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.

Gender Segregated Parliament in Ottawa (Satire)

(Andrew Scheer, in what has become a euphemism for sucking dairy cartel privates)

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

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

Parliament in Ottawa is about to become a lot more inclusive and tolerant with some recent changes. Deputy Prime Minister Andrew Scheer formally made the announcement today.

That was the word in Post-National Canada, (or NPC in French), and it generated excitement.

He made this announcement while his boss, Justin Trudeau, was in Venezuela for the monthly climate change convention. 2,500,000 delegates flew in from around the world to discuss reducing carbon emissions.

While this was the old floor plan, the new one will look different. Previously, the seats were sectioned off along party lines, but the NewLibCons have decided to put aside their differences and work together. Seating will be modified so that all seats point towards Mecca.

The female MPs will of course have to sit in the Jinnah Gallery, and new screens are being installed. Furthermore, the dress code has been updated to be more “modest”.

Scheer noted, that while international borders have been declared “offensive, hateful and divisive” under Bill C-1984, religious freedom would still be respected.

The day will be broken up to allow for prayers 5 times a day. While of course, this is “optional”, MPs have been instructed that inclusion and diversity are what make Canada strong.

Deputy PM Scheer also brought up the contributions from HarperCollins, the publishing company. It was replacing those outdated “Parliament Conduct Guide” books with updated information: 1) the Qu’ran; and 2) the Orwell book, 1984. Those books would be free upon request.

The number of votes in the House of Commons will be reduced from 338 to 288.5. How can there be half votes? Well, to be more inclusive of Islam, female MP’s votes will be worth half that of a man. Currently, there are 243 men, 91 women, and 4 vacanies. Of course, as the makeup of Parliament changes, there will theoretically be between 169 votes and 338 votes.

Committees will operate along the same lines, with female MPs behind a screen, and their votes counting for half as much. Canada will go the extra mile in being accepting of other faiths.

While Iqra Khalid’s motion, did become law, some changes have been made. Blasphemy will no longer be a death penalty offence, at least not for new offenders. Instead, the penalties will follow this guideline:

“Progressive” Scale of Discipline
1st time: warning
2nd time: $100 fine
3rd time: $2,500 fine
4th time: 100 lashes
5th time: 30 days in jail
6th time: 10 years in jail
7th time: death, which may be commuted to life in prison

Deputy PM Scheer also commented on new findings from Statistics Canada. After monitoring everyone’s emails and text messages for “statistical purposes”, StatsCan discovered that white Christians were leaving Canada en masse.

“Good riddance to those racists”, Scheer stated. “We don’t need that type of division here in Canada. Diversity is a product of our strength.”

Macron v. Hitler (Satire)

(The Eiffel Tower, as France submits to various masters)

How would these 2 stack up if they lived at the same time? Let’s take a look

but first, prevent more Hitlers and Macrons from gaining power. See below:

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

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

Hitler: Alpha male
Macron: Beta male

Hitler: Fantasized about conquering and dominating France
Macron: Fantasized about being conquered and dominated by Germany

Hitler: Wants to take over Europe
Macron: Wants others to take over Europe for him

Hitler: Wanted a European army dominated by Berlin
Macron: Wanted a European army dominated by Berlin

Hitler: Will imprison or kill people for wrong-think
Macron: Will dox people for wrong-think

Hitler: Wrecked Europe using huge German armies
Macron: Wrecked Europe using huge foreign armies

Hitler: Bullied Eastern Europe into doing his bidding
Macron: “Trying to” bully Eastern Europe into doing his bidding

Hitler: Angered that the Americans defeated Germany in 1918
Macron: Angered that the Americans liberated France in 1918

Hitler: Raised the swastika flag over fallen nations
Macron: Raised the European Union flag over fallen nations

Hitler: Believed legality of secondary importance
Macron: Believed consent of secondary importance

Hitler: Wanted “lebensraum” in Europe for German people to live
Macron: Wanted “lebensraum” in Europe for African and Middle Eastern people to live

Hitler: Thinks that strong national identity is necessary for a nation
Macron: Thinks that national identity shouldn’t exist

Hitler: Wanted a society of a pure Aryan race
Macron: Wanted a society of a pure mixed race

Hitler: Believed that the German people were superior to all
Macron: Believed that the French people were superior to none

Hitler: Blames Jews for Germany’s many problems
Macron: Blames whites for France’s many problems

Hitler: Hates diversity of thought, and diversity of race
Macron: Hates diversity of thought only

Hitler: Had a beta sidekick named Mussolini
Macron: Had a beta sidekick named Trudeau

Hitler: Replacing other populations using force–
military occupation/invasion/deportations/killings
Macron: Replacing local populations by:
(a) abortion on demand;
(b) LGBTQ agenda;
(c) encouraging career over family;
(d) making a family unaffordable;
(e) “White Guilt” to discourage breeding;
(f) mass immigration of very different groups;
(g) forced multi-culturalism;
(h) balkanization and white flight;
(i) celebrating other cultures;
(j) tax incentives for foreigners to start families

Who is worse?

Ungrateful, Snooty, French President Wants ”E.U. Army” to Protect Against U.S.

(Paris, the last time there was a ”European Army”)

(Macron, lobbying last year for a single European (1) army; (2) budget; (3) tax structure)

(Macron, calling for an army to protect France against U.S.)

(Macron admits France would have voted to leave EU if referendum held)

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

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

Where to begin with this one? French President,Emmanuel Macron is calling for the formation of a European Army, to protect Europe from the U.S., Russia and China. He also calls out rising nationalist sentiment in Eastern Europe, such as with Hungary and Poland.

Aside from the the arrogant tone Macron has, there are a number of flaws with this move. I am tempted to classify it as ”satire”.

(1) Macron completely whitewashes France’s history as an imperialistic and colonising power.

(2) The U.S. and Russia helped defend France from a German invasion in World War I (1914-1918).

(3) The U.S. and Russia (the Soviet Union) defeated Hitler and the German army, in World War II (1939-1945). Incidently, France has surrendered after just 6 weeks.

(4) From 1945 to 1989, the U.S. presence kept the Soviet Union from pushing further into Europe. Macron seems to forget about NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), which both the U.S. and France are part of.

(5) Macron is not the first arrogant French President in this type of case. Charles de Gaulle was a constant embarassment, and eventually forced NATO headquarters to be removed from Paris, and relocated in Brussels, Belgium.

(6) Macron omits that the U.S. has had tens of thousands of troops in Europe for decades, and could have conquered France at any time.

(7) Macron omits that European nations gutted their military budgets in the 1990s, to focus on social spending.

(8) Macron denigrades ”nationalists”, but those leaders, like Viktor Orban in Hungary are actually very popular. Macron is the one acting against his people’s wishes.

So what is the real motivation for the army? Is it to stamp out any anti-EU factions? Is it to ”expand EU influence” into other regions? Macron is not Napoleon, and France is no longer a military power. Get real.

Liberal v.s. Conservative (Values)

(Yes, the ideas are not new. Enjoy anyway)

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

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

Conservatives believe that diversity is measured in terms of ideas and viewpoints.
Liberals believe that diversity is measured in terms of skin colour.

If a Conservative is gay, he will quietly go about his life.
If a Liberal is gay, he will demand legislated respect.

If a Conservative has different values, he will teach those to his children.
If a Liberal has different values, he will demand the school teach them to everyone.

If a Conservative is not religious, he will not go to church.
If a Liberal is not religious, he wants the religion banned (except foreign religions).

If a Conservative doesn’t like a TV program, he changes the channel.
If a Liberal doesn’t like a TV program, he wants the station shut down.

If a Conservative wants to see other cultures, he travels a lot.
If a Liberal wants to see other cultures, he demands open borders.

If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
If a Liberal is a vegetarian, he wants meat banned for everyone.

If a Conservative doesn’t like guns, he will not buy one.
If a Liberal doesn’t like guns, he want them banned for everyone.

If a Conservative thinks crime is too high, he wants tough gun laws for criminals.
If a Liberal thinks crime is too high, he wants the police abolished and citizens disarmed.

If a Conservative hears about a crime, he wants the criminal held responsible.
If a Liberal hears about a crime, he wants the society held responsible.

In the case of pregnancy by rape, the Conservative would rather kill the rapist.
In the case of pregnancy by rape, the Liberal would rather kill the baby.

If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him lies.
If you want to anger a Liberal, tell him the truth.

The Conservative idea of equality is equality of opportunity.
The Liberal idea of equality is equality of outcome.

If you are Conservative and reading this, you are likely laughing.
If you are Liberal and reading this, you are likely getting angry

Liberal to English Dictionary (1st Edition)

If you find Canadian law and politics confusing and full or strange terms, don’t worry. Here we translate the most common phrases.

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

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian: Anyone who has papers (or not) is a Canadian, even a convicted terrorist.

Ambulance Chasers: Those who question the transferring of child killer to a ”healing lodge”

Asking Too Much: The process of soldiers asking for their contractual benefits to be honoured, rather than the money going to ISIS fighers

Basic Dictatorship: Something to be admired, such as China

Because Its [Current Year]: The rationale for appointing incompetent people to positions because of race or gender

Diversity: (a.k.a. Entropy) Chaos, disorganization, disorder, disintegration, nothingness

Excluded From Society: People who slaughter people with bombs at public events

Foreign Travellers: ISIS fighters who return to Canada to be integrated

Fear and Division: When uncomfortable questions get asked, this is the reason

Hate Speech: Views that universities find mildly controversial

Irregular Arrivals: People who sneak into Canada, then demand public assistance

Islamophobia: Questioning the wisdom of bringing ISIS fighters back into a home country

Neanderthal: A person who questions the motivations of a finance minister

Negative Interaction: A sexual assault committed that the assailant would rather forget about.

Old Friends: Someone you don’t see for 30 years, who gives free vacations in return for consideration

Paper Canadian: A person who has Canadian papers, but has no actual care or interest in Canada — definition by Jill Colton

Peoplekind: destruction of humanity for political gain

Price on Pollution: A tax on breathing (CO2 generation)

Pro Choice Only: Banning candidates from running for a party nomination, since they view unborn children as people

Racist: Someone who questions the cost of thousands of illegal immigrants

Self Balancing Budget: The way accounting ought to be run

Sisters Upstairs: The segregation of women in a mosque, away from men, as they are inferior

We’re In Quebec: A way to snub an anglophone in Quebec by answering in french

2 Daddies: Used as a reference to same-sex marriage, or having a biological father different from a custodial father

Yes, it can be difficult to learn the new language. However, Barbara (I mean Chris), will explain it in this 5 minute instructional video. Remember, entropy is our strength. Nobody is perfect, but with this guide you will be well on your way.