees”. Assuming, for the sake of argument that the numbers are correct, that would be 65 million refugees, and 179 million migrants. As percentages, those are 27% refugees, and the other 73% are migrants

Third, it lists natural disasters as reason to leave, but it seems unclear if these are “refugees” or migrants”. The article doesn’t specify.

Fourth, yes, many are drawn by: 1/ poverty; 2/ search of a better life; 3/ join families; or 4/ pursue an education. Those are called economic migrants, and moving to another country for those reasons is not considered a human right.

The numbers are going to keep growing. Researchers predict there could be 1 billion climate refugees by the middle of this century, and 2 billion by its end.

The CBC quotes this article, from Cornell University. Although the article provides no actual evidence for its claims, it does make many dire predictions

“Earth’s escalating population is expected to top 9 billion people by 2050 and climb to 11 billion people by 2100, according to a United Nations report. Feeding that population will require more arable land even as swelling oceans consume fertile coastal zones and river deltas, driving people to seek new places to dwell.”

Yes, predictions about rising sea levels submerging the land have been floated for decades. No evidence of it happening though.

For the last six years, Canadian lawyer François Crépeau has served as the United Nations’ leading investigator and expert on the human rights of migrants. His post put him on the frontlines of an international crisis, during some of the most challenging years in recent memory.

The CBC links this UN page. It will be done in another article. Bottom line, the UN views migration (even illegal immigration) as a human right.

“François Crépeau: I should start by saying that migration is part of humankind, of who we are. We were born as a species 250,000 years ago in Africa. We came out of Africa around 70,000 years ago, arrived in Australia 60,000 years ago when there was a land bridge, entered Europe 40,000 years ago when the ice retreated, and entered North America between 20 and 25,000 years ago.

Since then, we’ve moved around all the time. We are a migrating animal species. The numbers are high today, but they represent on average 3 per cent of the world population. We’re told by anthropologists and sociologists that this was the proportion 50 years ago, and this was the proportion 100 years ago. [Migration] is the constant of who we are.

The problem we’re facing today, what we call a crisis, is because we invented — about 400 to 500 years ago — borders. We implemented borders in the second half of the 19th century when we invented the passport. So for the past 200 years, we’ve had this idea that we should stop people at borders, but 200 years is very little as compared to 250,000 years.”

Nice history lesson, but where we were 250,000 years ago, or 20,000 years ago is irrelevant. He makes an argument since that because humans have moved around for centuries, that actual borders and border enforcement are a strange an abhorrent concept.

He either doesn’t get (or pretends not to get) that borders and nations are what allows societies to function. People united by heritage, language, culture, traditions, and yes, ethnicity have formed the basis of societies for a very, VERY long time. Though the concept of a nation-state is newer, the principles behind it are not.

“Michael Enright: This is the whole idea of the sovereign state — that sovereignty allows nation states to control their borders and keep people out.

It’s been said to be one of the attributes of state sovereignty, but it’s never happened. All borders are porous and democratic borders are more porous than others. Even the Soviet Union had porous borders. At that time, the people we called the smugglers and we present as terrible criminals today were actually helping people getting out of USSR, and we called them heroes.”

Yes, borders are porous, but they “shouldn’t” be. They exist for a purpose: to be a barrier and an outside limit for that nation.

“I think states have to accept that borders are not meant to stop everyone they would like to stop. Borders may mean knowing who enters and stays in the country. In order to get that knowledge, you have to have people come to border guards so that they can be identified, numbered, etc. In order to do that you have to provide them with papers. If you try to stop everyone you don’t like, the only thing you do is you create underground markets for smugglers.

A question of terminology here: what’s the difference between a refugee and migrant?
.
‘Refugee’ is defined in the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees. It’s someone who is outside his or her country of origin and fears persecution for five reasons: race, religion, nationality, belonging to a particular social group, and political opinions.

Refugees are a kind of migrant. But there are many other people who do not fear persecution or who fear many other things: people who are fleeing drought, tsunamis, poverty. These are good reasons to try to move somewhere else. This is a social stress, and migration has always been a human answer to social stress. It’s going to continue, and we have to adapt to that rather than try to refuse it.”

(1) Okay, this person flat out says that borders are not meant to stop everyone. Yeah, that “is” what they are for.

(2) If you stop everyone you don’t like, you create underground markets for smugglers? Sure, if someone isn’t allowed it, for whatever reason, just pay someone to smuggle them in.

(3) “Providing papers” is standard practice when you show up at a foreign border. Border guards need to know who people are, and whether they are admissible or not.

(4) Yes, refugees are something different than migrant, but throughout this article, you blur the lines. You don’t seem to care if they are fleeing some legitimate horror, or are just looking for a better life.

(5) “fleeing drought, tsunamis, poverty”? Poverty isn’t a natural disaster, and none of these are legitimate reasons to be considered a refugee. It is just blurring the lines here.

“In the last six years, in your position with the UN, you’ve travelled around the world. You’ve visited detention centres, camps, places where people try to cross borders. What stands out in your mind now from those visits?

I was expecting this to be very grim. And what stood out from day one, when visiting detention centres or camps, was the sheer determination, the grit, the courage of those people — the fact that even if they were detained, in their mind they were already somewhere else. They were already in the next step of their journey. They might be sent back home, but they would come back.

They are going to come whether we like it or not, because this is what humankind has always done. They are going to try to find a place where they can thrive, flourish, feed their kids and educate their kids. They don’t do it, often, because they like it. They do it because that’s where the future lies for themselves and their families.”

This is creepy. There is almost an awe that these migrants — attempting to enter illegally — will just keep trying again and again. And in the next paragraph, reiterating that it is people looking for a better life. Economic migrants, not refugees.

“Some countries have responded to this influx of refugees and migrants into Europe by trying to close their borders. You say there’s no such thing as a fully sealed border.

I mean, you can seal a border that deflects migration to other weak points along the border, but borders are very long. I suppose you could put a soldier every 10 meters with orders to shoot on sight. Democracies don’t do that, really.

If you try to stop [migration], the only thing you’re creating is an underground market for criminals. That’s what’s happened with the prohibition era between Canada and the U.S. We made the fortune of several Montreal families. That’s what’s happening with 40 years of the war on drugs. The cartels are not cowed, and are deadlier than ever.”

The pattern throughout the article is that people have the right to migrate — wherever, whenever, however — they want. There is no sympathy shown for the host nations who are forced to provide costs for security. No sympathy for the housing, education, health care, etc… that these open border policies force on host nations.

It is undemocratic to defend your border? Does a nation just “give up” enforcement if the illegal immigrants are determined to cross?

This is the same kind of nonsensical arguments that “safe injection sites” are founded on: provide for these people, otherwise, they will hurt themselves. Selfish.

This is not really surprising to read though. The UN has made it clear repeatedly that it DOES NOT respect national borders.

“But do nations have a moral responsibility to take in migrants?
.
I don’t think it’s a question of moral responsibility. It’s a question of facing the facts. Migrants are going to come.

Migrations occur because of push and pull factors. We very often discuss the push factors — environmental catastrophes, violence, war, economic deprivation. We never talk about the pull factors.

The main pull factor for countries in the global north is that we have huge labour markets that need those migrants. The undocumented migrants we have in Canada and Europe and the U.S., they all work. They all perform economic functions and there are millions of employers ready to employ them.”

A bit of honesty here. He says screw morality.

But that is where the honesty ends. True, there are many who do work, but there are many more (especially from the Middle East and Africa), who do not work, and are an economic burden.

Furthermore, there is no mention of the damage done to host nations, even by those working. A huge influx of workers leads to more competition for jobs, drives down wages, and often sees citizens being replaced in favour of cheap foreign labour.

“What about the suggestion that migrants coming into my country will somehow change or subvert the common culture?

That’s often heard. It’s not supported by social science. The biggest changes in our culture are linked to generational changes.. For my grandparents, divorce was unthinkable. My parents’ generation did that. For my parents’ generation, gay marriage was unthinkable. My generation did that. For my generation, more open borders is probably unthinkable. The next generation will do that.

Changes in values are much more important because of the passage of time — because we react to what our parents did — than by people coming in. We haven’t seen a change in democratic values because we had millions of people coming from undemocratic countries.”

Finally a good question, but the answers are chilling

(1) The speaker is either not aware, or deliberately lying, about mass migration changing the culture. Particularly with Islamic immigration, there is nothing but culture clash and violence.

(2) The speaker says he believes open borders will become a reality.

“Isn’t there an argument to be put forward that countries like France or Sweden have found it very difficult to integrate migrants into the common culture?

No one ever said that welcoming migrants was easy. It’s always been difficult. There are ways of making it easier — putting people in language courses very early on, training, trying to have mechanisms so that the skills and experience they have can be translated into Canadian experience and skills.

Countries like France have had migrants for generations. But in the post-war period they have turned a complete blind eye to integration, because all those migrant workers of the 50s, 60s and 70s were supposed to go back home, and France never realised that they would stay. So integration was not part of the process.

You have a marginalized community if you don’t have proper integration policies. Now, that is true for migrants. But that is true for Roma people in in Europe. That is true for Aboriginal people in Canada. That is true for poor people in most of our cities. It’s true for older people. Integration is not simply an immigration problem; it’s a social problem that we collectively have for several communities who are excluded from the mainstream.”

Notice that again there is no concern for the host countries now forced to deal with many thousands of “migrants”.

But an interesting point, you need proper integration. But if people are just going to migrate anyway, then all of this is cast aside. Again, it is selfish to just force these burdens on host countries.

And this is to say nothing of Islam, which rejects assimilation, and attempts to conquer and dominate anyway, via mass migration. Let’s be clear, Islam is a political ideology, not a religion.

“What about the argument of politicians and people who say, well, embedded in the intake of migrants, there may be terrorists who pose a threat to my individual and national security?

That’s true. There are bad apples in every community. There are bad apples in our communities who have been here for several centuries, and there are bad people in Aboriginal communities, and there are bad people in immigrant communities. That exists. It’s true. So, we could exclude everyone, try to prevent everyone from coming.

The issue is, if you talk to anti-terrorism people, they are not interested in migration policies, and they will tell you as much. Migration policy, stopping everyone at the border, it doesn’t give [them] any information on the precise person who poses a danger. To identify a person who poses danger, this is intelligence, and intelligence means groundwork with communities. Most terrorist attacks in the global north have been done by people who were either born or integrated in those countries.”

Going out of the way to miss the point. Should we not bother with borders and screening at all then, since bad apples have gotten through? Moreover, if we can determine who is not a good fit, then it makes it more likely to prevent their radicalised children from becoming a threat to the public.

“How young would they be, the ones that are alone?
.
Most of them are between 13 and 18. You have a very small minority who are younger, sometimes 9, 10, 11. They are often not those who are found on boats, because they simply don’t have the social capital to be able to negotiate that. But they will be found, for example, trying to cross into the U.S. from Mexico.

The older ones, 13 to 18 — this is an age where you become an adult in many societies. So we consider them as children, and they are in terms of their development, but certainly they don’t take the responsibilities of children. They take the responsibilities of adults. In countries like Afghanistan, where often the men have disappeared due to conflict, the oldest boy at 14 or 15 becomes the man of the family and does what it takes.”

Actually, there have been many cases of adult men claiming to be boys for 2 reasons: 1/ harder to deport; and 2/ more generous welfare. It has gotten so bad in Europe they started doing bone scans to better estimate ages.

“How much of the resistance to migration, to migrants, to refugees, is simple old-fashioned bigotry or racism? When you hear David Cameron, the former British prime minister, talking about migrants as a “swarm” and then his foreign secretary calls them “marauding” and, of course, we know what the current president of the United States thinks — how much of that is just pure racism?

I think racism and bigotry is a great percentage of the populist nationalist discourse on migration, and we have to understand why it’s possible.

We’ve had bigotry, racism and discrimination against all marginalized groups in society forever. The Jews, the Roma, women, Aboriginals. I mean, you name them. Slowly these people started fighting back, claiming their rights as equal citizens. Industrial workers fought back, and women fought back, and Indigenous people fought back. Gays and lesbians fought back.

It’s only when they started coming out and saying publicly, “we’re not going to take it anymore,” that politicians started changing their tune and stopping doing sexist jokes — well, they still do sexist jokes, but in much less quantity than when I was young.

This is not going to happen anytime soon for migrants. They don’t vote. They have no influence on politicians whatsoever, and they don’t participate in the public debates. Normally you would make policies with the people concerned. Try to imagine policies about women made by committees of men, as it was done 100 years ago. Today it would sound ludicrous. Well, migration policies are made by people who are not migrants and have no idea what migration means in most countries.”

(a) Folks, if you oppose mass illegal migration, chances are it is because you are a racist and a bigot.

(b) Illegal immigrants are just another discriminated against group? Really?

(c) Illegal immigrants don’t vote in Canada — yet. But there are moves being made to change that.

(d) They don’t influence or participate in debate? Have you turned on a TV lately?

Final Thoughts
This review doesn’t cover every passage. However, it is disturbing: CBC, our state funded broadcaster airing a speaker who blatantly promotes open borders.

He is not pushed or challenged on his beliefs. Nor are the demands and consequences imposed on the Canadian (or other host nation) explored. Remember, The public will be the ones footing the bill for this mass migration.

There seems to be little concern for: 1/ medical screening; 2/ police screening; 3/ state security screening; 4/ language abilities; 5/ cultural compatibility; or general employment prospects. The entire article is written though the lens of those wishing — no demanding — access to whatever country they wish. Remember this quote:

For my grandparents, divorce was unthinkable. My parents’ generation did that. For my parents’ generation, gay marriage was unthinkable. My generation did that. For my generation, more open borders is probably unthinkable. The next generation will do that.

National sovereignty be damned.

Posted on

Dump Multiculturalism, Feminism Althogether

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgNChZrWNmI

(Putin: “We are a multi-ethnic country, but one civilization.”)

(Samantha Brick, possibly the UK’s dumbest feminist)

1. Previous Solutions Offered

A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.

2. Get Rid Of Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism does not work.
It never has, and never will.

Seehere, the Multiculturalism Act.

”Multiculturalism Policy of Canada
Marginal note:Multiculturalism policy

3 (1) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to

(a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;

(b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future;

(c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation;

(d) recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development;

(e) ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity;

(f) encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada’s multicultural character;

(g) promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins;

(h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;

(i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and

(j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.”

What this act does it promote, in fact legislate, that there are to be multiple societies within Canada. People are not expected to adopt a Canadian identity, but instead, Canada is expected to accept and promote other identities. Nonsense.

(a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;

That is right, we don’t want to have any sort of ”national” heritage. Rather, apparently we prefer to
have the country made up of individual cultural heritages. Not that it will lead to balkanization or anything.

(b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future;

Again, reinforcing the idea that Canada is to have no unique identity, but to be a ”stew” of other identities.

(i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and

This statement actually contradicts itself. If you are preserving and enhancing languages other than English and French, then logically, they are beginning to replace English and French.

(j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.

This statement also contradicts itself. If you are advancing other cultures (whose main languages are not English or French), then you are promoting those other languages at the expense of English and French. Further, multiculturalism does not lead to harmony, but to division and segregation.

(h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;

(A) If a culture views women as 2nd class citizens? Do we embrace it?
(B) If a culture tolerates honour killings, do we respect it?
(C) If a culture traditionalises animal cruelty, do we celebrate it?
(D) If a culture views child marriages as tradition, do we allow it?
(E) If a culture allows cousin marriages/inbreeding, keeps the family ties, do we accept it?
(F) If a culture promotes killing of gays, do we celebrate it?
(G) if a culture calls for violence towards outsiders, do we turn the other cheek?

Under the multiculturalism act, yes, differences should be celebrated.

Interestingly, Quebec takes a different stand. They protect their French language, and they protect their French culture. However, multiculturalism and billigualism are forced on the rest of Canada, by Quebec, under a constitution Quebec never signed.

Further, this obsession with having no cohesive or unifying identity is also codified in the Canadian Charter.


Multicultural heritage
27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

This article, was originally going to be included, but now is a separate piece. An extreme example of how promoting culture really misses the big picture.

This is not to say that people of different races cannot live together. That is possible. However, different cultures cannot co-exist. Vastly different social structures in a given area either leads to parallel societies, or it leads to segregation and balkanization. Both are harmful to a nation. Here is an idea brought up in earlier articles.

CIVIC NATIONALISM: People joined by abstract ideas such as laws, values, freedom, equality, and justice.

ETHNO NATIONALISM: People joined by identity such as race, ethnicity, culture, tradition, customs, spoken/written language, heritage, religion, spirituality.

Having common values and laws (civic nationalism) is important, but alone it is insufficient. There has to be something that actually unites the people. While this is not a call for any racial supremacy, there has to be some commonality (ethno nationalism) to make the society cohesive. While people understandably have different standards, here is one

(a) People in a society need to speak a common language.
(b) People in a society need to have a common culture.

If we have these 2 items, a society will function, although, the more devout would argue that there would need to be a third unifier:

(c) People in a society need to have a common faith.

Hate Crime Laws Divide By Identity

This will be the topic of a separate article. But here are the hate crime laws on the books in Canada.


Public incitement of hatred

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

While this seems harmless enough, will legislation such as M-103 (Islamic Blasphemy) or C-16 (Compelled Speech for Gender Pronouns) do an end run around these terms?

Also, a quick glance at Provincial Human Rights Code (such as British Columbia, shows that it is all about dividing by identity.

3. Feminism Is Destructive

Also, one can make a very strong case that FEMINISM is also harmful to society. Of course, we are decades past the point where it is about fighting for equality (1st wave), and we are past the point of so-called ”reproductive equality” (2nd wave).

It is no longer about equality with men, but rather, supremacy over men, (3rd wave). Feminism no longer subscribes to be about an sort of cohesion, but that of privilege and domination.

This ”equality of outcome”, or affirmative action, is even enshrined in Part 15(2) of the Canadian Charter


Equality Rights
Marginal note:Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Marginal note:Affirmative action programs
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

In short feminism allows women to demand to be on a level playing field with men, but still demand special treatment if the outcomes are not what they want.

Here is an extreme case of feminist thinking gone wrong:

The Article Samantha Brick, April 7, 2009
Normally the Daily Mail is not the best source, but this article was too great to pass up. Here are some quotes (in bold) and comments below:

“Over in one corner sat Alice, a strong-minded 27-year-old who always said what she thought, regardless of how much it might hurt someone else. In the other corner was Sarah, a thirtysomething high-flier who would stand up for herself momentarily – then burst into tears and run for the ladies.

Their simmering fight lasted hours, egged on by spectators taking sides and fuelling the anger. Sometimes other girls would join in, either heckling aggressively or huddling defensively in the toilets. It might sound like a scene from a tawdry reality show such as Big Brother, but the truth is a little more prosaic: it was just a normal morning in my office.

The venomous women were supposedly the talented employees I had headhunted to achieve my utopian dream – a female- only company with happy, harmonious workers benefiting from an absence of men.”

Admittedly this intro is catchy, but one would get the impression that Samantha Brick had absolutely no clue about how women interact in groups. Did she not grow up with them?

“It was an idealistic vision swiftly shattered by the nightmare reality: constant bitchiness, surging hormones, unchecked emotion, attention-seeking and fashion rivalry so fierce it tore my staff apart.”

The author will go on to elaborate at great length on these details. But the obvious question remains: why keep these women employed if they are this destructive? Remember, you did mortgage your home to get this building going.

“Working in TV is notoriously difficult for women. There is a powerful old boys’ network, robust glass ceiling and the majority of bosses are misogynistic males.

Gradually, what had started out as a daydream – wouldn’t it be great if there were no men where I worked? – turned into an exciting concept. I decided to create the first all-female production company where smart, intelligent, career-orientated women could work harmoniously, free from the bravado of the opposite sex.”

Again, from reading this, you would think that Samantha had absolutely no clue how women interact in groups. She also seems to buy the notion that men only succeed because they are men (sexism and patriarchy). Perhaps men on average achieve more because they don’t create drama, complete with: constant bitchiness; surging hormones; unchecked emotion; attention-seeking; and fashion rivalry. Am just quoting the author’s description here.

“In hindsight, I should have learned the lessons of my past – at my mixed secondary school I was bullied by a gang of nasty, name-calling girls, so I knew only too well how nasty groups of women could become.”

Now we get to the heart of it. Samantha Brick knew full well how women can be in groups, then decided to launch this all-female project anyway, using her mortgaged home as collateral.

“I hired a team of seven staff and set up an office in Richmond upon Thames, Surrey. While the women I interviewed claimed to be enthused by the idea, they still insisted on high salaries. Fair enough, I thought at the time – they are professionals, and I knew most of them were talented and conscientious because I’d worked with them before.
.
But within a week, two cliques had developed: those who had worked together before and those who were producing ‘new ideas’.
.
Most days would bring a pointed moment when some people were invited out for lunch or a coffee break – and some weren’t. Nothing explicit was ever said; the cutting rejection was obvious enough.

Even when we all went to the pub after work, strict divisions remained, made clear according to who sat where around the table and who would be civil – or not – to whom.

Fashion was a great divider, though in this battlefield everyone was on their own. Hideously stereotypical and shallow as it sounds, clothes were a huge source of catty comments, from sly remarks about people looking over-dressed to the merits of their fake tan application.

I always felt sorry for anyone who naively showed off a new purchase in the office, because everyone would coo appreciatively to their face – then harshly criticise them as soon as they were out of earshot. This happened without exception.”

Someone less idealistic who had their personal wealth (and home) tied up in this venture would have started looking to replace these women after a week or two. It is not worth dragging down a company, and these women are clearly too petty to be productive.

“My deputy, Sarah, the general manager, first showed how much style mattered when she advertised for an office assistant and refused to hire the best-qualified girl because she could not distinguish Missoni from Marc Jacobs. This girl would have been making tea and running errands. But I didn’t challenge the decision not to hire her because I had a policy of picking my battles carefully.”

Had that been me, Sarah would have been let go that day. A manager who refuses to hire good talent for such a trivial reason is not someone who should be a manager. However, Samantha doesn’t see that she shows the same flaw: not dismissing a poor manager because she wants to ”pick her battles”.

“Employees considered it acceptable to take time off for beauty treatments – and not out of their holiday allowance. One girl regularly came in late because she was getting her hair coloured, and when I mentioned this she blew up in outrage. Though at least she had a reason; most just turned up late regardless, and huffed ‘That’s the time my train gets in’ if I pointed at the clock.

In hindsight, I can see I should have been more strict. My idealism was my downfall because I tried to see the best in people – I was convinced they would behave as they were treated, so I treated everyone kindly.”

At least Samantha is taking some responsibility for allowing this to happen. However, a half way decent boss would have let them go a long time ago.

“Though Sarah, my general manager, was present, she refused to get involved because she didn’t want to be the ‘bad cop’.

Despite being in charge, she was scared at the prospect of being bitched about – it was as though, in a women-only environment, staff were unable to keep their defined roles.

Soon, arguments became a daily occurrence. It would start with snide comments between two people then, as others joined in, emotion and anger would grow until an eruption – shouting, screaming, swearing – which always left someone in tears.

Then the friends of the woman who was upset would follow her to console her, leaving one group in the office and another group in the ladies. Both would then bitch unreservedly about each other – and do absolutely no work.

It reached the point that I even wrote a handbook for staff on how to be nice to each other. The advice centred on being respectful to everyone and treating people equally – taking phone messages properly whether the call was for me or a junior.”

Again, Sarah should have been let go. She is clearly not management material.

Samantha needs to own up for this. If this is becoming a daily pattern, and no work is getting done, I would be getting new staff (and a new manager) lined up right away. Remember, you did re-mortgage your house for this,

“But the biggest force wasn’t personality type, it was hormones. When one woman started having IVF, she unleashed her rage without warning and without apology.

At ‘that time of the month’ – which in an office staffed only by women meant someone was always at that point – any bad mood was swiftly passed on to the rest of team as if by osmosis.”

Still waiting for some justification as to why these women haven’t all been replaced. For all the whining about how men are only on top because of discrimination, Ms. Brick provides example after example of how an all-women workforce causes nothing but problems. These issues do not exist in male-majority places. Hence, there may be a valid reason that there are more men in management.

While skipped over in this review for expediency, the actual article does provide many more examples of the problems caused by this all-female staff. And remember, the author tells us that they were “very accomplished” women.

“In this climate, I didn’t dare employ any men because of the distraction and – even worse! – catfights they created. I hate how much that sounds like stereotyping, but I’m afraid it’s what I found to be true.

And while I stand by my initial reason for excluding male employees – because they have an easy ride in TV – if I were to do it again, I’d definitely employ men. In fact, I’d probably employ only men.”

And this takes us to the final blow: Samantha Brick has learned absolutely nothing from the experience. She “stands by her reason” for creating an all-women workforce, because men have “an easy ride”. It had nothing to do with the 1/ constant bitchiness; 2/ surging hormones; 3/ unchecked emotion; 4/ attention-seeking and 5/ fashion rivalry so fierce it tore her staff apart. These are the author’s own observations.

It never seems to dawn on her that perhaps men are having an easier time because these issues don’t come up, or at least nowhere near as often.

When Ms. Brick refers to this group as “accomplished women” I really have to wonder how detached from reality she is. They seem like 14 year old children.

4. Final Thoughts

Though the article contained several topics, there is one theme that was hopefully clear: unity. We need a society that is strong and cohesive, not something that divides along gender, linguistic, cultural, or other grounds. What we need, as Canadians, is a national identity. Not some mash up of ”whatever” or ”diversity is our strength”, but something that is unabashedly ours.

Multiculturalism, feminism, (and separate hate crime laws), do nothing to bring us together as a society, but rather make the divide bigger.

The video of Vladmir Putin and the Samantha Brick article were added to contrast two very different ideas of unity.

(1) While the Brick case is extreme: it does help to illustrate the point that merit should be the driving factor in employment, school, or any other competition. Affirmative action, quotas, or accepting everything “as diversity” are really bad ideas.

(2) Vladmir Putin, by comparison, comes across as very reasonable and realistic in this video. Someone who actually puts country ahead of such pettiness.

Posted on

Critical Thinking #4: “Essentials of Argument” (Review)

(Essentials of Argument, by Nancy Wood)

This is another review in the series on critical thinking. So, far, it is the 4th article.

Here are the previous entries on the topic:
CLICK HERE, for #1, Honest v. Dishonest Debate Tactics.
CLICK HERE, for #2, Logical Self Defense.
CLICK HERE, for #3, Critical Thinking for Dummies.

Why do we spend so much time on the topic of critical thinking? Because understanding the law depends (at least theoretically), on understanding the creation and reasoning behind it. The more we know about that, the more in depth we can go, and either apply the law, or lobby to have it changed.

Hence, it is the skill itself that is essential, not necessarily the individual arguments themselves.

This book is different in that is has a largely academic undertone to it. Being able to research and analyse issues for classroom and presentations is a large theme of it. A main focus is writing persuasive and well reasoned essays.

The Wood book also goes through screening and selecting authors for their work, and trying to compare their findings with comparable authors. A lot of time is spent trying to break down opinions and express them clearly, and in a well reasoned manner.

It makes a great deal of sense. If one is writing a school essay, or a Master’s thesis, or PhD. dissertation, coherent reasoning is essential. You wouldn’t want the people reviewing your work to claim that it is illogical or makes no sense.

Further, the book gives examples of strengthening your own arguments, while attempting to fend off opposing arguments, or reasoning that could commonly be used to rebut your claims.

As with other books, there is also a section (Pages 147-150) about logical fallacies, such as:
(a) Begging the question (lacks evidence);
(b) Red herring (irrelevant and misleading evidence);
(c) Non sequitur (it does not follow);
(d) Straw man (mischaracterising someone’s arguments);
(e) Stacked evidence
(f) Either-Or;
(g) Post-hoc
(h) Generalization
(I) Ad Hominem
(j) Guilt by association
(k) Using authority instead of evidence
(l) Bandwagon appeal
(m) Slippery slope
(n) Creating false needs

This is part of the list that would also be found in the Reed website, which is almost exclusively devoted to dishonest debate tactics. Here, Ms. Wood has a small section on them.

A Brief Outline of The Book
Chapter 1: Recognizing argument and finding issues
Chapter 2: The rhetorical situation
Chapter 3: Research into issues
Chapter 4: Writing exploratory papers
Chapter 5: Toulmin model for argument (parts)
Chapter 6: Types of Claims
Chapter 7: Types of Proof
Chapter 8: Writing the research paper
Chapter 9: Writing the Rogerian argument paper
Chapter 10: Visual and oral argument

There is a fairly interesting topic near the end regarding presentations. This can be applied to both school and work settings. It gives guidelines for how to set up clear and logical presentations without being overwhelming, a useful skill to have.

My only real criticism of this book is that for the most part, it is an exceptionally dry read. To be fair, there isn’t much that can be done to make it exciting. But while it is dry and rather dull, the information presented is quite valuable, especially to students and academics in general.

Nonetheless, devoted students would find it worthwhile.

Posted on

Michelle Rempel Lies: CPC Still Supports U.N. Global Migration Compact

(Michelle Rempel video November 21, contradicts October 20 video)

(The U.N. Global Migration Compact)

Summary of Michelle Rempel’s November 21 video:
[0:00 Complaining about Trudeau and New York border jumpers]
[1:00 Finally gets to UN Global migration compact]
[1:23 Clip in House of Commons, complaining about 38,000 border jumpers
[2:00 Trudeau responding]
[2:45 Rempel mentions objective #17, propaganda]
[3:00 Trudeau evading again]
[3:45 Rempel again goes on about 38,000 New York border jumpers]
[4:30 Praise for Harper, taxes, balanced budgets]
[5:10 Rempel again criticises Trudeau’s credibility]
[5:45 Rempel calls Trudeau a bully]
[6:00 Rempel says Trudeau calls names]
[6:15 Rempel says CPC opposes compact because of language (and other reasons)]
[6:30 Rempel says CPC would withdraw and gets its own house in order]
[6:45 Again criticises Trudeau]
[7:08 Rempel says CPC has been consistent, says offering general solutions]
[7:30 Rempel again goes on about refugees being put in hotels]
[8:00 Rempel again says we need a change, and working for Canadians]

YouTuber CanadaPoli released this response video on Rempel’s update, but I believe he was far too kind.

To make this clear: I don’t believe Rempel at all when she says the CPC opposes the UN Global Migration Compact. This seems like going through the motions.

To Rempel’s credit, she does reference the “Propaganda Provisions” embedded in Objective 17 of the UN Global Compact. See here

OBJECTIVE 17: Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration

33. We commit to eliminate all forms of discrimination, condemn and counter expressions, acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, violence, xenophobia and related intolerance against all migrants in conformity with international human rights law. We further commit to promote an open and evidence-based public discourse on migration and migrants in partnership with all parts of society, that generates a more realistic, humane and constructive perception in this regard. We also commit to protect freedom of expression in accordance with international law, recognizing that an open and free debate contributes to a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of migration.

Although this is mentioned by Rempel, she still seems rather indifferent towards it in the YouTube video.

However, I believe Rempel is lying in the video when she talks about the CPC opposing this deal with the UN. Here are the reasons (in no particular order)

(1) Rempel Lies About Conservatives Being Consistent
This is probably the easiest to debunk. Here is Rempel’s previous video, starting at 4:50. Rempel talks in circles and doesn’t actually say CPC opposes it.

Further, my own CPC MP confirmed the party was just going to study the Compact, and that Maxime Bernier’s petition was populist grandstanding. There is the article summary.

Here is the audio of that meeting:

(2) Rempel Shows No Urgency In Trying To Stop Compact
If Michelle Rempel actually had any concern over this, she would be a lot more active, and doing a lot more to stop this. Further, she wouldn’t be ignoring emails and phone calls, and blocking people on Twitter

(3) Rempel Spends More Time on Trudeau and Roxham Rd Than Compact
In the 8 minute video above, Rempel goes on and on about Trudeau, about fake refugees being put in hotels, and the achievements of the last government. Very little is actually spent on addressing the UN Compact itself. This is true in many of her videos: talking in circles and repeating herself without ever making a clear point. This is deliberate obfuscation.

(4) CPC Shows No Interest In Promoting Petition E-1906
Surely there are hard feelings over Maxime Bernier leaving the CPC the way he did. But if Conservatives actually opposed this global compact, then they would support this petition, or at least start one of their own.

(5) Rempel’s Video Is Extremely Light On Content
While Rempel did acknowledge the propaganda the UN promotes with regard to language, there is so much more that could be cited, that is simply not. Anyone could make an extemely compelling case against this simply by reading the document?

Serious question: Has Michelle Rempel ever read the UN Global Migration Compact?

Serious question: If these people are “refugees”, then why are we signing the “migration” compact?
Here are the 2 separate agreements.

Again the full document is available here.

OBJECTIVE 1: Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence based policies

  1. We commit to strengthen the global evidence base on international migration by improving and investing in the collection, analysis and dissemination of accurate, reliable, comparable data, disaggregated by sex, age, migration status and other characteristics relevant in national contexts, while upholding the right to privacy under international human rights law and protecting personal data. We further commit to ensure this data fosters research, guides coherent and evidence-based policy-making and well-informed public discourse, and allows for effective monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of commitments over time.

This sounds eerily like the StatsCan type mentality, see here, and see here. Privacy is non essential, as long as it is done for statistical purposes.

OBJECTIVE 2: Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin

  1. We commit to create conducive political, economic, social and environmental conditions for people to lead peaceful, productive and sustainable lives in their own country and to fulfil their personal aspirations, while ensuring that desperation and deteriorating environments do not compel them to seek a livelihood elsewhere through irregular migration. We further commit to ensure timely and full implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as well as to build upon and invest in the implementation of other existing frameworks, in order to enhance the overall impact of the Global Compact to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration.

This word-salad sounds nice, except when one realises that it goes directly against the purpose of the Global Migration Compact. The U.N. wants to promote mass migration, so spending huge amounts of resources improving conditions in home countries wouldn’t exactly help.

OBJECTIVE 3: Provide accurate and timely information at all stages of migration

  1. We commit to strengthen our efforts to provide, make available and disseminate accurate, timely, accessible, and transparent information on migration-related aspects for and between States, communities and migrants at all stages of migration. We further commit to use this information to develop migration policies that provide a high degree of predictability and certainty for all actors involved.

This directly contradicts objective #2. Here, the U.N. speaks of coordinating mass movement of people. Indeed, the objective is quite clear: MASS MIGRATION.

OBJECTIVE 4: Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation

  1. We commit to fulfil the right of all individuals to a legal identity by providing all our nationals with proof of nationality and relevant documentation, allowing national and local authorities to ascertain a migrant’s legal identity upon entry, during stay, and for return, as well as to ensure effective migration procedures, efficient service provision, and improved public safety. We further commit to ensure, through appropriate measures, that migrants are issued adequate documentation and civil registry documents, such as birth, marriage and death certificates, at all stages of migration, as a means to empower migrants to effectively exercise their human rights.

On the surface this sounds great, but think about it. The U.N. is going to obtain identity documents for people. What is to stop people from just claiming they don’t have any documents, and using the U.N. as a proxy to obtain false identification? That is not addressed here.

OBJECTIVE 5: Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration

  1. We commit to adapt options and pathways for regular migration in a manner that facilitates labour mobility and decent work reflecting demographic and labour market realities, optimizes education opportunities, upholds the right to family life, and responds to the needs of migrants in a situation of vulnerability, with a view to expanding and diversifying availability of pathways for safe, orderly and regular migration

What is sounds like. Wanting to streamline mass migration. Do the host countries ever get a say in the matter? Their rights don’t seem important.

OBJECTIVE 6: Facilitate fair and ethical recruitment and safeguard conditions that ensure decent work

  1. We commit to review existing recruitment mechanisms to guarantee that they are fair and ethical, and to protect all migrant workers against all forms of exploitation and abuse in order to guarantee decent work and maximize the socioeconomic contributions of migrants in both their countries of origin and destination.

No concerns for the unemployment issues that may exist within the host countries. Flood the market with cheap labour. What could go wrong?

OBJECTIVE 7: Address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration

  1. We commit to respond to the needs of migrants who face situations of vulnerability, which may arise from the circumstances in which they travel or the conditions they face in countries of origin, transit and destination, by assisting them and protecting their human rights, in accordance with our obligations under international law. We further commit to uphold the best interests of the child at all times, as a primary consideration in situations where children are concerned, and to apply a gender-responsive approach in addressing vulnerabilities, including in responses to mixed movements.

The U.N. really does believe that migration is a human right.

OBJECTIVE 8: Save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants

  1. We commit to cooperate internationally to save lives and prevent migrant deaths and injuries through individual or joint search and rescue operations, standardized collection and exchange of relevant information, assuming collective responsibility to preserve the lives of all migrants, in accordance with international law. We further commit to identify those who have died or gone missing, and to facilitate communication with affected families.

This is another objective that sounds great until you realize that this is going on a major operation for search and rescue of migrants who have chosen to flout the will of home countries, and gone missing as a result.

OBJECTIVE 9: Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants

  1. We commit to intensify joint efforts to prevent and counter smuggling of migrants by strengthening capacities and international cooperation to prevent, investigate, prosecute and penalize the smuggling of migrants in order to end the impunity of smuggling networks. We further commit to ensure that migrants shall not become liable to criminal prosecution for the fact of having been the object of smuggling, notwithstanding potential prosecution for other violations of national law. We also commit to identify smuggled migrants to protect their human rights, taking into consideration the special needs of women and children, and assisting in particular those migrants subject to smuggling under aggravating circumstances, in accordance with international law

OBJECTIVE 10: Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration

  1. We commit to take legislative or other measures to prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration by strengthening capacities and international cooperation to investigate, prosecute and penalize trafficking in persons, discouraging demand that fosters exploitation leading to trafficking, and ending impunity of trafficking networks. We further commit to enhance the identification and protection of, and assistance to migrants who have become victims of trafficking, paying particular attention to women and children.

Another 2 objectives that sound great, until you realize that the U.N. is in effect just bringing smuggling under its own control. The actual idea of sneaking people into countries is not going away, rather it is just a change in management.

OBJECTIVE 11: Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner

  1. We commit to manage our national borders in a coordinated manner, promoting bilateral and regional cooperation, ensuring security for States, communities and migrants, and facilitating safe and regular cross-border movements of people while preventing irregular migration. We further commit to implement border management policies that respect national sovereignty, the rule of law, obligations under international law, human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status, and are non-discriminatory, gender-responsive and child-sensitive.

Exactly what it appears to be. Countries enforcing their own borders will be a thing of the past. Instead, governments will now coordinate with the U.N. The part about “respecting border sovereignty” is a joke, as the idea of coordinating defeats the idea of sovereignty.

OBJECTIVE 12: Strengthen certainty and predictability in migration procedures for appropriate screening, assessment and referral

  1. We commit to increase legal certainty and predictability of migration procedures by developing and strengthening effective and human rights-based mechanisms for the adequate and timely screening and individual assessment of all migrants for the purpose of identifying and facilitating access to the appropriate referral procedures, in accordance with international law.

Going through the details, this appears to be a combination of social worker combined with human rights tribunals. Nothing could possibly go wrong?

OBJECTIVE 13: Use immigration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives

  1. We commit to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality and individual assessments, is carried out by authorized officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective of whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. We further commit to prioritize noncustodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.

Yes, detention of migrants who commit crimes must be a last resort. And you think bleeding heart liberal justice systems are weak now?

OBJECTIVE 14: Enhance consular protection, assistance and cooperation throughout the migration cycle

  1. We commit to strengthen consular protection of and assistance to our nationals abroad, as well as consular cooperation between States in order to better safeguard the rights and interests of all migrants at all times, and to build upon the functions of consular missions to enhance interactions between migrants and State authorities of countries of origin, transit and destination, in accordance with international law

Here the Compact completely undermines itself. If these people are fleeing horrible persecution, then how exactly do they have “consular services”? Wouldn’t that imply the government does help them?

OBJECTIVE 15: Provide access to basic services for migrants

  1. We commit to ensure that all migrants, regardless of their migration status, can exercise their human rights through safe access to basic services. We further commit to strengthen migrant inclusive service delivery systems, notwithstanding that nationals and regular migrants may be entitled to more comprehensive service provision, while ensuring that any differential treatment must be based on law, proportionate, pursue a legitimate aim, in accordance with international human rights law.

“Irregulars”, meaning “illegals” are still entitled to most, if not all of the same rights as people “legally” immigrating.

OBJECTIVE 16: Empower migrants and societies to realize full inclusion and social cohesion

  1. We commit to foster inclusive and cohesive societies by empowering migrants to become active members of society and promoting the reciprocal engagement of receiving communities and migrants in the exercise of their rights and obligations towards each other, including observance of national laws and respect for customs of the country of destination. We further commit to strengthen the welfare of all members of societies by minimizing disparities, avoiding polarization and increasing public confidence in policies and institutions related to migration, in line with the acknowledgment that fully integrated migrants are better positioned to contribute to prosperity.

This may sound great, but in practice it generally means that the host country must bend over backwards to accommodate very different and often incompatible cultures and traditions. Yay, multiculturalism.

*** Object 17 refers to propaganda, which to be fair, Rempel did mention ***

OBJECTIVE 18: Invest in skills development and facilitate mutual recognition of skills, qualifications and competences

  1. We commit to invest in innovative solutions that facilitate mutual recognition of skills, qualifications and competences of migrant workers at all skills levels, and promote demanddriven skills development to optimize the employability of migrants in formal labour markets in countries of destination and in countries of origin upon return, as well as to ensure decent work in labour migration.

So a job training problem for migrants, one not available to host citizens. Is this not an acknowledgement that we are bringing large numbers of unskilled people? Further, what if the migrants refuse to work? Are we expected to just shut up and pay their welfare?

OBJECTIVE 19: Create conditions for migrants and diasporas to fully contribute to sustainable development in all countries

  1. We commit to empower migrants and diasporas to catalyse their development contributions, and to harness the benefits of migration as a source of sustainable development, reaffirming that migration is a multidimensional reality of major relevance for the sustainable development of countries of origin, transit and destination

OBJECTIVE 20: Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants

  1. We commit to promote faster, safer and cheaper remittances by further developing existing conducive policy and regulatory environments that enable competition, regulation and innovation on the remittance market and by providing gender-responsive programmes and instruments that enhance the financial inclusion of migrants and their families. We further commit to optimize the transformative impact of remittances on the well-being of migrant workers and their families, as well as on sustainable development of countries, while respecting that remittances constitute an important source of private capital, and cannot be equated to other international financial flows, such as foreign direct investment, official development assistance, or other public sources of financing for development.

Short explanation: massive open-ended welfare

OBJECTIVE 21: Cooperate in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as sustainable reintegration

  1. We commit to facilitate and cooperate for safe and dignified return and to guarantee due process, individual assessment and effective remedy, by upholding the prohibition of collective expulsion and of returning migrants when there is a real and foreseeable risk of death, torture, and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment, or other irreparable harm, in accordance with our obligations under international human rights law. We further commit to ensure that our nationals are duly received and readmitted, in full respect for the human right to return to one’s own country and the obligation of States to readmit their own nationals. We also commit to create conducive conditions for personal safety, economic empowerment, inclusion and social cohesion in communities, in order to ensure that reintegration of migrants upon return to their countries of origin is sustainable.

So, we can’t deport someone or send someone back if they claim to be in fear for their lives. That is never abused or used to circumvent legal court orders. “Human rights” in such a way that will undermine public safety.

OBJECTIVE 22: Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits

  1. We commit to assist migrant workers at all skills levels to have access to social protection in countries of destination and profit from the portability of applicable social security entitlements and earned benefits in their countries of origin or when they decide to take up work in another country

Not only are we paying welfare, but pensions as well. This although the Canadian government or public has received no benefit. And how would we even verify that this work took place? Ripe for abuse.

OBJECTIVE 23: Strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships for safe, orderly and regular migration

  1. We commit to support each other in the realization of the objectives and commitments laid out in this Global Compact through enhanced international cooperation, a revitalized global partnership, and in the spirit of solidarity, reaffirming the centrality of a comprehensive and integrated approach to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration, and recognizing that we are all countries of origin, transit and destination. We further commit to take joint action in addressing the challenges faced by each country to implement this Global Compact, underscoring the specific challenges faced in particular by African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, small island developing States, and middle-income countries. We also commit to promote the mutually reinforcing nature between the Global Compact and existing international legal and policy frameworks, by aligning the implementation of this Global Compact with such frameworks, particularly the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as well as the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, and their recognition that migration and sustainable development are multidimensional and interdependent

Earlier, we are told that each country will maintain sovereignty. Now, its “global partnerships”.

Once more, the entire document is available here.

And here are the 2 separate agreements, one for migrants, one for refugees.

Back to the original point: CPC “Immigration Shadow Minister” Michelle Rempel now claims the CPC opposes the UN Global Migration Compact in her YouTube video. This is stark contrast to when she shrugged it off as “non-binding”.

However, in the video, she spends most of the time talking about other things. There is no sense of urgency, and the video is very lacking in details. Here are just the 23 OBJECTIVES, and they are scary.

Has Michelle Rempel even read the U.N. Global Migration Compact?

Doubtful, otherwise her video wouldn’t meander nearly as much. Either that or she is flat out lying.

Posted on

Critical Thinking #3: “C.T. Skills For Dummies”, (Review)

(Critical Thinking Skills for Dummies, by Martin Cohen)

This is the third publication we come to regarding critical thinking. It is one of the “For Dummies” books, appropriately called, “Critical Thinking Skills”. Great for anyone looking to expand their thought process. Here are some highlights.

An interesting claim the author makes is that critical isn’t about putting arguments and debates into formal language, but rather to look at issues in the real world, and offer practical solutions. This is different from both the Reed article and the Johnson/Blair book , which did focus on debate. Further, this book promotes the idea that critical thinking is about developing and refining skills, rather than focusing on specific facts.

This book does put more of a “what can we do about” emphasis than the other 2 publications. Applying the skill of critical thinking is a nice approach to take.

There is a section on Nazi propaganda. The short version is that appealing to emotion, rather than to factual and logical premises can lead people to very destructive results. Of course this was not to endorse the ideology, but to show how emotional reasoning can undermine truth and reality.

Spotting and debunking fallacies is a theme throughout the book. Examples are given of information that often cannot lead to the supposed conclusions. Here, dogs, children and toys are used to simplify the examples.

Arguments often contain much irrelevant, or contradictory information, so being able to dissect this makes for a much more coherent conclusion and response.

The book starts off more generally, but goes deeper and deeper into critical thinking. Rather than bombarding with information, it focuses on deconstructing then reconstructing ideas. It also uses puzzles to showcase mental blocks and assumptions that people often make.

A chapter describes hierarchies of Knowledge (triangles or pyramids).
One is: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation
Another is: Remembering; Understanding; Applying; Analysing; Evaluating; Creating

There is a brief section on challenging scientific evidence on a number of grounds: (I) Is the evidence adequate? (II) Does the evidence prove the conclusion? (III) Causation or just correlation? (IV) Conflicts of interest from the people presenting it.

A Brief Outline of the Book
Chapter 1: Entering the CT world
Chapter 2: Peering into the mind
Chapter 3: Planting ideas in your head
Chapter 4: Assessing your skills
Chapter 5: Reasoning by analogy
Chapter 6: Circular reasoning
Chapter 7: Using drawings
Chapter 8: Knowledge Hierarchies
Chapter 9: Getting to the heart of the matter
Chapter 10: Critical writing skills
Chapter 11: Speaking and writing critically
Chapter 12: Logic of real arguments
Chapter 13: Behaving rationally
Chapter 14: Persuasion and rhetoric
Chapter 15: Evidence to justify opinion

The book does point out some techniques used which are meant to circumvent logical thinking, such as: (a) Everyone else is doing it; (b) Be like your hero; (c) Trust me; (d) Weasel words; (e) Flattery; (f) Warm and fuzzy

Note: A more expanded version of that list can be found on John T. Reed’s website. These are some of the many intellectually dishonest debate tactics that are used in the absence of arguing fact or logic.

As with the previous 2 articles, critical thinking is an essential part in laws and policies. This features not only in how they are drafted, but how they are applied, and at times challenged. Knowing the reasoning behind laws and policies will help form stronger arguments both for and against them.

Related Publications
CLICK HERE, for Critical Thinking #1, Honest v.s. Dishonest Debate Tactics by John T. Reed.

CLICK HERE, for Critical Thinking #2, Logical Self Defense, by Johnson & Blair

Any of these works: the Cohen book, the Johnston/Blair book, or the Reed website are well worth reading. The books are tedious, but rewarding reads. The website is a pretty quick skim. Rather than focusing on facts, their goal is to help the reader be more critical in the information they consume. Despite their different approaches, they promote similar goals.

Posted on

UN Finances ”ARMED” Croatian Invasion, Nations Reject Global Migration Pact

(Mastercard and Mercy Corps teaming up)

A recent article seen here, reports an attack on the Croatian border, with some 20,000 economic migrants (sorry, ”refugees”) demanding access and passage to other European nations.

This story, and the Slovenian article provides an explanation as to how these mass ”refugee” moves are being carried out.

Mastercard, for its part, fully admitted in 2016 to providing prepaid credit cards. They partnered with an organisation called Mercy Corps to help coordinate mass migration. Mercy Corps was founded in 1979 as ”Save the Refugees Fund”.

And apparently, financing for this has largely come from George Soros. Not as a humanitarian venture, but as a business venture. See here, and there are many other articles available online.

The 20,000 refugees (mostly military aged men) in the above article were not trying to seek refuge in Croatia. It was merely a transition point, as they wanted to get to Germany or Northern Europe. Those countries have more generous welfare.

This actually does answer a big question. People had been wondering why all of these so-called ”refugees” all had new clothes, phones, and looked so well cared for. The invasions had been paid for by credit cards.

The U.N., starting on this page, does answer at least 5 more questions.

First, the U.N. is directly responsible for aiding and abetting the 7,000 strong migrant ”caravan” travelling from Honduras to Guatemala to Mexico, with the intention of demanding access to the United States. This was covered in this article.

Second, the U.N. knows full well that these ”refugees” are attempting to enter illegally, and in essence, overwhelm the host country. More to the point, the U.N. doesn’t care.


The United Nations Migration Agency, IOM, is providing support and assistance to migrants crossing Central America in several self-styled caravans, while expressing concern over “the stress and demands” they are placing on host countries.

All migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status – IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico

Third, one of the U.N.’s directives is ensuring that people have some form of identity documents, and getting them issued from the host country. While this sounds great at first, keep in mind the U.N. doesn’t care if the people it moves around are actual refugees. So the U.N. likely wouldn’t put much effort into determining if they are getting identity documents for who the people really are.

Fourth, the U.N. makes it clear that they support fraudulent cases. A refugee is supposed to seek asylum in the first safe country, not shop around.

Fifth, and most importantly, the U.N. demonstrates repeatedly that it does not respect national borders. That could not be more clear with the Global Migration Compact. The U.N. is an enemy to the individual nation states, the same way the E.U. is an enemy to European nation states.

Send tens of thousands of men to completely different cultures, with: (a) new clothes and phones; (b) fake I.D.; (c) prepaid credit cards. What could possibly go wrong?

But hey, nothing like Trudeau style gender quotas, because it’s 2018.

However, while the above article is bad. Here is some good news. More and more countries are refusing to endorse the U.N. Global Compact for Migration. Once again, the U.N. doesn’t get it.

Australia refuses to sign.

Austria refuses to sign.

Croatia refuses to sign.

Czech Republic refuses to sign.

Hungary refuses to sign.

Italy refuses to sign.

Poland refuses to sign.

The United States refuses to sign

This is 8 right here. Let’s grow the list, and kill the compact completely.