Shut Up & Pay Your UN Taxes, Uppity Peasants (Satire)

(Ways to raise money)

(This is the Paris Accord, and “Conservative” Garnett Genuis’ dishonest spin in supporting it in Parliament.)

(Shiva Ayyadurai, Republican and former Senate Candidate explains how the Carbon tax really works.)

(UN supports global tax to raise $400B)

(Details of proposed global tax scheme)

(Pensions are also being eyed as a funding source)

(UN Environment Programme)

(Green finance for developing countries)

(International Chamber of Commerce)

(Addis Ababa Action Agenda)

(Global tax avoidance measures)

(Why stop at just billions?)

New Development Financing Proposals

  • SDR (or special drawing rights), from IMF $150B-$270B
  • Carbon taxes, $240B
  • Leveraging SDR, $90B
  • Financial transaction tax, $10B-70B
  • Billionaire tax, $90B
  • Currency trading tax, $30B
  • EU emissions trading scheme, $5B
  • Air passenger levy, $10B
  • Certified emission reduction tax, $2B
  • Current ODA Flow, $120B

It is no secret that we at the United Nations (the U.N.), has a rather expensive set of global goals. These goals vary from setting up a world government, to mass migration to overrun individual nations, to new development schemes, to controlling education, the media, and society as a whole.

These goals are ambitious, but as stated, expensive. Hundreds of billions of dollars (if not trillions) will be needed to accomplish this. However, people in the Western World are tired of footing the bill. Moreover, this will not be a one time thing. These influxes of cash will be required on an ongoing basis.

Most reasonable people will tell us to f*** off if they were presented with the truth about these “fundraising” schemes. Therefore, some sleight of hand will be needed. Let’s get into some of the more outrageous ideas.

In 2012, the UN released a 178 page manual titled New Development Financing. This outlined a series of “revenue generating tools” (a.k.a. taxes) which could be leveraged in order to obtain a good chunk of this money. Not a parody, or satire, but serious proposals which aim to be implemented. Of course there is this minor problem: there is no global government — yet.

One has to admire the sheer gall of this proposal. Why stop at just one method for fleecing the public, then you can incorporate a dozen or more at a time?

Socialists never tire of proposing to tax the rich, especially if those people happen to be billionaires. And why not? No one really needs billions of dollars to provide for their families. Sure, many have worked hard for that money. And certainly there will be taxes paid at some point, but that is never enough. Of course, this would involve interfering with the sovereignty of individual nations. if only there was some sort of UN Parliament to set this in motion.

Banks typically charge a monthly fee, or a transaction fee. You pay for the convenience of someone else holding onto your money. While this makes sense for the banks or credit unions, why should we stop there? Certainly a 25 cent to $2 charge per transaction could be levied onto your account by say, the Government or the U.N. The structure for banks to do it is already in place, so let’s take advantage of it. Not only should you pay a fee for local transactions, but for international ones as well. See the next section.

There are amounts withheld when currency is traded, either for cross border shopping or travel. Agencies which convert your money keep a small part for themselves. This is another great idea. Considering the climate emergency we are facing, people should have to pay a small tax for the privilege of travelling. Think of all the greenhouse gases that planes, cars, buses and trucks emit. If you must pollute the air, then at least pay the taxes when you convert your Dollars into Pounds, Euros or Yen. You’re only getting 74 cents on the dollar anyway. It won’t hurt anyone if you were suddenly only getting 72 cents.

One of our more well known initiatives is the carbon tax, which was expanded at the Paris Agreement in France. No, it’s not misleading the public to refer to it as: (a) a price on pollution; (b) being socially responsible; or (c) cleaning the air. By putting a tax on everything, this will generate at least $250B a year. Article 9 of the Accord, in particular, outlines the various ways to “scale up” the Carbon tax. This money can then be used in the commodities market to generate huge profits for certain allied groups. The climate bond industry is expected to top $100T within a decade. Think of the wealth and the possibilities that can come of that.

If your nation cannot reduce your greenhouse gases, there are Carbon credits you can purchase. This is commonly referred to as cap-and-trade. The idea is that there is no way you can meet these absurd standards without crashing your economy. We figure that you won’t actually cause the total destruction of your nation, as politicians do need someone to pay their pensions. Instead, countries can buy these credits, which are effectively a licence to pollute. Sure, this won’t help the environment, but at least you can pollute with a clear conscience. These credits will be sold to you by people whom we deem to be worthy of dispensing them. The criteria? Nothing to see here, people. Just remember to be socially responsible. If you must pollute, at least pay the fee.

Critics will whine that this has nothing to do with a cleaner atmosphere. And sure, it is incredibly wasteful when we fly tens of thousands of people annually to climate change conferences. But consider the big picture. Our conferences and expert advice will ultimately lead to lower admissions — at some point. Furthermore, we can’t do video-conferencing because …. reasons.

People with knowledge of 8th grade science have questioned whether Carbon Dioxide is really pollution. They claim it is critical for plants in the stage of photosynthesis. These science deniers blame climate change on “solar activity” and even spout out a chemical equation for photosynthesis

6CO2 + 6H2O + light ==> C6H12O6 + 6O2

Still not convinced? Just remember that according to Catherine McKenna – “If you actually say it louder, we’ve learned in the House of Commons, if you repeat it, say it louder, if that is your talking point people will totally believe it”.

You shouldn’t be flying (again, we are in a climate emergency). However, it’s worth noting that there are airline fees & levies on every single flight. Security fees, luggage fees, administration fees, etc… While this is a great start, there should be a fee going towards the U.N. After all, we are trying to clean up the atmosphere that your selfishness is helping to pollute. These fees will help to rid the atmosphere of pollution.

We could ban flying altogether, but then, how would we get to our annual conferences on climate change? Moreover, who would be contributing to our climate funds if we weren’t able to levy these fees? Better to charge you selfish people for polluting the air.

If we don’t flying or driving completely (and it would kill us financially to do so), why not have a certified emissions reduction tax? Let’s decide how many emissions that a vehicle should be allowed to emit, and then impose taxes for manufacturers not being able to meet those targets? We could charge fees for the manufacturer directly, then impose extra fees on the drivers and owners. After all, why should the burden only come on some parties? Are they not all involved in polluting the air.

On a larger scale, let’s establish some Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs. Basically, this would be a global fund which all nations would contribute to. Then the enlightened ones would decide how this reserve is spent, on whom, and what the criteria will be. Of course, who says the money has to spent right away? We can always leverage the SDR in a fashion similar to the climate bonds industry. Imagine the wealth that be generated by “transferring” this fund to more profitable uses. Sure, some people won’t get clean water, but life isn’t perfect.

This is a start, but the U.N. will upscale from billions to trillions in due course. After all, if countries are willing to pay for certain things, then with some guilting they will be willing to pay some more. All that is needed is the right message.

Now, as for that minor question about where the money will be spent:

Ok, sure, there is this “minor” problem of the UN having a history of corruption. And sure, you will have absolutely no control over where your money is spent once it leaves the Government. But those worries shouldn’t stop the nations from acting responsibly.

A good chunk of this money will go towards killing children in the 3rd world (a.k.a. abortion, or reproductive care). After all, what 10 year old girl who was raped by her uncle wouldn’t want an abortion? It’s more common than you might suppose — but don’t you dare blame the culture. Just think, with less children in the world, the wealth we redistribute will be shared by less people, hence enlarging each person’s individual share.

In a similar vein, we will spent money getting more women into the workforce. After all, what woman “wouldn’t” want to remain childless while working in a mindless job? Workplaces will become more gender diverse. We may even start putting women in militaries.

Education will become more inclusive. SOGI (sexual orientation & gender identity) schooling will now be available in children as young as 4. Think about it, chopping off your privates will mean you never have children. Females getting involved with females (as opposed to men) is a 100% effective form of birth control. Homosexuality means never worrying about an unwanted pregnancy again. But don’t worry, “reproductive care” will always be available should circumstances arise.

We will also be promoting diversity and multiculturalism in society. After all, who wouldn’t want to see their culture, traditions, customs & heritage replaced by groups that are totally foreign. Our belief is that diversity is our strength. In other words: diversity is a product of our strength, and that strength is freedom. Forced multiculturalism — without a democratic mandate — is the best way to ensure a peaceful society.

Our new Ambassador of Global Relations: Richard Codenhove-Kalergi III, will oversee the transition to a raceless society. For too long, we have been divided by immutable characteristics. Time for a one-world vision. Don’t worry, his late Grandfather had a plan.

The UN is also committed to ensuring that migration becomes a human right. No matter where you want to go, or why, we will get you there, and the host nation will pay for it. Why be denied access to a country simply because you were born somewhere else?

Sure, there’s overhead, employee salaries, marketing, and paying for global conferences. And there are the legal fees for some staff members charged with sex crimes. But at least some of the money does go towards helping people in the 3rd world.


“If you actually say it louder, we’ve learned in the House of Commons, if you repeat it, say it louder, if that is your talking point people will totally believe it”.

Proposing New Policies Based On GBA+ Training (Satire)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the review of GBA+ course itself.

CLICK HERE, to take GBA+ course.
CLICK HERE, for UN link to “gender inclusive language”.
CLICK HERE, for previous “peoplekind” review.

CLICK HERE, for the UN page on gender equality.
CLICK HERE, for women’s human rights.
CLICK HERE, for about UN women.
CLICK HERE, for goal #5 of sustainable development.
CLICK HERE, for guiding principles of UN women’s advisory, civil society groups.
CLICK HERE, for the Commission on the Status of Women.
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s GBA+ (Gender Based Analysis Plus)
CLICK HERE, for declaration of women’s rights.
CLICK HERE, for the 1995 Beijing Declaration for Women.
CLICK HERE, for the 2017 system-strategy for gender parity.
CLICK HERE, for gender-inclusive language
CLICK HERE, for guidelines for gender inclusive language.
CLICK HERE, for tools & training for gender inclusive language.

Note: As a “Government certified” entity in gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) I am more qualified than the vast majority of people to look at things through a gender spectrum

2. Prison Reform

Our population is approximately 50% males and 50% female (excluding all other categories). Yet the incarcerated population is about 90% male. We need to enact policies to close that gap. Ideas include:

  • Sentencing laws which give men a “gender based discount” for crimes, just like the Gladue Rights concept
  • Affirmative action for the police to take the person’s gender into account before finalizing an arrest
  • Quotas (just like in hiring and universities) so that a certain percentage of all arrested people will be female. Once the 50% threshold is near, we can re-evalute the policies
  • Reduce arrests for rape and murder, crimes overwhelmingly committed by men
  • Incentivize men to “identify” as women in order for a reduction in their prison sentences
  • Similarly, incentives to have men identify as “non-binary”

Turning the men into women will reduce our birthrate anyway. And certainly, what we need is less Canadians, to justify the push for replacement migration. Even the ethno-nationalists can agree with that.

3. Health Care Reform

Before anyone starts pushing a “biological reality” argument, we need to consider the facts. There is a huge disparity in the amount of health care spending between the genders. Look at the data:

  • Most neo-natal services are for women
  • Most abortions are for women
  • Most prescriptions for hormone replacement are for women
  • Most rape intervention spending is for women
  • Most gynecological service spending is for women
  • Most osteoperosis related services are for women
  • The majority of overall health care spending is for those identifying as female
  • 4. Employment Reform

    The wage gap still exists in society. Women are simply not paid the same as men. In order to fix that, every industry everywhere needs to be heavily regulated, and the pay structure monitored. The hiring, the positions, and the wages must all be set by the government. No, this is not Communism, it is forced equity. See the difference?

  • Most of the dangerous jobs are filled by men
  • Overwhelming majority of workplace deaths are men
  • Overwhelming majority of physical jobs filled by men
  • Most high level management jobs filled by men
  • Most of overtime hours performed by men
  • Most STEM and business programs filled by men, while arts and gender studies programs are filled by women
  • Most men take much less time off for raising children than do women
  • Yet, in spite of all these “inequities”, there still exists a pay gap. That needs to change. Of course, there also exists the option to force more women into the above categories. Sure, the women may not be happy, but we are here to smash the patriarchy.

    5. Cultural & Societal Reform

    While this is a very broad category, here are a range of ideas to make our culture more “gender compliant”.

  • 50% of all pornography must be of men, or those who identify as men (regardless of the sexual orientation of the audiences)
  • 50% of all strippers and restaurant staff (such as in Hooters) are required to be men, or at least identify as men
  • “King” and “Queen” will be purged from our history books to make room for gender neutral monarchies
  • All clothing stores will be required to add a “non-binary” department
  • Gay Prides will now be required to hold a “Straight Pride” event
  • Dating websites can no longer force users to disclose their gender
  • 6. Suicide Reform

    This needs to be pointed out: the overwhelming majority of suicides are committed by men. This is unacceptable. We will introduce tax breaks to make suicide more affordable for women.

    Ladies, start cutting!

    7. Diversity Is Our Strength!

    Some people may question this, but consider the following:

    All these extra laws and regulations we have to impose to hold our society together — doesn’t that make us stronger? Aren’t we united by having nothing in common?

    Canuck Law Now Certified In Gender Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) Training (Not Satire)

    (Getting into gay marriage)

    (men, women, and non-binary….)

    (Every identity group imaginable)

    (Yes, forestry is sexist, just like construction)

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, to take GBA+ course.
    CLICK HERE, for UN link to “gender inclusive language”.
    CLICK HERE, for previous “peoplekind” review.

    CLICK HERE, for the UN page on gender equality.
    CLICK HERE, for women’s human rights.
    CLICK HERE, for about UN women.
    CLICK HERE, for goal #5 of sustainable development.
    CLICK HERE, for guiding principles of UN women’s advisory, civil society groups.
    CLICK HERE, for the Commission on the Status of Women.
    CLICK HERE, for Canada’s GBA+ (Gender Based Analysis Plus)
    CLICK HERE, for declaration of women’s rights.
    CLICK HERE, for the 1995 Beijing Declaration for Women.
    CLICK HERE, for the 2017 system-strategy for gender parity.
    CLICK HERE, for gender-inclusive language
    CLICK HERE, for guidelines for gender inclusive language.
    CLICK HERE, for tools & training for gender inclusive language.

    2. About The Course

    This course is designed as a basic introduction to GBA+. You will learn to define the key concepts of GBA+ and recognize how various identity factors can influence the experience of federal government initiatives. You will learn to identify how GBA+ can enhance the responsiveness, effectiveness and outcomes of federal government initiatives while applying some foundational GBA+ concepts and processes.

    3. What Is GBA+ About?

    Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA+) is an analytical process used to assess how diverse groups of women, men and non-binary people may experience policies, programs and initiatives. The “plus” in GBA+ acknowledges that GBA+ goes beyond biological (sex) and socio-cultural (gender) differences. We all have multiple identity factors that intersect to make us who we are; GBA+ also considers many other identity factors, such as race, ethnicity, religion, age, and mental or physical disability.

    To state the glaringly obvious: this “course” embraces intersectionality, oppression complexes, and identity politics.

    Once you have completed this course, you will be able to:
    -Define the key concepts of GBA+
    -Recognize how various identity factors can influence the experience of federal government initiatives
    -Identify how GBA+ can enhance the responsiveness, effectiveness and outcomes of federal government initiatives
    -Apply some foundational GBA+ concepts and processes

    Whatever happened to treating everyone equally?

    This course is designed as a basic introduction to GBA+. Depending on previous experience, you may find the content familiar while others find it new and challenging. Also, depending on your job, you may be required to take additional training in GBA+.

    Kill me now.

    Regardless of your experience, education and current situation, this is your place to begin. The course includes video, graphic and written material for your review, as well as exercises to test your knowledge. Character profiles and case studies will assist you in applying some basic GBA+ concepts and processes. Take as much time as you require, and keep in mind that you can come back to the course as many times as you like.

    Doesn’t seem too difficult….

    You will need to score 80% or higher on this quiz to receive a certificate of completion. If you require a fourth attempt to pass the final quiz, you will be redirected to the beginning of the course.

    Where’s the cyanide when you need it?

    Now that you have gathered some information about the forest sector, it is time to seek out stakeholder perspectives on the issues of innovation and diversification in the forest sector.
    Think about which stakeholders to consider, as well as what value to place on their perspectives. For instance, if you place the highest value on consensus during your consultation and recommendation process, you risk not hearing important minority voices among your stakeholder group.
    Who is traditionally consulted? Who may get left out of the discussion, if, for example, forestry executives are consulted as a key group of stakeholders? Women and Indigenous peoples are under-represented in management positions in the forest sector and on the corporate boards most likely to seek participation in consultations. Are Indigenous leaders consulting the broader community?
    -Will the same engagement process work for all stakeholders? What are potential barriers to participation faced by different groups among your stakeholders?
    -How might socio-economic status and family responsibilities affect access to consultations? Could certain factors prevent front-line workers or women from participating in the discussion? Measures such as holding meetings during working hours might allow these groups to participate.
    -In this case, it would be particularly useful to consult those with knowledge of local ecosystems, including Indigenous forest sector organizations/representatives, community groups and other experts.

    4. Taking The Test

    Question 1 (Select the best answer.)
    Gender is:
    Roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society may construct or consider appropriate for men and women
    Biological and physiological characteristics that define men, women and intersex persons
    That’s right!

    Question 2 (Select the best answer.)
    GBA+ is conducted to:
    Examine the effects of policies, programs, and initiatives on diverse groups of women, men and non-binary people
    Ensure equality for women
    Promote pay equity
    That’s right!

    Question 3 (True or false.)
    Historical disparities do not need to be considered in the development of new policies, programs, and legislation.
    That’s right!

    Question 4 (True or false.)
    Before you begin developing a policy or program, you will already know whether an issue impacts diverse groups of women, men and non-binary people differently based on your individual experience.
    That’s right!

    Question 5 (Select the best answer. )
    Who is responsible for applying GBA+?
    The head of the organization
    Human resources officials
    Status of Women Canada
    Gender specialists
    Any official in an organization who is contributing to government initiatives
    Deputy Ministers
    That’s right!

    Question 6 (True or false.)
    Conducting GBA+ will always conclude that disparities exist between men and women.
    That’s right!

    Question 7 (Select all that apply.)
    Steps in the GBA+ process include:
    Checking your assumptions
    Gathering information and considering diverse stakeholder perspectives
    Consulting your organization’s Employment Equity policy
    You did not select the correct response(s).

    Question 8 (Select the best answer.)
    Which of these situations reflects bias/discrimination due to intersecting identity factors, as opposed to a single factor?
    A gay, white man is refused a construction job, even though he has all the necessary skills and experience
    An Indigenous woman is refused a job at a factory where many Indigenous men work “on the floor” in the factory and many women work in the administrative office
    That’s right!

    Question 9 (Select the best answer. )
    Parental leave policies are an example of a flexible approach because:
    Women and men are treated the same way
    Both women and men may apply
    It takes into account the evolving needs and circumstances of diverse parents
    That’s right!

    Question 10 (Select all that apply.)
    Documenting the GBA+ process can assist you with:
    Demonstrating to senior management that a thorough analysis has been undertaken in developing options
    Developing communications strategies to explain decisions
    Populating a bibliography
    That’s right!

    5. Final Thoughts

    It was possible to pass the quiz (8 of 10 questions required), on the first try, just from winging it. Just try to imagine the most SJW answers possible.

    Certificate arrived in about 10 minutes.

    The survey insisted on knowing my gender. I am a unicorn.

    Dodgeball Is A Tool Of Oppression (Satire)

    CLICK HERE, for the actual article.

    The moral problem is that dodgeball encourages students to aggressively single others out for dominance, and to enjoy that dominance as a victory

    The problem is actually much worse. In white majority countries, it should be noted that the majority of successful teams include mostly white players. Research has indicated that there is a correlation between whiteness and white supremacy.

    The games children play in schoolyards are famously horrible, if you stop and think about them.

    Tag, for example, singles out one poor participant, often the slowest child, as the dehumanized “It,” who runs vainly in pursuit of the quicker ones. Capture the Flag is nakedly militaristic. British Bulldog has obvious jingoistic colonial themes. Red Ass, known in America as Butts Up, involves deliberate imposition of corporal punishment on losers.

    This is absolutely true. Every children’s game in the Western World is about preparing our youth for war, and for ways to oppress marginalized people. These are specific examples that need to be exposed and stamped out.

    Contrast with the above photos #2 and #3. This shows tolerant Muslims and the richness that diversity brings us.

    But none rouse the passions of reform-minded educational progressives quite like dodgeball, the team sport in which players throw balls at each other, trying to hit their competitors and banish them to the sidelines of shame.

    Not only is this traumatizing for the children, but rarely, if ever, do dodgeball competitions hand out “participation trophies”. How will the children cope with that?

    When the Canadian Society for the Study of Education meets in Vancouver at the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, a trio of education theorists will argue that dodgeball is not only problematic, in the modern sense of displaying hierarchies of privilege based on athletic skill, but that it is outright “miseducative.”

    Naïve parents will argue that kids are just kids, and they are just releasing their excess energy. But this completely misses the point. Most serial killers and rapists have played dodgeball at some point in their lives. Are we breeding the next generation?

    Experts agree, that we need to replace the Canadian population as an immediate measure to mitigate the effects anti-social behaviour as caused by dodgeball.

    Dodgeball is not just unhelpful to the development of kind and gentle children who will become decent citizens of a liberal democracy. It is actively harmful to this process, they say.

    These citizens also need to be aware that playing dodgeball is physical activity. Physical activity leads to heavy breathing, which leads to increased CO2 output. HELLO! We signed the Paris Accord for a reason. Do you want the Earth to heat up just so Little Johnny can get first place?

    As Butler’s abstract describes it, those “faces” are “marginalization, powerlessness, and helplessness of those perceived as weaker individuals through the exercise of violence and dominance by those who are considered more powerful.” Young’s list of these fundamental types of oppression also includes exploitation and cultural domination.

    Nations like Canada have demonstrated themselves to be an extremely welcoming place. And we shouldn’t jeopardize that just so some 11 year old can go “goose-stepping” and throw balls at other children.

    For teachers trying to foster the virtues of caring and inclusion, on this view, dodgeball is counterproductive. Sport can teach ethical behaviour and give students the chance to practise it and, in this sense, it is important training for citizens in a democracy.

    Of course this is true. Being part of the global democracy, is vital for all citizens of the planet.

    Fun for fun’s sake is good, Burns said, but when a teacher is formally telling students rules for a game, fun can also reinforce behavioural patterns, for good or ill. The moral problem with dodgeball, he said, is that it encourages students to aggressively single others out for dominance, and to enjoy that exclusion and dominance as a victory.

    One day they are throwing rubber balls at each other. The next they are perpetuating the next Holocaust. The connection is plain and obvious.

    What’s next? Pepe memes?

    Wanted: Independent Contractors to Act as “Controlled Opposition” (Satire)

    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.

    Deep State Enterprises is looking for independent contractors in their “Controlled Opposition” Division. If you think you may be qualified, please consider the following:


    1. Experience preferred, but will train right candidate
    2. Experience in gaslighting preferred
    3. A fondness for “selective truthfulness” required
    4. Computer skills important
    5. Quick witted with 1-liners a plus
    6. Knowledge of SJW talking points
    7. An eagerness to ward off deeper conversation

    Below are some topics that will often be encountered in everyday conversation. Note: the first list is what you are “allowed” to promote, as an advocate of free speech. The second list is where we don’t want people to go.

    The lists are not exhaustive, and more topics will be introduced as you gain experience.


    • Biological differences between men and women
    • Debunking the wage gap
    • Debunking cultural Marxism
    • Pointing out culture clash with Islam
    • Mocking Trudeau’s silly agenda
    • Calling out SJW identity politics
    • Pointing out financial costs of mass migration
    • Ridiculing the “diversity is our strength” motto
    • Noting differences in cultural groups


    • Biological differences between racial groups
    • Why the gender pay gap illusion exists
    • Investigating “why” cultural Marxism exists
    • Examining the sources and goals of Islam
    • Questioning who is behind Trudeau’s silly agenda
    • Unifying a nation under an identity
    • Pointing out social costs of mass migration
    • Asking “why” diversity is better than unity
    • Asking if cultural groups are compatible

    As a member of the “controlled opposition” team, your job is not to allow free speech and open debate. Rather, it is to allow the “illusion” of free speech and debate.

    During your orientation, you will be given the manual of which topics are acceptable, and to what degree


    1. Competitive wages
    2. Matching RRSP contributions
    3. 3 weeks annual vacation to start
    4. Telecommuting – can often work from home
    5. Extensive dental and medical benefits
    6. A challenging atmosphere with room to grow

    Contact — Kelly in Prince Albert, SK
    (like Heisenberg in Breaking Bad, she is only known by one name)

    Posting open until May 15, or until filled

    CBC To Undergo Staffing Shuffle (Satire)

    (Canada’s state broadcaster, the CBC)

    (1) The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is HERE.
    (2) The full text for Canada/US Safe 3rd Country is HERE, and see HERE.
    (3) The proposed UN Parliament/World Government is HERE.
    (4) The full text of the Paris Accord is HERE.
    (5) The Multiculturalism Act is HERE.
    (6) The Canadian Citizenship Act (birth tourism) is HERE.
    (7) Bill C-6 (citizenship for terrorists) is HERE.
    (8) M-103 (Iqra Khalid’s Blasphemy Motion) is HERE.
    (9) Fed’s $595M bribery of journalists is outlined HERE.
    (10) Agenda 21 (signed in June 1992) is HERE
    (11) Agenda 2030 (signed in September 2015) is HERE.
    Items in the above list are addressed HERE

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

    Canada’s state run new agency, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, will be undergoing staffing changes over the next several months. Although the agency is a model of objectivity and professionalism, even the best run organizations need to undergo changes from time to time.

    Our team has headhunted the most sophisticated and experienced media personalities across the globe. Here are the people who will be joining us.

    (1) Jim Acosta From CNN
    Known for his thoughtful coverage of border security and immigration, Acosta brings insight and experience to these complex issues. He has spent several years as a White House Correspondent in the US, and knows the system very well.

    (2) Cathy Newman From Channel 4 News
    A fine and very experienced interviewer, Newman has worked primarily in the UK. It took much prodding, but she has agreed to come to Canada and to the CBC, taking her very substantial viewer base with her.

    (3) Wendy Mesley
    Mesley has been with CBC for many years, but she will now be specialising in investigative journalism, with a focus on unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Mesley has the skill and intuition to sort fact from fiction.

    (4) Pamela Wallin Returns
    This former Senator returns to the media industry after a short but extremely productive stint with Canada’s Upper Chamber. Her unique experience gives her the ability to explore ethics and integrity issues in a way that few journalists are able to.

    (5) Reynaldo Walcott From OISE
    This Black Queer Studies Professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) has been a frequent guest on the broadcast, but now will be getting his own show. Walcott previously explained how fact and reason are ”white supremacist logic”, and he writes extensively in that area. Ironically, he relies on fact and reason in his writings.

    (6) Paul Wells From Maclean’s
    Wells has a good nose for sniffing out stupid people, especially on Twitter. He has the inside scoop with Ottawa politicians, and never lets them get away with anything.

    (7) Jared Taylor & Tariq Nasheed
    This power duo explore at great length cultural and race issues. Both these men are intellectual giants in the field, with numerous publications and media appearances.

    (8) Eric Cartman
    Cartman started as a child star in Colorado, but now has moved on to self help videos and seminars. Recent topics include ”Red Power”, and ”Gingers Will Rule The World. A great inspiration for those of us looking to improve on our lives.

    (9) Nathan Rambukkana From WLU
    This Wilfrid Laurier University Professor survived the wrath of Lindsay Shepherd, which included the added hurdles of being a racialized pre-tenured professor. After several academic works on leather, bondage and polygamy, Rambukkana consults as a specialist in academic freedom.

    (10) Pepe
    Pepe has become a rallying cry, in recent years. He has shown the ability to grow and adapt, almost becoming an internet meme.

    There you have it. Please make our new team members feel welcome, as we expand the scope of the CBC to be more inclusive.

    One other note, we are still accepting resumes for open positions. This one needs to be filled as soon as possible.

    Accepting Applications For ”Diversity” Officer
    (as many as possible of the following)
    -person of colour
    -if not a person, willing to transition
    -disabled, or willing to become disabled
    -transgender, or willing to change sex
    -female, or non binary
    -follically deprived
    -visually impaired
    -learning disabled, or willing to become learning disabled
    -substance abuse problem, or willing to develop one
    -committed to diversity of race
    -opposed to diversity of thought
    *** Actual experience is an asset, but not essential

    Please send you application by Friday of next week.

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Hires Ex-PM Stephen Harper As Advisor (Satire)

    (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez explaining unemployment)

    (Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper on deficits)

    The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

    UN GMC Challenged In Calgary Fed Court, 300-635 8th Ave SW.
    Case File: T-2089-18. Filed December 6, 2018.
    CLICK HERE for more information.

    This in an interesting pair. Ex-PM Harper identifies as a Calgarian, despite being from Toronto. Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez identifies as being from the Bronx, despite growing up in Westchester.

    Furthermore, Ex-PM Harper identifies as being an economist, despite adding 30% ($140 billion) to the national debt in Canada. Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez identifies as an economist and foreign relations expert, despite not knowing how economics or foreign relations work.

    Ex-PM Harper has also been instructing Ocasio-Cortez on being “tough on crime”. For example, take armed robbery, which carries a 4 year minimum, and increase it to 5 years. Another case is raising the DUI penalties from $600 to $1,000 (for a first offence). With careful media management, tweaking can be viewed as “getting tough”.

    Some more wisdom offered to her would be to quit office after 1 term, then go work for some obscure think tank. You will then come back as an expert.

    Another option floated would be to spend a term as a Senator, then Governor, then make a run for President with all that “foreign and governing experience”. In addition to the extra pensions (which would stimulate economic growth), it would be a great learning opportunity. Also, after doing the math, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez decided she didn’t want to wait until she was 50 to become President.

    Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez also gave some interesting advise to Ex-PM Harper. Instead of simply “defending” Canada’s borders with unarmed guards, why not disband border services altogether? It would save money, which would be available for refurnishing her office.

    Ex-PM Harper also comes with the bonus of self-identifying as a “Conservative”. he can be touted as a “moderate” to those who would question Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez’s economics team.

    Ex-PM Harper has already gotten to work demeaning and scolding media personalities who question Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez’s experience as “negative and partisan”.

    It will be interesting to see how this duo works together.

    Ocasio-Cortez for President 2028!

    Transcript of the Maxime Bernier/Wendy Mesley Interview (Satire)

    (Fine journalism in Canada)

    (Fine Journalism in the U.K.)

    (Here is the full version of Canadian one)

    The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

    UN GMC Challenged In Calgary Fed Court, 300-635 8th Ave SW.
    Case File: T-2089-18. Filed December 6, 2018.
    CLICK HERE for more information.

    Actually, it is pretty tough to top the actual video, but let’s try:

    Wendy: Hello Max, thanks for coming on

    Max: Great to be here.

    Max: Nice weather.
    Wendy: So you’re saying climate change is fake?

    Max: I had bacon & eggs this morning.
    Wendy: So you’re saying vegans should die?

    Max: Border control is important.
    Wendy: So you’re saying die immigrants?

    Max: SM hurts consumers
    Wendy: So you’re saying farmers are Nazis?

    Max: I believe that women should have the power to make their own choices.
    Wendy: So you’re saying you think your biker girlfriend should be showing cleavage?

    Max: I have nothing to do with the Koch brothers, or Atlas.
    Wendy: So you’re saying they are financing your campaign?

    Max: Again, I have nothing to do with Atlas.
    Wendy: So you’re saying Atlas is funding “paid protesters”?

    Max: Once more, I am not involved with Atlas.
    Wendy: So you’re saying we had weekly meetings?

    Max: I believe in personal responsibility.
    Wendy: So you’re saying that marginalized groups should be exterminated?

    Max: Government and taxpayers should not be subsidising corporations.
    Wendy: So you’re saying the workers at GM and Bombardier should starve to death?

    Max: Responsible gun owners should be left alone by the government.
    Wendy: So you’re saying you sympathise with school shooters?

    Max: Pipelines in Western Canada can help grow our economy.
    Wendy: So you’re saying that you want to destroy the environment?

    Max: I believe that we can stimulate growth and reduce unemployment.
    Wendy Ocasio-Cortez: So you’re saying unemployment is low because people work 2 jobs?

    Max: Health care is a provincial matter. They should make decisions.
    Wendy: So you’re saying you want to set up “death-panels”?

    Max: Education is a provincial matter, and the curriculum should be formed by them.
    Wendy: So you’re saying that schools should be teaching 4 year old about sex changes?

    Max: Immigration must not be used to drastically change our culture. Changes should be gradual.
    Wendy: So you’re saying you believe Whites are superior?

    Max: I believe gov’t should be focusing on what unites us as a people.
    Wendy: So you’re saying you will deport people who don’t agree with you?

    Max: Our party is small, but is well organized.
    Wendy Newman: So you’re saying we should organize your party along the lines of the lobsters?

    Max: I believe that harsh penalties for simple drug possession is excessive.
    Wendy: So you’re saying you support Walter White selling blue meth?

    Max: The money we give to the UN is often wasted.
    Wendy: So you’re saying we should invade Chile?

    Max: I believe in free speech.
    Wendy: Doesn’t free speech make people uncomfortable?
    Max: You’re doing that to me right now.
    Wendy: But you don’t …..
    Max: Ha, Gotcha.

    Max: I’m trying to appeal to the 30-35% of Canadian who don’t vote.
    Wendy: So you’re saying you are a fringe party?

    Wendy: Thank you for coming in today, Maxime.

    Max: I need a drink. Or ten.

    Diversity 101: RCMP Looking To Drop All Standards For New Recruits

    (Another Case Of Diversity Trumping Merit)

    The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

    UN GMC Challenged In Calgary Fed Court, 300-635 8th Ave SW.
    Case File: T-2089-18. Filed December 6, 2018.
    CLICK HERE for more information.

    The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) are facing a personnel shortage, and have come up with an interesting solution: drop all standards, and focus on diversity. No, this is not an exaggeration.

    Here are some of the proposals:
    1/ Criminal record may not be a barrier to entry
    2/ Credit problems not to be a barrier to entry
    3/ Aptitude testing to be eliminated
    4/ Hearing tests to be reduced or eliminated
    5/ Vision tests to be reduced or eliminated
    6/ Long stints at the acadmeny (training) to be reduced
    7/ Focus to be on recruiting women and visible minorities

    This CBC article, article is very difficult to parody, as it reads as one. Also, the comments are well worth checking out.

    The RCMP are taking a radical look at their recruitment strategy and could ditch credit checks and the ban on recruits with criminal backgrounds to help them rebuild their depleted ranks.

    The Mounties have been plagued by staffing challenges in recent years and are looking at how to convince more women and visible minorities to don the red serge.

    An internal document, obtained through access to information, suggests credit checks, the criminal background ban, the two-hour aptitude test and long stints at the training depot could all be eliminated from the hiring process as senior ranks try to make a career as a Mountie more attractive.

    The document notes that some of the mandatory requirements can create barriers for communities the force wants to attract, including “groups more likely to have contact with the criminal justice system.”
    It asks: Are we “tuned-in or tone deaf?”

    The review exercise is the brainchild of Vaughn Charlton, the director of gender-based-analysis-plus with the RCMP.
    She was brought over from Status of Women Canada in April 2017 at the request of then-commissioner Bob Paulson and tasked with focusing on gender and inclusion within the force.

    “We need to stop assuming there’s only one kind of person who belongs in policing,” she said in an interview with CBC News.

    “If we’re going to have mandatory requirements, we want to make sure we’re not creating unintended barriers for reasons that really have nothing to do with whether you’d be a great police officer.”

    For example, someone coming to the force later in life might not be able to spend 26 weeks at the training depot in Saskatchewan. Credit checks — long part of the RCMP security screening process — can be a barrier for single parents or those who’ve been forced to take long-term leave, said Charlton.

    Staffing crunch

    The document also flagged hearing and vision tests and long shifts as potential barriers and questioned the value of the aptitude screening assessment — which, among other things, tests memory, logic, judgment and comprehension.
    “I can definitely say we are looking at everything really seriously,” Charlton said. “These are questions worth asking and thinking, ‘Are they still relevant criteria in 2019?'”

    So far, Charlton said, her questions have gone over well with top brass.
    The recruitment review exercise is ongoing with no set deadline, she said. The entrance exam is getting its own fairness review through the Public Service Commission.

    “I think the challenge for us going forward is looking at diversity and inclusion as seriously as we look at security,” Charlton said.

    ‘Race to the bottom’

    When Commissioner Brenda Lucki took over as top Mountie earlier this year, she was warned in a briefing binder that “the RCMP has a growing vacancy rate that exceeds its present ability to produce regular members at a rate that keeps pace with projected future demands.”

    The briefing note says that in the last five years, there has been a “dramatic” increase in the number of new recruits required to fill operational vacancies and evolving program requirements.

    The RCMP says that in 2018, 21.6 per cent of regular members self-identified as women and 20.8 per cent of members above the inspector level were women. According to a 2017 report, about 10 per cent of the force identify as visible minority and eight per cent are Indigenous.

    Time for civilian governance at RCMP, watchdog says in harassment report

    Analysis: Toxic culture, harassment issues overshadow RCMP commissioner’s tenure
    Christian Leuprecht, a Royal Military College professor who has written about the RCMP’s structure, said public service organizations like police forces are plagued by cumbersome hiring processes and low pay. On top of that, the RCMP have been plagued in recent years by allegations of sexual harassment, bullying and intimidation within the ranks.

    “What this all points to is that the RCMP is going to have to change the way they do business, both as an organization and in particular in the way they recruit,” he said.

    But Leuprecht cautioned against dropping too many of the mandatory requirements simply to raise the number of applicants. In an age of complex cybercrime investigations, terrorist threats and sophisticated organized crime operations, he said the force needs to ask itself how it can bring in more of the country’s top minds.
    “The discussion is always about, ‘Well what can we do to kind of eliminate some barriers to this race to the bottom?'” he said.

    “The RCMP is the largest police organization in the country and it is also our federal police force. This needs to be the force that shows the greatest professionalism, the greatest competence and that needs to position itself as an employer of choice and an employer that affords equality of opportunity to all Canadians.”

    With files from the CBC’s Kathleen Harris

    Some thoughts on the article
    (1) Dropping the prohibition against people with a criminal record is non-sensical. Having a “pardoned” criminal record is one thing, but letting actual criminals in to do the policing?

    Additionally, there are way too many questions here:
    (a) Which offences will be grounds for exclusion?
    (b) Will there be any specific cut-off, or is it case by case?
    (c) Will there be a waiting period before a person can enter?
    (d) Will people on parole or probation be allowed to enter?
    (e) If an ex-con has a firearms ban, will that be waived?
    (f) If an ex-con has a driving prohibition, will that be waived?

    (2) Credit checks are used in places like banks. When putting someone is a position of trust, it is important to have some knowledge that they can manage finances, and will be less likely to abuse that trust.

    Furthermore, ”employment credit checks” do not show anywhere near as much information as say, getting a check for a loan or credit card. These ones are severely restricted in the information disclosed, as it is to measure trustworthiness, not the balance on your cards or mortgage.

    (3) Dropping the aptitude test? Do we not want some intellectual standards for RCMP recruits? If a person cannot meet a basic entry level exam, then excluding that person, or people, is in the best interest of the organization. It does raise the question though: is this an attempt to gain more ESL recruits?

    (4) Hearing and vision tests are useful, since your physical health and sense are essential to one’s ability to do the job. Further, given how dangerous and gruelling policing can be, physical strength and stamina are needed.

    (5)Yes, being away from the family for 6 months can be a burden, but training to be a police officer is a serious commitment. It cannot simply be gutted.

    (6) Who cares how many people are women (or trannies identifying as women), or how many people are of a particular background? The focus should be on creating a strong force of intelligent, fit people with good moral character. The rest is just pandering to identity politics.

    (7) “”….If we’re going to have mandatory requirements, we want to make sure we’re not creating unintended barriers for reasons that really have nothing to do with whether you’d be a great police officer.””

    If we’re going to have mandatory requirements? These people seem uncertain about that. Also, the above criteria are VERY important in selecting police recruits.

    (8) Assuming the claims of a culture of harassment are true — fire any and all people engaging in behaviour and focus on building a force with better decency. Don’t eliminate standards. This is sort of like having Problem “A”, and coming up with Solution “B”.

    (9) Why change the way you do business? Again, terminate the bad apples, but don’t make it open-recruitment under the guide of ”inclusiveness”.

    (10) An interesting point is made: in an era where technology and crime is becoming more sophisticated, do we want to be LOWERING our IQ entry requirements?

    (11) Regarding the obsession with Gender-Based Analysis: no one is saying that women should not be police officers. Rather, their abilities should be valued more, and the focus on being women should be stopped. This is a frequent straw-man lefties use: assume any difference in stats is due to discrimination, and not due to personal choices.

    This quote says it all:

    “We need to stop assuming there’s only one kind of person who belongs in policing,” she said in an interview with CBC News.

    The challenge for us going forward is looking at diversity and inclusion as seriously as we look at security.

    – Vaughn Charlton

    Yes, we need to focusing on diversity and inclusion as much as security. So, people with criminal records, poor credit, low IQ, lack of commitment, poor hearing/vision, etc…. are just “another form of diversity”?

    Enough of the endless pandering. Simply hire good quality recruits. If needed, make the compensation and benefits package more attractive. Offer flexibility in work locations. Don’t water down the standards.

    Again, pretty difficult to parody this article.

    How To Get An Injunction In 8 Easy Steps (Satire)

    (Alanis Morissette, and her hit song “8 Easy Steps”)

    The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

    Okay, well it’s a “bit” more complicated than that.

    Note: This article has been rewritten due to prior errors made.

    First, find out why you want to get an injunction. Something absurd like this site, or this this monstrocity, may be a good reason.

    Note: There are actually 2 agreements: (1) migration; and (2) refugees. Our paper Canadian Immigration Minister says this is all about refugees, yet we are signing the “migration” compact.

    Second, you need to decide “where” to get your injunction. If you choose to do it in Canadian Federal Court, here are some good locations.

    Third, you will want to know what forms to use. Here are the ones for federal. Note, they are templates, and you use Form 66 as a cut/paste for the header.

    Fourth, you will probably be confused at this point. So a call to the court house would be a good idea. The clerks cannot offer legal advice, but they can tell you what forms to us and give generic information

    Fifth, if it has been more than 30 days since the order that you wish to challenge?

    CLICK HERE, for more info.

    What if more than 30 days have gone by since the decision being challenged was communicated?

    If it has been more than 30 days since the decision or order was first communicated to you by the federal board, commission or tribunal, you must file a motion requesting an extension of time to file your Notice of Application for judicial review (see subsection 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act).

    A motion is started by a Notice of Motion which sets out the precise order you are seeking from the Court, the grounds you intend to argue and a list of documents or other material you intend to rely on (see rule 359 and form 359). In most cases, an affidavit is required (see rule 363). Your Notice of Motion must clearly indicate whether you wish the Court to review your motion at an oral hearing or in writing (see rules 360 and 369). If you wish to present your motion at an oral hearing, you must take into account the minimum time requirement provided between the service and filing of your Motion Record and the date of hearing (see rules 362 and 364). Motions may be heard at the regularly scheduled General Sittings (see rules 34 and 360). Please note that motions for the extension of time to file a Notice of Application are most often dealt with in writing.
    Generally, a Notice of Motion is filed as part of your Motion Record (see rules 364 and 367). Once you have written your Notice of Motion, the next step is to prepare your Motion Record which must contain, among other things:
    Your Notice of Motion requesting an extension of time;

    Any supporting affidavit(s) which should set out the facts you intend to rely on in support of your motion (see rules 80-81, 363 and form 80A);

    Written representations justifying your request for an extension of time; and

    Any other filed material necessary for the motion.
    You must serve a copy of your Motion Record upon the respondent(s).
    You will then need to file 3 copies of your Motion Record with the Registry, together with proof of service of your Motion Record upon the respondent(s) (see rule 146 and form 146) and you will need to pay a filing fee of $20.00, pursuant to Tariff A, 1.(2)(a).
    To assist you with what is required to file a Motion for extension of time, please refer to rules 8, 73, 80 and 359 – 369 of the Federal Courts Rules.

    Can I deal with any office of the Federal Court?

    Yes. You may deal with the office of the Registry of the Federal Courts which is most convenient to you. A list of the Federal Court office locations, addresses and phone numbers is accessible on our website under Registry.

    Sixth, more information on the actual proceedings.

    What is required to file an Application for Judicial Review?

    Applications for judicial review are governed by rules 300 to 319 of Part 5 of the Federal Courts Rules (and corresponding forms) as well as by section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act.

    Your Notice of Application for judicial review in respect of a decision or order of a federal board, commission or other tribunal must be limited to the review of a single decision, unless the Court orders otherwise (see rule 302) and must be filed within 30 days after the time the decision or order was first communicated to you (see section 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act). Rule 301 sets out what must be included in your Notice of Application and rule 303 indicates who must be named as respondent.
    Please note there may be other statutory limitation periods within which you must file your application, either longer or shorter than the 30 days provided in subsection 18.1(2) mentioned above. You may wish to consult the relevant statute to review the time limits for filing your application.

    You must pay a filing fee of $50.00, pursuant to Tariff A, 1.(1)(d) at the time of filing your Notice of Application by using a valid VISA, MasterCard or American Express credit card or by cash, debit, a personal cheque or a money order. When paying by personal cheque or money order, it must be made payable to the Receiver General of Canada.
    You must deliver to the Registry as many copies of the Notice of Application as you will need to serve (see paragraphs 4 and 5 below). The Registry will certify these copies of your Notice of Application, by stamping them. The Registry will keep the original of your Notice of Application and will return the other certified copies to you.
    Once I have filed my Notice of Application, is there anything else I need to do?

    Yes. There are many steps you need to take after you have filed your Notice of Application and it has been issued by the Registry. You are responsible for taking these steps within the time limits provided in the Federal Courts Rules. Some of these steps are explained below, but please note that there may be other important steps you may need to take that are not set out herein.

    Within 10 days of the issuance of your Notice of Application, you must serve a certified copy of it on the respondent(s), that is, the federal board, commission or tribunal whose decision you are challenging and any other person(s) required to be served by rule 304. Since a Notice of Application is an originating document, you must serve it in person by delivering a certified copy of your Notice of Application to each respondent (see Rules 127 to 137). It is your responsibility to identify the respondents and to serve them.

    Personal service on the Crown, the Attorney General of Canada or any other Minister of the Crown of your Notice of Application (but of no other document you may need to serve) will be done by the Registry pursuant to rule 133. For this, the Registry will need you to provide them with two additional copies of your Notice of Application.

    You must file proof of service with the Registry within 10 days of serving your Notice of Application on all the respondents (see rule 146 and forms 146 A-B).
    Within 30 days after issuance of your Notice of Application, any affidavits and supporting documents you may wish to rely on in support of your Notice of Application (see rules 306 and 80-81 and form 80A) must be served on the respondent(s) and you must file proof of that service with the Court. Your supporting affidavits and documents need not be filed at this time but must be included in your application record (see step 9 below).

    The respondents may also serve affidavits and file proof of service with the Registry (see rule 307). All cross-examinations on affidavits must be completed within the time period set out in rule 308.

    You must serve and file your application record within 20 days of the end of the time period for cross-examination set out in rule 308. (See rule 309 for the required content of your application record).

    Once you have served and filed your application record, the respondent has 20 days to serve and file a respondent’s record. When you have been served with the respondent’s record or the 20 days set out in rule 310 have passed, you are ready to have your case heard by a Judge of the Federal Court. Within 10 days (see rule 314) you must serve and file a Requisition for Hearing. You must also pay a filing fee of $50.00 pursuant to Tariff A, 1.(2)(f).

    Can I represent myself?

    Yes. Pursuant to rule 119, an individual may act in person or be represented by a lawyer in a proceeding. This means you may represent yourself in this matter; however, it is recommended that you seek the advice of a lawyer to assist you. Companies, associations or groups of people must be represented by a lawyer (see rule 120).

    Please read the information about Registry Services to Assist Self-Represented Litigants, indicating what Federal Court Registry staff can and cannot do to help you prepare your case, should you decide to proceed.

    Are there any other fees I will need to pay?

    The fees most commonly charged are set out in paragraphs 2 and 10 above. Other Court services may require the payment of a fee. The complete list of registry fees is contained in Tariff A. It is also recommended that you read Part 11 of the Federal Courts Rules, which deals with the awarding of costs between the parties and the determination of which party must pay the other’s costs, related to the proceeding.

    Law being relied on
    -Section 2(b) of Charter: Free speech
    -Section 3 of Charter: Right to participate in democracy
    -Section 7 of Charter: Security of the person
    -Section 15 of the Charter: Equality
    -Section 24 of the Charter: Remedies available in Court
    -Section 32 of the Charter: Applicability of the Charter
    -Section 38 of the Constitution: How to amend the Constitution
    -Section 52 of the Constitution: Supremacy of the Constitution
    -Sections 91 & 92 of the Constitution: Federal v. Provincial domain

    Caselaw cited:
    Want to know how to do legal research for free?


    All you need are the skills used for Google and Wikipedia.

    Seventh, since you have by now cited at least a few of the above Constitutional questions, it is now time to get a “NOTICE” together. See FORM 69 in the above guide. A copy will be sent to all Provincial Attorney Generals, to see if they want to weigh in.

    Eighth, once you have a (I) Application for review; and (II) Notice of Constitutional Question, you are ready to file with the Court. They will give you a case number.

    Ninth, you may want to get a temporary injunction. You do this by filing a “Motion Record”, which is like a binder, duotang, or possibly just stapled together. The Record will contain
    -Notice of Motion, Form 359,
    -Affidavit, Form 80A, which is a swearing out of evidence
    -You can include actual documents for evidence as well
    -Written submissions, a.k.a. arguments

    Tenth, depending on the circumstances, you may have to give Her Majesty the Queen, time to respond, you may not.

    Eleventh, Courts often refer to “proof of service”, which actually means swearing out an AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. As the name implies, you swear out an affidavit saying that you did perform that service. Note, that if you are filing against the Canadian Government, Rule 133 of the Federal Court Rules says that service is effected after you file with the Registry.

    Twelfth, depending on the circumstances, you will most likely have to book a hearing to get your temporary injunction against the Government. The Court staff will help you with that.

    Thirteenth, attend the hearing, and convince the Judge why granting it is in the best interests of you and of justice.

    So to review
    If More Than 30 Days Have Lapsed
    (a) Your Notice of Motion requesting an extension of time;
    (b) Any supporting affidavit(s) which should set out the facts you intend to rely on in support of your motion (see rules 80-81, 363 and form 80A);
    (c) Written representations justifying your request for an extension of time; and
    (d)Any other filed material necessary for the motion.

    If granted, then proceed to the next section

    If Time Extension Is Granted (Or Not Needed)
    CLICK HERE for more info.

    Filing for Temporary Injunction
    (a) Have your application for judicial review already filed
    (b) File a “Motion Record”, which consists of a binder with:
    (I) Notice of Motion, Form 359; (II) Affidavit; (III) Written Submissions
    (c) Ask the Court clerk to schedule a hearing for you
    (d) You can also ask for an emergency hearing to get a temporary injunction. This will likely be
    “ex parte” which means the Judge will decide behind closed doors.

    Proof of Service
    (a) Affidavit of Service

    There you have it: how to get an injunction in 8 (or so) easy steps.