Solutions #10: How To Do Your Own Research, Investigative Journalism

1. Media Bias And Corruption

CLICK HERE, for Unifor in bed with government.
CLICK HERE, for Global News’ selective truth on TRP granted.
CLICK HERE, for Post Media owning most Canadian media.
CLICK HERE, for Atlas/Koch controlling right-leaning media.
CLICK HERE, for True North Canada is a fake charity.
CLICK HERE, for who runs The Post Millennial.

2. Why People Should Care About This

To anyone looking to get into citizen journalism, or otherwise expose the truth about our world, here are some basic tips on how to do so. This is a how-to article on those potential online sleuths.

Topics such as: the true scale of immigration into Canada; demographic replacement; loss of Christian roots; the loss of culture and heritage in favour of “multiculturalism”; the costs of globalized trade; globohomo; Islam; the people spreading Islam; the international banking cartel (BIS); the scale of debts; pension ponzi schemes; border security; forced multiculturalism; corruption in politics; internationalism; widespread human right abuses; trafficking; and a host of other issues are swept away. They are given little to no attention.

The goals of MSM, generally are:

  • (a) To only tell part of the story
  • (b) To divert your attention from another story
  • (c) Both (a) and (b)

Unfortunately, our media is full of grifters and shills with an agenda. Almost the entire mainstream media is controlled by one outlet: Post Media. Even the so-called “alternative media” can’t be relied on to be truthful. The Post Millennial, True North Canada, Spencer Fernando, and Rebel Media are among the “independents” with an agenda. What Canada needs, (and the world at large) needs, is people willing to take the plunge and research for themselves.

While commentators — online pundits — are a dime a dozen, true researchers are rare. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can give their opinion on someone else’s work. The real challenge is creating the original work. Right, no bias here.

Yes, some of the techniques will seem painfully obvious, but are worth going through. Note: there are no shortcuts in this line of work. It’s just patience, perseverance, and luck. Red pill yourself, and share your findings with the world.

If even one reader of the article decides to pursue this path, then it is all worthwhile.

3. Tip: Save & Archive Evidence

Taking screenshots of the proof you have is always a great idea. As a picture, it speaks for itself, and demonstrates what you want to show. Also, it doubles as a powerful form of evidence, should you ever get challenged on your work.

A secondary option is to archive the entire webpage you are quoting from. One such option is http://archive.is, which is shown above. There are a few reasons. First, you may get questioned about the authenticity of your work, even the screenshots. But as a practical matter, a few years later, the website may not exist, or the URL may have changed. Best to keep a backup handy. Admittedly this can be tedious, but beats having your sources disappear.

Now, let’s get into some actual techniques.

4. Look Using Simple Search Engines

This is a no-brainer to many. See what others have published on the subject. It may save you from having to reinvent a thousand wheels if you come across an article. Google, Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, etc… will all suffice. If nothing else, it will be a good place to start, and you may hit gold. Make sure to check the links and references put in whatever you find. (Please give the original author credit for their work).

The other techniques are not universally applicable, but use them according to the particular circumstances of your research. Here they are, in no particular order.

5. Look Up Directors, Executives

Yes, you can look up information on a particular company. There are various ways to do that. A simpler approach may be just to see who RUNS the company, and if they have any interesting connections. In this case, we see that Pierre Beaudoin, the Chairman of Bombardier is also a Director at Power Corporation, owned by the Desmarais Family. One might wonder if this is the reason (or a reason), that we keep using taxpayer money to bail out Bombardier.

6. Look Up Data From Website

Items such as annual financial statements, people joining the company, or major announcements may be posted on the organization website. And this does not only apply to corporations.

For example, McGill University announced a $200M gift from John McCall MacBain. He is a Trudeau Lobbyist, a member of the Trudeau Foundation, and head of the McCall MacBain Foundation.

The McGill website also shows that the Attorney General of Canada, David Lametti, is a member of the Faculty of Law, currently on leave. All of this information was provided by McGill.

One would have to wonder if that $200M donation is the reason Lametti ensured that SNC Lavalin got its deferred prosecution agreement.

7. Corporations Canada Website

If you want to know more about a business or non-profit, Corporations Canada can help with that. You can obtain information on the Directors, by-laws, registered office, or confirm that returns have been filed. Several years worth of data is available for free. You make the application, and within minutes, are emailed a series of attachments to download.

Some information can be obtained for free. Other data will involve paying fees. The choice is up to you.

Note: Obviously this applies to companies registered in Canada. The United States, and many other nations have similar options.

8. Charities And Other Donees

If you are looking into a charity, or a group that falls into some other categories, the Canada Revenue Agency may be of use. Basic information can be obtained, including the Directors, the use of the charity, the revenue, and recent changes. It was a help finding out where True North Center actually originated from.

9. LinkedIn, Other Social Media

Yes, people put stupid stuff online. It doesn’t have to be smoking pot, or topless photos in order to be helpful. For example, should you want to look into someone such as the CEO for an apparently independent media outlet, you can see what other organizations the person is connected to.

Furthermore, even if such accounts are altered or deleted, there is typically a copy or a partial copy somewhere. So don’t despair.

Now, to get into the more legal and/or political matters, the next few tricks will help immensely. While it is directed at Federal matters, the same principles apply Provincially and Municipally.

10. Check Campaign Contributions

While donating (within the limits) to political parties and politicians is allowed, it does create a nice paper trail. As such, you may be able to see who has donated to whom, how much, and how often. Of course, this doesn’t work when donations are given in cash under the table.

It should be pointed out, that some provinces (like Ontario) allow 3rd party donations. Essentially, that is an almost unlimited amount that is funnelled through an intermediary. Worth looking into. You want to know who the politician really serves.

Spoiler: it’s not you.

11. Check Lobbying Commissioner’s Office

Influence peddling can be a full time business for lobbyists. So, let’s see who they have been meeting with. One such case is SNC Lavalin lobbying pretty much everyone for its DPA over the last few years. It can be truly disgusting to see just how deep some of this goes. Naturally, why would companies spend all this money on lobbyists unless they got results?

Go through the site for a while. The amount of lobbying that goes on in government is absolutely sickening. Keeps lobbyists employed though.

12. Statistics Canada

They say there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. And that is certainly true, although StatsCan can at least give some official numbers for researchers to work with. It has the added benefit of being relatively free of government/political spin.

13. Open Data

Another government source for hard data focused, but still a goos source of information. Keep in mind, it’s only as reliable as the people entering the information in.

14. Check Out Old/New Legislation

Want to know what is actually written in a bill? Original filings, as well as amended bills are available to the public. For bills that are passed or defeated, the voting records of all Members of Parliament is recorded as well. To reiterate, though this piece focuses on Federal issues, the same applies Provincially.

Don’t trust the media’s interpretation of what a particular piece of legislation says. Go check it out for yourself. To quote Reagan: trust, but verify.

15. Other Parliamentary Studies/Reports

CLICK ON PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS.

It isn’t just the bills themselves that go on. The MPs study the issues when they aren’t busy grandstanding. As such, hearings take place, and witnesses are often called to testify. This concerns issues such as letting fake refugees into Canada, and Conservatives endorsing the UN Parliament. Indeed, a lot more detail can be found here than in the hearings and votes. Entire transcripts of hearings can be downloaded or copied.

Also, please be aware, that http://parl.canadiana.ca/ also has more archived documents can be found. More and more is being scanned electronically and posted for all to see.

16. United Nations Search Engine

Want to know what is going on with UN globalism? Just go on the UN website and search. Although it’s fairly easy to navigate, there is the search function is you can’t find something. For example, typing “Islamophobia” nets about 600 results. Although there is a private access for members, most of what you need is open to the public.

17. CanLII, Court Searches

The good news is that major cases are listed. These include the Supreme Court of Canada, and Provincial Appellate Courts. Trial rulings “may” be listed if there is something particularly interesting or helpful, or if they are high profile. It covers criminal, civil, family, human rights tribunals, Law Society rulings, law review articles, and often motions. If one wants to self-represent in court, information available can be useful.

Bad news, is that the amount of information can be overwhelming. So many cases, and so many similar terms means that imprecise searches flood the user with useless hits. Even with the lower rulings usually not posted, the amount of information is mind boggling.

If you actually are looking for a court case, it’s a good tool. Otherwise, it’s not helpful in background information. An alternative (if you know what case you are looking for) is to contact the court and ask for certain documents.

18. Libraries Or Other Archives

Don’t knock it. If you have a large or older library in your town, or can get to one, you might be surprised what you can dig up. Often, older information is available in printed form that has not yet been digitized. For example, a library in my hometown still has microfilm on census data going back to the 1800s. If only it was readable.

19. Access To Information Requests

In most areas of government bureaucracy, there exists the option to file a formal request for information on certain topics. And it can be done across many departments.

While seemingly a quick and easy way to get answers, let’s mention a few disclaimers. First, the requests often take a long time, sometimes months to get back. Second, the government may withhold all or part claiming “public interest” or “confidentiality”. Third, there are often fees involved. Still, it can be an option to consider.

20. Interview The Subject

This is also known as “being a journalist”. You ask a person questions in the hopes of getting information. Not everyone will say yes, but if you never ask the answer will always be no.

Question: do you let the person know who you really are, and if you are recording? Ideally, you should, but it depends on the circumstances. Having done a few sneaky ones myself, it would be hypocritical to pass judgement.

One piece of advice: it may be better to talk to the person AFTER you have done other forms of searching. This is so that you are more fully aware of your facts prior to meeting.

21. What Have I done?

Everything listed above, depending on the circumstances and what exactly I was looking for. All of these techniques were used at some point in writing the articles. However, there is no one answer for everything.

22. What May Not Be Needed

Of course, this will depend on the people involved, and what information is being sought. Here are a few techniques I don’t engage in, but that others have.

  • Ambush journalism
  • Stalking, following subjects
  • Trying to get to family members
  • Dumpster diving
  • Trespassing, B&E

It is possible to get real results and real information without crossing ethical and legal lines. Suggestion: try not to cross lines where possible.

Solutions #9: The Case For A Moratorium On Immigration

It is easy to target illegal entries into the country. Without borders, and enforcement of those borders, the nation ceases to exist. Everyone should be against illegal entries, sanctuary cities, voting rights and access to social services for those in the country illegally.

That being said, the mass LEGAL immigration is actually a much larger problem.

People excluded from Canada for various reasons (such as criminality, serious criminality, organized criminality, non-compliance, terrorism or human rights violations) should stay excluded. Global News reported on a program which brought in 3,000 people since 2010 under Rule 25.1 of IRPA, but omitted another 186,000 “inadmissibles” allowed in under Rule 24(1) of IRPA from 2002 to 2017. Considering we don’t even track people leaving the country, it’s hard to say where they are.

In recent years, we have been taking in a million people LEGALLY into Canada. In 2017, for instance, we had 950,000 people enter through regular immigration channels, refugee claims, and various temporary programs. This does not include visitors or illegals.

To start off with: our governments lie about the total number of people entering annually. Categories such as student visas (students and their families), temporary foreign workers, & International Mobility Program bring in hordes of people — are not temporary. These groups generally have access to a permanent residency pathway, and other ways to stay longer. There are several pilot programs underway on top of these, including a small amnesty-for-illegals program in Toronto. Heck, we even expedite work permits for fake refugees sneaking in from the U.S.

Even if these temporary workers were to go home (and many don’t), there is the topic of remittances. According to the World Bank, hundreds of billions of dollars are sent from the West annually. How does it help our economy when money is pulled from it?

Perhaps we can replace the money lost via remittances with money from selling investor visas, regardless of how well the business does.

Bringing in large numbers of people as cheap labour results in our own citizens having to compete against foreign, often subsidized labour. It does a huge disservice to those who really need the help.

Importing students at this scale means that Canadian graduates are forced to compete against others for a limited number of jobs. This is includes professional and skilled programs. How does it benefit Canadian graduates to have their prospects cut out like that? Does the downward pressure on wages help? How does it benefit other nations when their talent leaves is a sort of brain-drain?

It doesn’t seem to matter if the “students” are really students.

Considering all the fuss about environmentalism and climate change, answer one question. How does mass immigration remove or minimize stresses to the eco-system? How does clearing new areas for farming and housing avert this climate emergency that we are supposedly in?

The overwhelming majority of immigration coming into Canada over the last several decades is of 3rd World, non-European migrants (80 to 90%). A quick glance at the top 10 “source” countries tells the same story year after year: (a) China; (b) India; (c) the Philippines; and (d) an awful lot of Muslims. Multicultis and Civic Nationalists — which are the same thing — tell us that people who have nothing in common with each other can form a cohesive society based on abstract “values”. It’s nonsense. While other groups want to retain their identity, why are Europeans considered bigots for attempting the same?

The result is predictable: enclaves forming in the major cities, such as Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. In reality, multiculturalism is a lie that never works out as planned. Balkanization is not diversity. Furthermore, it is not a lack of screening, but the deliberate efforts to forcibly remake Canada.

The breakdown of social cohesion is obvious. And anyone who has read Robert Putnam’s study will see why.

At the heart of this is the replacement agenda going on in Western nations. Canada, for example, was 96% European, according to the 1971 census. It was 72% based on the 2016 census, and still falling. Europeans will be a minority in the next decade unless something drastic happens.

This is about preserving the foundation of European nations and ones formed in that image. Replacing the population replaces the culture and the history. It doesn’t matter to me whether it is replacement by Muslims, or by high IQ, high skill Asians. I still don’t want it, and nor should others. Call it tribalism, but Westerners should be allowed to protect their identities too.

We also now have a program for survivors of domestic abuse to apply for temporary, or even permanent residence. Guess that’s what happens with importing violent cultures.

It never seems to dawn on “conservatives” that bringing in large numbers of people from left-leaning nations means political suicide. Demographic shifts will make their ideology completely unelectable. Their only concerns seem to be: (a) come legally; (b) be economically productive; and (c) don’t be a terrorist. But beyond that, conservatives have no will to preserve their people, culture, heritage, and traditions.

While the solution may seem to be to import more Europeans, they cannot be spared as THEY are being replaced in their homelands as well. Europe is being flooded with Middle Eastern and African “refugees” and migrants. We cannot help ourselves at the Europeans’ expense. Still, we must resist the replacement here.

For these reasons, and other facts and figures, I support a moratorium on immigration into Canada. With a more complete picture of the actual situation in Canada, many more people should agree.

Solutions #8: Ending (Political) Corporate Welfare

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for BC political contributions, tax rebates.
CLICK HERE, for BC banning corporate donations.
CLICK HERE, for Alberta political donations, rebates
CLICK HERE, for Saskatchewan political donations and tax rebates.
CLICK HERE, for Winnipeg proposal to ban political tax breaks.
CLICK HERE, for ending the “per-vote” subsidy.

2. Context For The Article

It has been in the news a lot lately: the idea of scrapping corporate welfare. This notion is based on the simple concept that taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize businesses which privatize the profits.

While this is certainly valid, let’s expand that idea. Why are taxpayers forced to subsidize the voting preferences of people who donate to political candidates or parties? If a person wishes to support their local candidates, that is their choice. But how come the public has to provide tax breaks?

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Your donation should come from your wallet.
Practice what you preach.

And no, this article is not directed at any one party or politician. “ALL” parties and candidates should be forced to be self-sufficient. Stop reaching into the public purse to finance your campaigns.

3. Proposal In Winnipeg

Mayor Brian Bowman wants to end the practice of rebating Winnipeg election-campaign donations in a move one critic describes as a means of providing another advantage to incumbent candidates.

Bowman said in a notice of motion the city could save $700,000 by eliminating the rebates, stating “it is undesirable to fund election campaign expenses” and candidates should “solicit financial support from donors based on the strength of their platform rather than relying on taxpayer funds.

To be fair, there is some valid criticism that this will favour incumbents who are effectively able to campaign while under the pretext of doing their jobs.

However, taxpayers shouldn’t be forced help finance voting preferences. People who wish to make donations are free to do, but should use their own money. If a party platform is so unappealing that it needs taxpayer money to encourage donations, then it probably isn’t a very good one.

4. Ending The Per-Vote Subsidy

The NDP still hasn’t adapted to losing access to the per-vote party subsidy cancelled by the Harper government, the party’s treasurer said at the NDP convention in Ottawa Friday.

The federal Conservatives had phased out the per-vote subsidy by 2015, which was a party financing policy brought about in the Chretien-era that paid out public funds to parties based on their share of the popular vote.

Party Treasurer Tania Jarzebiak said the party plans to step up its fundraising with a “big push” on monthly giving and will invest more into its fundraising capacity, and has “ambitious plans” to reach an annual revenue target of $10.5 million.

Stephen Harper was criticized for this move, claiming it was designed to bankrupt smaller parties. It’s probably true, that the move ultimately benefitted the Conservative Party.

However, he should have ended all subsidies and tax breaks, not just pick and choose. If he truly cared about public money then those tax rebates would have been scrapped as well.

5. British Columbia

The credit is calculated as the lesser of:
1) The total of:
-75% of contributions up to $100
-50% of contributions between $100 and $550
-33 1/3% of contributions in excess of $550
2) $500

In B.C. taxpayers are on the hook for up to $500 for each person who contributes to B.C. political parties in a given year.

6. Alberta

According to Elections Alberta, the public has to pay up to $1000 in tax refunds to subsidize the voting preferences of people contributing to Provincial Candidates.

7. Saskatchewan

Taxpayers in Saskatchewan may be stuck with having to subsidize up to $650 for a resident’s political preferences. Seems that money could be better spent elsewhere.

8. Some Conclusions

The above listings are just a few examples of laws which force the public to help fund the donation choices of politically active people.

To be clear, I do not care whom you support, or what ideology the party or candidate is running on. The concern is that this subsidy amounts to corporate welfare, which we should not be paying. If the only way a person or party is able to finance a campaign is by bailouts with public money, then it probably isn’t very strong to begin with.

One final note: the common practice of “advertising” using taxpayer money is also abhorrent. True, incumbents do have an advantage in their ability to make announcements and fund plans to boost their image. That is not to be condoned either.

Solutions #7: Abolish Gladue, Fix Underlying Problems

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for race- based discounts in sentencing.
CLICK HERE, for Terri McClintic, child killer, in a healing lodge.
CLICK HERE, for 2016/2017 StatsCan data on incarceration rates.
CLICK HERE, for Table 5, incarceration by race and gender.
CLICK HERE, for Table 6.
CLICK HERE, for archived findings form Correctional Service of Canada form 1999.
CLICK HERE, for a Larry Elder video on single parent households.
CLICK HERE, for a documentary on drug use on reserves.
CLICK HERE, for a video on lack of drinking water on reserves.

CLICK HERE, for Gladue, 1997.
CLICK HERE, for Gladue, 1999.
CLICK HERE, for Ipeelee, 2012.
CLICK HERE, for R.v. Proulx (conditional sentencing guidelines).

2. Disproportionate Incarceration Rates

This is a proposal to scrap so-called “Gladue Rights” which specifically are designed to give Aboriginal offenders special consideration when it comes to sentencing in the criminal justice system.

Please don’t interpret this as an indication not to give anyone a break if the circumstances permit. Rather, rights and options should be available to everyone. They should not be given to one specific group, or denied to one specific group.

Disclaimer: I am not a criminologist, or a sociologist. Just a researcher.

Now, how great are the discrepancies?

From the StatsCan 2016/2017 findings:

The Criminal Code mandates that all sanctions other than imprisonment are to be considered with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. In 2016/2017, Aboriginal adults accounted for 28% of admissions to provincial/territorial correctional services and 27% for federal correctional services, while representing 4.1% of the Canadian adult population (Table 5). In comparison to 2006/2007, the proportion of admissions of Aboriginal peoples to correctional services was 21% for provincial and territorial correctional services and 19% for federal correctional services.

Aboriginal adults accounted for 30% of admissions to custody and 25% of admissions to community supervision among the provinces and territories in 2016/2017. Aboriginal adults accounted for 27% of admissions to custody and 26% of admissions to community supervision in federal correctional services (Table 5).

The proportion of Aboriginal admissions to adult custody has been trending upwards for over 10 years. It has increased steadily from 2006/2007 when it was 21% for provincial and territorial correctional services and 20% for federal correctional services.

Among the provinces, Aboriginal adults made up the greatest proportion of admissions to custody in Manitoba (74%) and Saskatchewan (76%). These two provinces also have the highest proportion of Aboriginal adults among their provincial populations at 15% for Manitoba, and 14% for Saskatchewan.

Aboriginal males accounted for 28% of admissions to custody in the province and territories, whereas non-Aboriginal males accounted for 72%, in 2016/2017. Aboriginal females made up a greater proportion of custody admissions than their male counterparts, accounting for 43% of admissions, while non-Aboriginal females accounted for 57% (Table 6).

Here is the data in a more visual form.

Category Abor. Total Pop’n Abor. Group Pop’n Non-Abor. Total Pop’n Non-Abor. Group Pop’n Ratio
Incar 4.1% 28% 95.9% 72% 9.1:1

Note: Here is how to calculate the rates. Assume there is a population of 100,000 people, and 1,000 of them are locked up and then break in down as percentages of the population.

category totals Non-Abor Abor
People 100,000 95,900 4,100
Locked Up 1,000 720 280
Rates Percentage 0.0075 0.068

Now that we can make an apples-to-apples comparison, 0.068/0.0075 =~9.1
So on a per-capita basis, Aboriginals are about 9 times as likely as non-Aboriginals to be locked up

Next, covering Aboriginal women and incarceration rate. For this. Assume that the overall percentages are about same: 95.9% non-Aboriginal, and 4.1% Aboriginal. Here instead of making up 28% overall in Provincial jails, it is 57%, approximately double.

Category Abor. Total Pop’n Abor. Group Pop’n Non-Abor. Total Pop’n Non-Abor. Group Pop’n Ratio
Incar 4.1% 57% 95.9% 43% 30.88:1

And once more we need to convert to rates of respective populations.

category totals Non-Abor Abor
People 100,000 95,900 4,100
Locked Up 1,000 430 570
Rates Percentage 0.0045 0.1390

When women inmates are looked at specifically, the ratio goes to 0.1390/0.0045 ~= 30.88

That’s right, looking at women, there are (per capita) 30 times as many Aboriginal women locked up as non-Aboriginal women.

3. Evidence Of Discrimination Or Bias?

By itself, no. Having groups with different rates of something is not evidence that there has been discrimination. Either these differences are caused by something that justifies it (such as higher crime rate), or there may be some external factor. Let’s start with the Criminal Code.

718.2(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

It is written right into the Canadian Criminal Code, to give offenders (where reasonable), an alternative to custody, with special consideration to Aboriginals. And this is codified in 3 cases.
R. v. Gladue, 1997 CanLII 3015 (BC CA)
R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC)
R. v. Ipeelee, [2012] 1 SCR 433, 2012 SCC 13 (CanLII)

Looking at the Criminal Code, and recent decisions, there doesn’t seem to be any legalized discrimination. So let’s look elsewhere.

4. R. v. Proulx (Conditional Sentencing Guidelines)

12 Since it came into force on September 3, 1996, the conditional sentence has generated considerable debate. With the advent of s. 742.1, Parliament has clearly mandated that certain offenders who used to go to prison should now serve their sentences in the community. Section 742.1 makes a conditional sentence available to a subclass of non-dangerous offenders who, prior to the introduction of this new regime, would have been sentenced to a term of incarceration of less than two years for offences with no minimum term of imprisonment.

13 In my view, to address meaningfully the complex interpretive issues raised by this appeal, it is important to situate this new sentencing tool in the broader context of the comprehensive sentencing reforms enacted by Parliament in Bill C-41. I will also consider the nature of the conditional sentence, contrasting it with probationary measures and incarceration. Next, I will address particular interpretive issues posed by s. 742.1. I will first discuss the statutory prerequisites to the imposition of a conditional sentence. Thereafter, I will consider how courts should determine whether a conditional sentence is appropriate, assuming the prerequisites are satisfied. I conclude with some general comments on the deference to which trial judges are entitled in matters of sentencing and dispose of the case at hand in conformity with the principles outlined in these reasons.

16 Bill C-41 is in large part a response to the problem of overincarceration in Canada. It was noted in Gladue, at para. 52, that Canada’s incarceration rate of approximately 130 inmates per 100,000 population places it second or third highest among industrialized democracies. In their reasons, Cory and Iacobucci JJ. reviewed numerous studies that uniformly concluded that incarceration is costly, frequently unduly harsh and “ineffective, not only in relation to its purported rehabilitative goals, but also in relation to its broader public goals” (para. 54). See also Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, Toward Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections (1969); Canadian Sentencing Commission, Sentencing Reform: A Canadian Approach (1987), at pp. xxiii‑xxiv; Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, Taking Responsibility (1988), at p. 75. Prison has been characterized by some as a finishing school for criminals and as ill-preparing them for reintegration into society: see generally Canadian Committee on Corrections, supra, at p. 314; Correctional Service of Canada, A Summary of Analysis of Some Major Inquiries on Corrections – 1938 to 1977 (1982), at p. iv. In Gladue, at para. 57, Cory and Iacobucci JJ. held:

Without rehashing the entire ruling, Proulx, which was based on Bill C-41, set the benchmark for giving out “conditional sentences”, aka “house arrest”. The ruling noted the destructive long term effect prison can have.

While conditional sentencing is completely inappropriate for certain offences, it can have its benefits.

In areas with high crime rates, poverty, or high drug use, a person has to reasonably ask what will be the best solution overall. Does the community benefit from locking up large amounts of its people?

One caveat, breaks in sentencing, and alternatives to prison should be equally available to all Canadians. One group shouldn’t receive a greater aid, or detriment.

See the next section for the CSC report on Aboriginal circumstances.

5. Information Worth Looking At

This comes from the 1998 Corrections Service of Canada Paper (linked above). It also has an impressive bibliography, worth at least a peek.

1.3 Aboriginal Population
Approximately, one-third of all Aboriginal children under the age of 15 in Census families lived in a lone-parent family, twice the rate within the general population. The rate was even higher in urban areas. About 46% of Aboriginal children under 15 in Census families who lived in a census metropolitan area were in a lone-parent family. One-quarter of the Aboriginal population reported that they had an Aboriginal language as mother tongue. Cree was the largest Aboriginal mother tongue. The number of people who could speak an Aboriginal language was about 10% higher than the number who reported an Aboriginal mother tongue, indicating that a significant number of persons learned such a language later in life. (Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1998).

This mentions a very interesting issue. Conservative commentator Larry Elder frequently talks about this. Single parent households (mostly missing fathers), is a very good indicator of crime and education. And it cuts across race.

1.4 Demographic and Socio-Economic Data
Increasing evidence points to a strong correlation between socio-economic disadvantage and involvement with the criminal justice system. A large proportion of the Aboriginal population in Canada suffers socio-economic disadvantage in comparison to non-Aboriginal Canadians. The social and economic conditions outlined in the section below illustrates a correlation between these factors and Aboriginal involvement with the criminal justice system. Poverty, inadequate educational opportunities, unemployment, poor living conditions, alcohol abuse and domestic violence all contribute to Aboriginal people coming into conflict with the law. The challenges to which the criminal justice system must respond are rooted in addressing these disadvantaged conditions.

These problems are prevalent, in particularly on remote reserves. To be fair, it isn’t restricted to reserves. It is heartbreaking to hear the problems and 3rd world conditions.

1.8 Suicide
Suicide is approximately three times more common among Aboriginal people than non-Aboriginal people. It is also five to six times more prevalent among Aboriginal youth than non-Aboriginal youth. In First Nations communities, suicide is more prevalent among the young and usually results from feelings of hopelessness and despair.

Wow. Just wow.

2.4 Urban vs. Rural Aboriginal Offenders
A recent study (Johnston, 1997) of Aboriginal inmates incarcerated in Canadian federal penitentiaries found that one-quarter (24%) of the group had originally came from reserve or remote areas; 44% originally came from rural areas, and 30% from urban areas. The interviewers did not ask about where the offenders had been living at the time of the offence. In addition, the study also found that a majority of the group had left their home community after their youth. Eighteen percent had lived in their home community all their life apart from periods spent incarcerated. Furthermore, the study found that 66% of the Aboriginal inmates incarcerated in federal penitentiaries were considered high-need. Forty-seven per cent were rated as both high-need and high-risk. A majority were rated by case management officers and other penitentiary staff who knew them, as having needs in the following areas:
-substance abuse needs (88%),
-personal/emotional needs (82%),
-employment needs (63%), and
-education needs (54%).

A large proportion were also rated as having needs in relation to:
-pro-criminal attitudes (49%),
-marital and family issues (42%),
-community functioning (36%),
-criminal associates (33%), and
-sexual offending (31%).

This is shocking. Almost 9 in 10 with substance abuse, 4 in 5 with personal needs, 2/3 with employment needs, and half lacking in education.

Canada is supposed to be a 1st world country, but standard of living for those away from any urban area are falling far short of what should be acceptable.

6. So Why Abolish Gladue?

Quite simply, it is a band-aid solution that ignores the real problems. “Rigging” the rules to let Aboriginal offenders off easier (or let them out earlier) turns a blind eye to the problems cited in the previous section. Lack of drinking water being one in the news lately.

Are Aboriginals disproportionately represented in criminal courts and jails? Yes, absolutely. The data and evidence for that is overwhelming.

But it is also plain and obvious that there are many problems with the more remote areas that should not be happening. Setting up different sentencing guidelines does nothing to address any of that.

It could easily be argued that problems with poverty, remote living, drugs, alcohol and domestic violence contribute to crime. These are the causes and crime is the effect. But Gladue gets it entirely backwards. It impacts the EFFECT, hoping to impact the CAUSES.

Hopefully this doesn’t come off as heartless. However, I view the “Gladue Rights” idea as completely missing the point, and ignoring genuine concerns.

7. Actually, There Is Discrimination

Instead of our Prime Minister blowing our money on virtue signalling foreign adventures, perhaps fixing the problems within our borders is a better approach.

  • Safe drinking water
  • Education/Work opportunities
  • Access to social services
  • Seriously evaluate if reserve system is sustainable

We certainly have money to blow on every UN adventure.

While the criminal justice system itself isn’t set up to discriminate, our government does. Entire sections of Canada’s population is left to die while we show the outside world how generous we are.

Gladue is the quick-fix that covers up the real problem.

Solutions #6: Abolish Human Rights Codes Entirely

1. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for the BC Human Rights Code.
CLICK HERE, for Morgane Oger cashing in on victimhood.
CLICK HERE, for instances of abusing human rights tribunals.

2. Quotes From BC HRC

Discrimination and intent
2 Discrimination in contravention of this Code does not require an intention to contravene this Code.

This is common throughout the various Provincial Codes. No intent is needed on the part of anyone. Contrast this with criminal law, where intent is a required element.

Purposes
3 The purposes of this Code are as follows:
(a) to foster a society in British Columbia in which there are no impediments to full and free participation in the economic, social, political and cultural life of British Columbia;
(b) to promote a climate of understanding and mutual respect where all are equal in dignity and rights;
(c) to prevent discrimination prohibited by this Code;
(d) to identify and eliminate persistent patterns of inequality associated with discrimination prohibited by this Code;
(e) to provide a means of redress for those persons who are discriminated against contrary to this Code.

A major goal is to promote a climate of understanding and mutual respect. Makes it more difficult when this “respect and understanding” are imposed by force.

Persistent patterns of inequality? However, except the solution is often to impose quotas or affirmative action programs.

Discriminatory publication
7 (1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or that group or class of persons.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication, a communication intended to be private or a communication related to an activity otherwise permitted by this Code.

Good to know. However, “private” and “intending to be private” are could be open to interpretation. Also, is this not treading dangerously close to supressing free speech?

Remedies
37 (1) If the member or panel designated to hear a complaint determines that the complaint is not justified, the member or panel must dismiss the complaint.
(2) If the member or panel determines that the complaint is justified, the member or panel
(a) must order the person that contravened this Code to cease the contravention and to refrain from committing the same or a similar contravention,
(b) may make a declaratory order that the conduct complained of, or similar conduct, is discrimination contrary to this Code,
(c) may order the person that contravened this Code to do one or both of the following:
(i) take steps, specified in the order, to ameliorate the effects of the discriminatory practice;
(ii) adopt and implement an employment equity program or other special program to ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups if the evidence at the hearing indicates the person has engaged in a pattern or practice that contravenes this Code, and
(d) if the person discriminated against is a party to the complaint, or is an identifiable member of a group or class on behalf of which a complaint is filed, may order the person that contravened this Code to do one or more of the following:
(i) make available to the person discriminated against the right, opportunity or privilege that, in the opinion of the member or panel, the person was denied contrary to this Code;
(ii) compensate the person discriminated against for all, or a part the member or panel determines, of any wages or salary lost, or expenses incurred, by the contravention;
(iii) pay to the person discriminated against an amount that the member or panel considers appropriate to compensate that person for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect or to any of them.

Yes, hurt feelings, dignity and self respect are worth money. How would you even disprove that?

Can order someone to stop doing something, because a person said their feelings were hurt.

For what it’s worth, is a complaint is found to be not justified it must be dismissed. That’s something.

Exemptions
41 (1) If a charitable, philanthropic, educational, fraternal, religious or social organization or corporation that is not operated for profit has as a primary purpose the promotion of the interests and welfare of an identifiable group or class of persons characterized by a physical or mental disability or by a common race, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, political belief, colour, ancestry or place of origin, that organization or corporation must not be considered to be contravening this Code because it is granting a preference to members of the identifiable group or class of persons.
(2) Nothing in this Code prohibits a distinction on the basis of age if that distinction is permitted or required by any Act or regulation.

Interesting. You can’t discriminate against people based on protected grounds, unless the entire group is devoted to promoting based on a protected ground.

Of course, this exemption likely wouldn’t apply to men, whites, or straight people.

Special programs
42 (1) It is not discrimination or a contravention of this Code to plan, advertise, adopt or implement an employment equity program that
(a) has as its objective the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups who are disadvantaged because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, and
(b) achieves or is reasonably likely to achieve that objective.
(2) [Repealed 2002-62-23.]
(3) On application by any person, with or without notice to any other person, the chair, or a member or panel designated by the chair, may approve any program or activity that has as its objective the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups.
(4) Any program or activity approved under subsection (3) is deemed not to be in contravention of this Code.

So it is wrong to discriminate based on “protected grounds” unless those groups are considered “disadvantaged”. Then go for it.

And from Section 41, it is wrong to discriminate against a group. That is unless you are part of a group whose main purpose is to discriminate on other groups.

Non-compellability of commissioner and staff
47.10 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the commissioner, and anyone acting for or under the direction of the commissioner, must not be compelled to give evidence in court or in any other proceedings respecting any information received in the course of exercising powers or performing duties under this Code.
(2) The commissioner, and anyone acting for or under the direction of the commissioner, may be compelled to give evidence in a prosecution of an offence under this Code.

Interesting. Staff “can” be compelled to appear for an HRT hearing, but not for Court or other matters.

Personal liability protection of commissioner and staff
47.11 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no legal proceeding for damages lies or may be commenced or maintained against the commissioner, or against a person acting for or under the direction of the commissioner, because of anything done or omitted
(a) in the exercise or intended exercise of any power under this Code, or
(b) in the performance or intended performance of any duty under this Code.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person referred to in that subsection in relation to anything done or omitted by that person in bad faith.

As long as the Commissioner and staff “claim” that everything is in good faith, then they can’t be held liable. How exactly do you prove “bad faith”?

3. So Why Abolish Entirely?


To summarize (using BC as a model):

  • Intent not necessary to get a finding against you
  • Discrimination okay, if it is your group identity
  • Discrimination okay, if for affirmative action
  • Encroaches on legitimate free speech territory
  • Hurt feelings are grounds for monetary compensation
  • Commissioner and staff, cannot be compelled to appear in outside hearings, REGARDLESS of the power which they are allowed to wield
  • Cannot take action against staff unless you can prove “bad faith”, an almost impossible standard
  • Terminology is broad and open to overreach
  • These tribunals are allowed to behave as courts do, and implement court-style punishments. However, there are almost no standards when it comes to deciding what is a violation.

    Ancient ideas, past their due date.

    Solutions #5: Restoring The 1934 Bank Of Canada Act

    (Bank for International Settlements, or BIS)

    (Basel Committee)

    1. Important Links


    (Other articles on central banking)
    CLICK HERE, for Part II, the COMER Case.
    CLICK HERE, for Part III, US Federal Reserve (End The Fed)
    CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Debt Reports & Email From Ministry.
    CLICK HERE, for Part V, Globalist Approved Talking Points.
    CLICK HERE, for Part VI, answers from Bank of Canada email.
    CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Mark Carney as new UN Envoy.

    CLICK HERE, for StatsCan data on National debt.

    CLICK HERE, for the Bank for International Settlements.
    CLICK HERE, for BIS mainpage.
    CLICK HERE, for the 60 banks which own BIS.
    CLICK HERE, for the Basil Committee.

    CLICK HERE, for an interesting article from Canadian Dimension.
    CLICK HERE, for an article from www.globalresearch.ca.
    CLICK HERE, for a failed Court bid to reform the banking process in Canada
    CLICK HERE, for amended Statement of Claim.
    CLICK HERE, for the Bank of Canada Act, 1985 version.

    2. Some Background


    The Bank of Canada Act was passed in 1934. It allowed the Canadian Government to borrow from its own central bank, in a sense, to “borrow from itself”. However, things drastically changed in 1974. Pierre Trudeau changed it so that Canada would now be borrowing from “private banks”, and racking up debt and interest charges in the meantime.

    From the Global Research article:

    Between 1939 and 1974, the government actually did borrow from its own central bank. That made its debt effectively interest-free, since the government owned the bank and got the benefit of the interest. According to figures supplied by Jack Biddell, a former government accountant, the federal debt remained very low, relatively flat, and quite sustainable during those years. (See his chart below.) The government successfully funded major public projects simply on the credit of the nation, including the production of aircraft during and after World War II, education benefits for returning soldiers, family allowances, old age pensions, the Trans-Canada Highway, the St. Lawrence Seaway project, and universal health care for all Canadians.

    This is the main takeaway here: Borrowing from your own central bank effectively makes the loans interest free, since you are borrowing from yourself as opposing to borrowing from someone else.

    From the Canadian Dimension article:

    The critical point is that between 1939 and 1974 the federal government borrowed extensively from its own central bank. That made its debt effectively interest-free, since the government owned the bank and got the benefit of any interest. As such Canada emerged from World War II and from all the extensive infrastructure and other expenditures with very little debt. But following 1974 came a dramatic change.

    Reiterating the point, that Canada was borrowing from itself until 1974.

    3. How Much Debt?


    Dollars (millions)
    Net federal government financial debt
    1930 $2,178
    1931 $2,262
    1932 $2,376
    1933 $2,596
    1934 $2,730
    1935 $2,846
    1936 $3,006
    1937 $3,084
    1938 $3,102
    1939 $3,153
    1940 $3,271
    1941 $3,649
    1942 $4,045
    1943 $6,183
    1944 $8,740
    1945 $11,298
    1946 $13,421
    1947 $13,048
    1948 $12,372
    1949 $11,776
    1950 $11,626
    1951 $11,427
    1952 $11,163
    1953 $11,151
    1954 $11,092
    1955 $11,229
    1956 $11,241
    1957 $10,967
    1958 $11,015
    1959 $11,627
    1960 $12,047
    1961 $12,394
    1962 $13,378
    1963 $14,079
    1964 $15,262
    1965 $15,748
    1966 $15,381
    1967 $15,866
    1968 $16,713
    1969 $17,396
    1970 $18,095
    1971 $18,581
    1972 $19,328
    1973 $20,123
    1974 $21,580
    1975 $24,769
    1976 $28,573
    1977 $32,629
    1978 $45,846
    1979 $59,040
    1980 $72,555
    1981 $86,280
    1982 $99,600
    1983 $128,302
    1984 $164,532
    1985 $209,891
    1986 $245,151
    1987 $276,735
    1988 $305,438
    1989 $333,519
    1990 $362,920
    1991 $395,075
    1992 $428,682
    1993 $471,061
    1994 $513,219
    1995 $550,685
    1996 $578,718
    1997 $588,402
    1998 $581,581
    1999 $574,468
    2000 $561,733
    2001 $545,300
    2002 $534,690
    2003 $526,492
    2004 $523,648
    2005 $523,344
    2006 $514,099
    2007 $508,122
    2008 $490,412

    See the source.

    In 1930, Canada’s national debt was about $2 billion. In $1974, it was about $20 billion. A decade after changes to the Act, the debt was about $160, or 8 times higher.

    Worth noting, that Brian Mulroney, who was PM from 1984 until 1993 added over $300 billion to the national debt.

    4. Fighting Back: Committee on Monetary & Economic Reform

    Supreme Court of Canada Dismisses Constitutional Bank of Canada Case, Claiming It Is a Political Matter

    We believe that the case has ample legal merit, and should have proceeded to trial. It is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to refuse leave on a given issue multiple times, finally to grant leave, hear the appeal and the case then succeeds. The Supreme Court controls its own agenda, both in its timing and on the merits of issues it will or will not hear. (Annually, fewer than 8–10% of all cases filed are granted permission and heard at the Supreme Court of Canada.)

    It should be noted that throughout this arduous and expensive legal process, the substance of this lawsuit initiated in the public interest has not been addressed. The matters raised by the lawsuit are summarized in the original news release (pdf) issued on December 19, 2011.)

    See the source

    A 5 1/2 year legal fight to restore the original central banking. Even more frustrating is that the Courts have never really addressed the issues which led to the challenge in the first place.

    The Supreme Court says it is a “political matter”, but no politicians in Canada have the willpower to address it, never mind fix it. Even “socialist” and “populist” politicians seem unwilling to take it on.

    5. Who Are These People?

    About BIS – overview

    Our mission is to serve central banks in their pursuit of monetary and financial stability, to foster international cooperation in those areas and to act as a bank for central banks.

    Established in 1930, the BIS is owned by 60 central banks, representing countries from around the world that together account for about 95% of world GDP. Its head office is in Basel, Switzerland and it has two representative offices: in Hong Kong SAR and in Mexico City.

    We pursue our mission by:

    • fostering discussion and facilitating collaboration among central banks
    • supporting dialogue with other authorities that are responsible for promoting financial stability
    • carrying out research and policy analysis on issues of relevance for monetary and financial stability
    • acting as a prime counterparty for central banks in their financial transactions
    • serving as an agent or trustee in connection with international financial operations

    As part of our work in the area of monetary and financial stability, we regularly publish related analyses and international banking and financial statistics that underpin policymaking, academic research and public debate.

    With regard to our banking activities, our customers are central banks and international organisations. We do not accept deposits from, or provide financial services to, private individuals or corporate entities.

    Supposedly, the Bank for International Settlements is “owned” by 60 central banks. It then facilitates discussions between those 60 banks. In short, it is a global collusion to fix monetary policies.

    Interesting that the “central banks” are supposed to be owned by their respective nations, yet, BIS recommends borrowing from “private” bankers. Almost as if it wasn’t acting in the nations’ self interests.

    6. Not in Canada’s Interests


    This should be obvious, but borrowing from private banks is not in Canada’s best interests, nor any nations. This is bankrupting our nation, to enrich global bankers.

    Restore the 1934 Bank of Canada Act, and let us take back control over our own finances.

    Curious, even when national and provincial debts are in the news so much, no one asks the obvious question. Why are we jacking up our debt by borrowing from private banks?

    Solutions #4: Stop Replacement Migration, Have Bigger Families


    (UN Promotes replacement migration)


    (Hungary proposes making it more affordable for Hungarian women to have children)

    CLICK HERE, for the topic of “REPLACEMENT MIGRATION”.
    CLICK HERE, for March 2000 Report.

    NEW REPORT ON REPLACEMENT MIGRATION ISSUED BY UN POPULATION DIVISION
    20000317

    NEW YORK, 17 March (DESA) — The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled “Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.

    United Nations projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of Japan and virtually all countries of Europe will most likely decline. In a number of cases, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Italy, countries would lose between one quarter and one third of their population. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of population to historically unprecedented high levels. For instance, in Italy, the median age will rise from 41 years in 2000 to 53 years in 2050. The potential support ratio — i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person — will often be halved, from 4 or 5 to 2.
    Focusing on these two striking and critical trends, the report examines in detail the case of eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). In each case, alternative scenarios for the period 1995-2050 are considered, highlighting the impact that various levels of immigration would have on population size and population ageing.

    Major findings of this report include:
    — In the next 50 years, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of low fertility and increased longevity. In contrast, the population of the United States is projected to increase by almost a quarter. Among the countries studied in the report, Italy is projected to register the largest population decline in relative terms, losing 28 per cent of its population between 1995 and 2050, according to the United Nations medium variant projections. The population of the European Union, which in 1995 was larger than that of the United States by 105 million, in 2050, will become smaller by 18 million.

    — Population decline is inevitable in the absence of replacement migration. Fertility may rebound in the coming decades, but few believe that it will recover sufficiently in most countries to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future.

    – 2 – Press Release DEV/2234 POP/735 17 March 2000

    — Some immigration is needed to prevent population decline in all countries and regions examined in the report. However, the level of immigration in relation to past experience varies greatly. For the European Union, a continuation of the immigration levels observed in the 1990s would roughly suffice to prevent total population from declining, while for Europe as a whole, immigration would need to double. The Republic of Korea would need a relatively modest net inflow of migrants — a major change, however, for a country which has been a net sender until now. Italy and Japan would need to register notable increases in net immigration. In contrast, France, the United Kingdom and the United States would be able to maintain their total population with fewer immigrants than observed in recent years.

    — The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent the decline of the total population are considerably larger than those envisioned by the United Nations projections. The only exception is the United States.

    — The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent declines in the working- age population are larger than those needed to prevent declines in total population. In some cases, such as the Republic of Korea, France, the United Kingdom or the United States, they are several times larger. If such flows were to occur, post-1995 immigrants and their descendants would represent a strikingly large share of the total population in 2050 — between 30 and 39 per cent in the case of Japan, Germany and Italy.

    — Relative to their population size, Italy and Germany would need the largest number of migrants to maintain the size of their working-age populations. Italy would require 6,500 migrants per million inhabitants annually and Germany, 6,000. The United States would require the smallest number — 1,300 migrants per million inhabitants per year.

    — The levels of migration needed to prevent population ageing are many times larger than the migration streams needed to prevent population decline. Maintaining potential support ratios would in all cases entail volumes of immigration entirely out of line with both past experience and reasonable expectations.

    — In the absence of immigration, the potential support ratios could be maintained at current levels by increasing the upper limit of the working-age population to roughly 75 years of age.

    — The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require a comprehensive reassessment of many established policies and programmes, with a long-term perspective. Critical issues that need to be addressed include: (a) the appropriate ages for retirement; (b) the levels, types and nature of retirement and health care benefits for the elderly; (c) labour force participation; (d) the assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers to support retirement and health care benefits for the elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration,

    – 3 – Press Release DEV/2234 POP/735 17 March 2000

    in particular, replacement migration and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.
    The report may be accessed on the internet site of the Population Division (http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm). Further information may be obtained from the office of Joseph Chamie, Director, Population Division, United Nations, New York, NY, 10017, USA; tel. 1-212-963-3179; fax 1-212-963-2147.

    Hungary understands
    Far better than “importing” replacement populations, Hungary has decided to make it more affordable to have their own children. Recently, Prime Minister Victor Orban announced a policy that women who have 4 children or more will no longer pay income tax. The goal is to encourage women to have more children, and reverse falling birth rates.

    By growing your own population, you don’t have to worry about “multiculturalism”. You don’t have to hope that a group assimilates and adopts your values. There isn’t language and culture clash, like their is with mass migration.

    Mostly importantly, you don’t have to worry about cultures (like Islam) INTENTIONALLY REFUSING to assimilate and replace your way of life with their way of life.

    Note: in small amounts, immigration “can” benefit a nation. But mass migration to “replace” the dwindling old-stock simply leads to the disappearance of the host culture and people.

    Conservatism & Libertarianism fail
    In order to preserve a nation, unity and common bonds are far more important than merely “keeping the numbers up”. There is more to a nation than number of people, GDP, and economic growth. Nationalists understand this. Conservatives and Libertarians do not.

    Canada — and all nations — wanting to grow, should follow the Hungarian lead of boosting its own population. Forget about using replacement migration as a solution.

    Solutions #3: Dump Multiculturalism, Feminism Althogether

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

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

    If Canada wants to move forward as a strong, unified country, here are 2 related ideas:

    (1) Get rid of multiculturalism
    (2) Get rid of feminism

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

    Seehere, the Multiculturalism Act.

    ”Multiculturalism Policy of Canada
    Marginal note:Multiculturalism policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Hate Crime Laws Divide By Identity

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


    Public incitement of hatred

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

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

    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred

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

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

    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    Marginal note:Defences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

    Here is an extreme case of feminist thinking gone wrong:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “I hired a team of seven staff and set up an office in Richmond upon Thames, Surrey. While the women I interviewed claimed to be enthused by the idea, they still insisted on high salaries. Fair enough, I thought at the time – they are professionals, and I knew most of them were talented and conscientious because I’d worked with them before.

    But within a week, two cliques had developed: those who had worked together before and those who were producing ‘new ideas’.

    Most days would bring a pointed moment when some people were invited out for lunch or a coffee break – and some weren’t. Nothing explicit was ever said; the cutting rejection was obvious enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (2) Vladmir Putin, by comparison, comes across as very reasonable and realistic in this video. Someone who actually puts country ahead of identity, be it racial, gender, or otherwise.

    Solutions #2: (Canada Should Leave The U.N. Entirely)

    (The U.S. leaving the UN Human Rights Council. The violators are part of the council)

    (The Hungarian Foreign Minister defending “legal-only” migration)

    CLICK HERE, for the main page of the United Nations (in English).

    The main argument here is that Canada would be MUCH better off as a country if we left the United Nations, permanently. No deals, no special arrangements, no reform, just leave forever.

    For the political junkies, take this to heart: traditional arguments of “left v.s. right” are no longer relevant. The choice we must face is the “globalist v.s. nationalist” one. Is Canada a sovereign nation, one that determines its own future, or is it a U.N. colony or puppet state? If Canada is to be a free and independent nation, then the U.N. is the last thing we need. Here are several reasons, each to be explored.

    (1) The U.N. Articles are incompatible with free and sovereign nations.
    (2) The U.N. destroys borders through political means.
    (3) The U.N. destroys borders through direct means.
    (4) The U.N. destroys national sovereignty
    (5) The U.N. erodes individual cultures and societies.
    (6) The U.N. has become a money pit, with the climate change scam
    (7) The U.N. funds do not go where they are supposed to
    (8) The U.N. “councils” are beyond hypocritical.
    (9) The U.N. would just be a bigger version of the E.U.

    Of course, this list could be much, MUCH longer. However, the point is to demonstrate that the U.N. is a globalist institution, and that it has no respect for individual nations.

    (1) The U.N. Articles are incompatible with free and sovereign nations.

    Click here, for the full text, but here are some worth noting:

    Article 8
    The United Nations shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of men and women to participate in any capacity and under conditions of equality in its principal and subsidiary organs.

    This is a bit amusing, since many of its members do not believe in women’s rights.

    Article 19
    A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a Member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the Member.

    No money, no vote. Sort of a pay-to-play system.

    Article 24
    In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
    In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII.
    The Security Council shall submit annual and, when necessary, special reports to the General Assembly for its consideration.

    Article 25
    The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

    So, if 8 nations got together, they could override the nation’s sovereignty. Great idea.

    Article 32
    Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council or any state which is not a Member of the United Nations, if it is a party to a dispute under consideration by the Security Council, shall be invited to participate, without vote, in the discussion relating to the dispute. The Security Council shall lay down such conditions as it deems just for the participation of a state which is not a Member of the United Nations.

    Yes, no joke, you won’t even get a vote if you are not on the council.

    Article 41
    The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

    Article 42
    Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations

    If this weren’t the United Nations doing this, it would seem an awful lot like the mafia. There are more clauses, but the point here has been made. Signing on with the U.N. means losing control of your country.

    (2) The U.N. destroys borders through political means.
    This was addressed in an earlier article. The U.N. does try to push mass immigration (a.k.a. “open borders”) on the rest of the world. The latest effort is the global compact for migration, which would effectively give the U.N. control over the host countries’ borders.

    Interestingly, the U.N. site has both a: compact for migration and a compact on refugees. However, the U.N. seems hell bent on pushing migrants.

    (3) The U.N. destroys borders through direct means.
    It is not enough for the U.N. to destroy borders with political means. The agency also directly aids and abets others, such as the Honduran migrant caravan. The U.N. openly admits helping to help thousands of economic migrants “illegally” get into the U.S.

    And they admit it here.

    “IOM maintains its position that the human rights and basic needs of all migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status,” said Christopher Gascon, UN Migration’s Chief of Mission in Mexico.

    In other words, we don’t care if they are illegal economic migrants. How is this not human smuggling? Further, the U.N. has been known to help flood Europe with more than 1 million “refugees” since 2015.

    (4) The U.N. destroys national sovereignty
    Too many examples to cite, but here are a few from the U.N. website.

    (a) If you think Trudeau is bad, gender neutral language is a serious thing here.

    (b) The U.N. is big on stopping terrorism, but its efforts are seriously called into question considering how much it pushes migration.

    (c) The Human Rights Council has ruled that the French burka ban is a human rights violation. Interestingly, the Council doesn’t mention that being forced to wear it is a human right, or the security risk it poses is an issue.

    (d) Of course, it wouldn’t be complete without gender quotas.

    (e) Here is some Trudeau style concern for ISIS terrorists.

    (5) The U.N. erodes individual cultures and societies.

    The U.N pages make many references to respecting religion and culture, particularly on the migration pages. Funny, they never mention assimilation

    Throughout its many sections on migration, the U.N. talks about how religions and cultures need to be respected, but notably absent is any expectation to respect the host country. Acceptance has to be a 2-way street.

    (6) The U.N. has become a money pit, with the climate change scam
    This was covered in a another article. The short story is that the U.N. is knowingly pushing a bogus climate change narrative, in order to extract large amounts of money, for “polluting” with carbon dioxide.

    (7) The U.N. funds do not go where they are supposed to
    There are many examples, but an infamous one was the oil for food program imposed on Iraq after the 1991 invasion of Kuwait. Under the scheme, Iraq could keep exporting oil, and the proceeds were supposed to help the citizenry. However, the program served largely to enrich Saddam Hussein and his family, while leaving the population in poor conditions.

    (8) The U.N. “councils” are beyond hypocritical.
    This was alluded to in the video at the start.
    Members with the worst human rights records are part of the Human Rights Council. See here for the 2018 list. The list includes: Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, U.A.E., and others

    The U.N. Status of Women Council is just as big a joke. Their membership, elected for 4 year terms, includes: Algeria, Congo, Kenya, Iraq, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and others.

    The Human Rights Council is filled with member states who don’t believe in human rights. The Status of Women Council is filled with member states who don’t believe women should have equal right. Kind of flies in the face of the U.N.’s own declarations.

    (9) The U.N. would just be a bigger version of the E.U.
    Where to start here. The E.U. triggered Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty against both Hungary and Poland for rejecting “migrant quotas”, which would strip them of their voting rights. Yes, Poland and Hungary might lose voting rights for daring to say that “they” will choose who lives in their own countries.

    Italy has had its budget blocked by the EU. Yes, the democratically elected government needs to get approval of their own budget. Brexit was a rejection of E.U. controls, and Nigel Farage addresses it well.

    While there are too many examples to cite, the point with #9, is that the European Union effectively destroys the sovereignty of the European States. The U.N. would just be a global example of the same problem.

    Does the U.N. do any good?
    I would argue, yes, to a point. However, we need to be concerned with our borders, and the sovereignty of our national policies. Becoming a province of the U.N. will only destroy Canada, as will flooding our borders with migrants (the U.N. doesn’t pretend they are refugees at times).

    As for worthwhile causes, it would be better to decide for ourselves on a case by case basis whether to add any funding, or to send any personnel.

    The battle for Canada will not be Left v. Right, or of Liberal v. Conservative, or of Poor v. Rich. It will be of Globalism v. Nationalism. As such, Canada should get the heck out of the U.N.

    Canada for Canadians.

    Solutions #1: Offering Something To The Other Side

    Disclaimer: The views are personal and no claim is made that they represent any other person, policy or party.

    Maxime Bernier makes policy arguments about why he left the CPC: (a) Equalization formula being unfair; (b) Supply management screwing over Canadians; (c) Free trade not supported by CPC members; (d) Trade war looming with U.S. over NAFTA and tariffs; (e) Corporate subsidies, to Ford, Bombardier, and others, which are a form of welfare; (f) Bloating bureaucracy with new ministers; (g) Vote buying in individual regions; (h) Refusing to discuss immigration and multiculturalism for fear of offending; (i) Pandering to ethnic groups and identity politics to buy votes; (j) Relying on polls and focus groups rather than having principles; (k) CPC has become morally bankrupt and stands for nothing; (l) Politics should be done differently

    Andrew Scheer makes personal arguments about why Bernier left the party: (a) MB refusing to accept his 2017 loss; (b) MB is selfish; (c) MB needs to offer ideas and never did; (d) MB is putting personal ambition over party success.

    At 0:20 (in the top video), Bernier states: ”My job is to offer solutions from a conservative perspective. Otherwise, what would be the point of getting involved in politics?”

    Here is the main point of the article. Bernier started the PPC in order to advance conservative ideas, and to offer an alternative voice to millions of Canadians. However, there are some conservative policies that can benefit more left leaning voters as well, if the benefits are discussed honestly.

    In order to attract Canadians from all areas on the political spectrum, it is necessary to offer ideas that benefit Canadians from all sides of the political spectrum. Not to pander to any particular group, but to offer common solutions.

    Here are some ideas: (1) Lowering immigration; (2) Ending identity politics; (3) Promoting unity; (4) Dismantling crown corporations; (5) Environmental Protection.

    #1: Cutting Immigration Benefits Low Income Canadians

    This is not to assert at all that there are not benefits to limited and controlled immigration. And to preempt any such claims, no, it is not a call to racial supremacy. However, there are a number of valid arguments to support this position:

    (a) The employment rate is a supply/demand type of issue. When the number of job seekers (supply) rises, then the relative need (demand) falls. It means more people competing for fewer jobs, and that employers are in a position to pay less. That impacts lower earners the most. This is not racial claim in any way, just acknowledging a fact: more workers for less jobs drives down wages. Ann Coulter explains it very well.

    (b) As social justice types like to point out, people usually don’t commit crime because they are bad, but often because of poverty, society, and lack of opportunities. To a degree, they are right. By that logic, wouldn’t it reduce some of the stressers that lead to crime?

    (c) Housing prices, likewise, are also determined in a supply/demand fashion. See this article. More people competing for the same amount of housing drives prices up for both buying and renting.

    (d) School learning may be drastically altered depending on the demographics and size of the immigration. For example, in California, Proposition 58 overturned the requirement that school be taught in English. Many parents were outraged that American born students were now having lessons taught in Spanish. This isn’t bigotry. The U.S. is an English country. And who attends public schools as opposed to private schools?

    (e) Publicly funded health care is something the left claims is fundamental to being a Canadian. And to a degree, they are right. However, with higher immigration rates, it will put a burden on Canada’a public system, especially for those coming from countries where health care is relatively lacking. This results in longer wait times, and it won’t be the wealthy in those long waiting lines. It will be lower income people.

    (f) If less money is spent on immigration programs, then there will be more money available to promotes Canadians to have more children. Which socio-economic group would benefit most from that?

    (g) Regarding illegal immigration, the above still applies, but with the added downside that it is a slap in the face to those who come through legally. It rewards people for breaking the law, and punishes those who follow the law.


    #2: Ending Identity Politics Benefits All Canadians

    This could have been added to #1, but after some thought, it deserves its own category.

    As Canadians, we are one people. Yes, we have equality based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc…. But just because we are equal under all these criteria, does not mean we must constantly focus on all these criteria.

    Many people come every year to Canada, to be Canadian. They want to be a part of the society, not to be singled out for their differences. Identity politics makes this a problem since you are nothing but part of an identity group (or groups) under this system. As such, what we have in common as a nation should be the focus of our talks and discussions.

    That is explained here, here, here, and here. We do not need race hustlers like this, or like this.

    Identity politics is division. Full stop.

    That said, it still is baffling how people who support identity politics are offended by the idea of a national identity. A nation is reflected by its people. Rather than standing as one unit (albeit with some internal differences), those would support dividing the nation into small tribes that consider each other enemies.

    This is not the message we should be sending to newcomers. We are one people.


    #3: Unity is Our Strength, Regardless of Your Politics

    The whole idea of multiculturalism is absurd. Having nothing in common with your neighbours does not make for a strong society. Tolerating everything, including this, becomes more important than defining what a nation is. To repeat, we can have differences between people, and different groups of people, but there has to be something that binds us together.

    Civic nationalism is the concept that a nation and its people are held together by civic values, such as freedom and equality. The nation are bonded by abstract ideas, which are shared and promoted within. There certainly is a strong case to made that values and laws bind us.

    However, what makes one civic nationalist country different than another? Don’t they all support freedom, tolerance and equality? And besides values, don’t people need something to bond them? If not values, then identity?

    Tucker Carlson argued at PolitiCon that a common language is a strong unifier. Vladimir Putin argued that religion is such a unifier. Writer Steve Turley argues that religion and cultural traditions are what hold a society together. Candace Malcolm wrote that diversity is only one part of the picture. Maxime Bernier himself tweeted about focusing on traditions. All argue a form of ethno nationalism. (And no, it doesn’t have to be about race). There are many of these types of unifiers, but the underlying element is that the people have to have something in common. Values alone is insufficient.

    Nations have been splitting up over the last century because they had nothing in common. They were balkanised. One exception is East and West Germany reuniting because they had a common language and culture.

    It would be far more productive than what the status quo to have an honest discussion about what unites us as Canadians, and how we can make the society more cohesive. Unity is our strength.


    #4: Dismantling Crown Corporations Makes Things Affordable

    In short, a private business must operate efficiently in order to survive. If it delivers poor service, strikes frequently, or has huge cost overruns, then it goes out of business.

    A government agency, for the most part, does not have to worry about such things. It is being supported by the public, and usually holds a monopoly. If it is run inefficiently, just raise taxes. If the workers strike every year, oh well. If the service and employees are truly awful, it doesn’t matter, as they are the only game in town.

    2 such examples are ICBC, and Canada Post. Privatizing services where possible leads to more affordable products.


    #5: Protecting the Environment Benefits Everyone

    The UN global warming summits are a complete hoax. Polluting is okay as long as you pay a tax, or fly tens of thousands of people every year to summits to discuss cutting carbon emissions.

    However, that is not to say there are not significant issues to address. There are: lacks of clean drinking water in areas; forest fires in the west annually; issues around oil extraction and pipelines; air quality in some areas; hazards in mining; forestry and invasive species; and many other problems.

    The environment should be of everyone’s concern regardless of whether you view it from: an individual point of view, or a societal point of view. Unfortunately, when money and politics gets involved, honesty is about the first thing to go.

    Admission: I don’t know nearly enough to advocate for specific policies. However, this is an issue which we have a common interest.


    The list could go on, but Part 1 will stop here. Expect a followup article.

    Despite personally having conservative/libertarian views, it does not mean that reaching out is impossible.

    Bring the lefties/normies to the other side where possible. There is much we have in common, and there are so many laws and policies that can benefit us all. We should focus on solutions for everyone, rather than pandering to each ”tribe” or ”clan”.

    Unity is strength.
    Diversity (of thought) is strength.