Today is the 40th anniversary of the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. This is to focus on the civil side (such as custody issues). While this seems impressive, Canada has done much domestically and internationally to undermine and weaken the principles. Even the UN has studied the connection between illegal border crossings and smuggling, trafficking and child exploitation. Quite simply, without real borders, the Hague Convention is meaningless.
1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation
For the previous work in the TSCE series. This is the 40th anniversary of the Hague Convention of Child Abduction. However, Governments ensure that it will continue. Also, take a look at open borders movement, the abortion and organs industry, and the NGOs who are supporting it. This is information that won’t be found in the mainstream or alternative media.
CLICK HERE, for FIPA agreement Canada/China. CLICK HERE, for previous review on FIPA. CLICK HERE, for CD18.5, sanctuary for illegals in Toronto. CLICK HERE, for Toronto EC5.5, human and sex trafficking resolution. CLICK HERE, for Canadian Labour Congress on sanctuary cities.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-6, citizenship for terrorists. CLICK HERE, for Bill C-32, lowering age of consent for anal. CLICK HERE, for Bill C-75, reduced criminal penalties. CLICK HERE, for 2nd review of Bill C-75 (child offences). CLICK HERE, for asking if Gov’t actually supports trafficking.
The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where –
a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and
b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or
would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.
The Convention shall apply to any child who was habitually resident in a Contracting State immediately before any breach of custody or access rights. The Convention shall cease to apply when the child attains the age of 16 years.
For the purposes of this Convention –
a) “rights of custody” shall include rights relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child’s place of residence;
b) “rights of access” shall include the right to take a child for a limited period of time to a place other than the child’s habitual residence.
Any person, institution or other body claiming that a child has been removed or retained in breach of custody rights may apply either to the Central Authority of the child’s habitual residence or to the Central Authority of any other Contracting State for assistance in securing the return of the child.
The application shall contain –
a) information concerning the identity of the applicant, of the child and of the person alleged to have removed or retained the child;
b) where available, the date of birth of the child;
c) the grounds on which the applicant’s claim for return of the child is based;
d) all available information relating to the whereabouts of the child and the identity of the person with whom the child is presumed to be.
The application may be accompanied or supplemented by –
e) an authenticated copy of any relevant decision or agreement;
f) a certificate or an affidavit emanating from a Central Authority, or other competent authority of the State of the child’s habitual residence, or from a qualified person, concerning the relevant law of that State;
g) any other relevant document.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that –
a) the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; or
b) there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.
The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the
child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate
to take account of its views.
In considering the circumstances referred to in this Article, the judicial and administrative authorities shall
take into account the information relating to the social background of the child provided by the Central
Authority or other competent authority of the child’s habitual residence.
The sole fact that a decision relating to custody has been given in or is entitled to recognition in the requested State shall not be a ground for refusing to return a child under this Convention, but the judicial or administrative authorities of the requested State may take account of the reasons for that decision in applying this Convention.
In short, this is an international agreement to enforce child custody orders, or family disputes. Note: the children don’t have to be return if administrators determine there is some danger. Unfortunately, this seems entirely subjective.
4. Announcement From Global Affairs Canada
October 25, 2020 – Ottawa, Ontario – Global Affairs Canada
The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, today issued the following statement:
“Today, we mark the 40th anniversary of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
“Every year, in Canada and abroad, thousands of children are wrongfully taken across international borders by a parent or guardian in violation of rights of custody. This has devastating effects on families, and it is the children who suffer the most. Children must be at the heart of family justice, and mechanisms like the Hague Convention on child abduction are essential in order to assist them in these terrible situations.
“Canada, along with 100 contracting states, continues to support this global effort to protect children from wrongful removal or retention and return them to their country of residence. We continue to call on the global community to join us and to ratify this important convention.
“We are committed to working with our international partners to continue to protect children and to reinforce the operation of the convention.”
While this all sounds fine, it should be noted that Canada has done a lot, both domestically, and with international treaties to weaken and undermine the spirit of this agreement.
What other treaties or bills do this?
5. Canada’s Bills/Treaties Since 1980
Here are some of the major developments in Canada in the last few decades. All of these either weaken the borders and/or reduce the criminal penalties involved.
UN Agenda 21 (1992)
Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement (2002)
Sanctuary cities (First in 2013)
CANZUK: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK (2015)
UN Agenda 2030 (2015)
New York Declaration (2016)
Bill C-6 citizenship for terrorists (2016)
Bill C-32/C-75 (2018)
UN Global Migration Compact (2018)
USMCA, NAFTA 2.0 (2020)
It doesn’t matter who’s in power. They’re all globalists.
6. Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement
CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;
(1) The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
(2) These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
(3) The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.
Source is here. Serious question: why have Canada and the United States signed an agreement that quite clearly gives the UN a seat at the table?
The treaty was pretty ineffective anyway, given that people could still get into the country as long as they BYPASSED legal border ports. Now, thanks to the Federal Court, the agreement is effectively dead.
Of course, the tens of thousands entering Canada illegally in recent years pales in comparison to the hordes of LEGAL migrants entering under various programs.
7. FIPA Between Canada And China
FIPA largely eliminated the border between Canada and the Chinese. This means that Chinese nationals can freely enter Canada, almost without restrictions. They can also bring their own security to look after their national interests. Makes it easy to smuggle products — or people — into Canada.
8. Sanctuary Cities Forming In Canada
In 2013, Toronto became the first city in Canada to officially obtain status a sanctuary city. It was supported by “conservatives” Doug and Rob Ford. How are child custody agreements supposed to be enforced overseas when children can simply disappear in one of them?
Now list includes: Toronto, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Edmonton and others. In the 2018 Ontario election, the NDP campaigned on turning Ontario into a sanctuary province.
9. CANZUK (CDA, Australia, New Zealand, UK)
The Trans-Tasmanian Partnership is an agreement between Australia and New Zealand to let citizens work and freely travel in each other’s countries. CANZUK would essentially be an expansion of that agreement by adding both Canada and the UK. This is an actual open borders arrangement which could be further expanded.
CANZUK International was formed in 2015, and members of the CPC are some of its biggest supporters.
It’s also interesting how the justifications have changed. Previously, it was about opportunity. Now it’s about containing Chinese influence, which Conservatives allowed to grow in the first place. One obvious example is FIPA.
10. UN Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development
Agenda 2030 was signed in September 2015 by then PM Stephen Harper. It signs away more of Canada’s sovereignty to the “sustainable development agenda”, and makes mass migration across international borders even easier. So-called conservatives would be hard pressed to explain why this is okay, but why the Paris Accord and UN Global Migration Compact are so wrong. There is a lot of overlap with the content.
Worth a mention is that “Conservative” Brian Mulroney was in power in 1992 when Agenda 21 was signed in Brazil.
11. New York Declaration, UN GMC Prelude
This was signed in September 2016, just a year after Agenda 2030. The UN Global Migration Compact was largely based on this text. Both agreements are to make it easier to bring large numbers of people across borders, and to establish international standards. It’s not difficult to see how this would make child abduction and transportation easier to do.
12. Bill C-6, Citizenship For Terrorists
It cheapens Canadian citizenship when anyone can get it. This is especially true for convicted terrorists and traitors. There’s also the increased likelihood of people gaming the system to avoid being sent back, for say crimes against children.
13. Bill C-32/C-75, Reducing Criminal Penalties
If the government is concerned about the well being of children, then why would they introduce a bill to water down criminal penalties for sex crimes against children, and reduce the age of consent?
Section 58: Fraudulent use of citizenship
Section 159: Age of consent for anal sex
Section 172(1): Corrupting children
Section 173(1): Indecent acts
Section 180(1): Common nuisance
Section 182: Indecent interference or indignity to body
Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime
Bill C-75 “hybridized” these offences. What this means is that they were initially to be tried by indictment (felony), but now prosecutors have discretion to try them summarily (misdemeanor). Of course, there were plenty of Section 83 offences (terrorism) that were also hybridized.
14. UN Global Migration Compact
What is strange about the UNGMC is that its text explicitly undermines its stated goals. While the UN supposedly opposed smuggling, the agreement says people shall not be punished. And while condemning trafficking, the UN provides advice and guidance on how to do it more successfully.
15. USMCA, More Than Just Trade
The new USMCA (U.S., Mexico & Canada Agreement) is far more than just a trade agreement. It ensures that more “workers” will be coming across the borders, and cedes areas of labour rights to the UN.
16. How Does Any Of This Help Children?
Remember, this is the 40th anniversary on the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. Member states, (of which Canada is one), should take seriously the obligation to ensure that children are not taken across borders illegally, even if it’s by a parent, or some other guardian.
Instead, Canada signs treaties and passes bills that ensure that this will continue. Erasing borders, and reducing penalties does nothing to deter child smuggling. In fact, it only encourages it.
Sure, these changes don’t explicitly state moving children around illegally is a major goal (or even a goal at all). But as borders become less meaningful, this will certainly increase.
The Canadian Parliament held hearings on online pornography, and the exploitation of people (including children). Instead of reporting on that, it was used to promote the LBGTQ agenda. Talk about missing the point.
1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation
For the previous work in the TSCE series. Laws politicians pass absolutely ensure these obscenities will continue. This piece will focus on Parliament misusing M-47 for gay rights pandering, instead of reporting of exploiting women and children. Also, take a look at open borders movement, the abortion and organs industry, and the NGOs who are supporting it.
Brief Relating to Motion 47 – Gary B. Wilson
Thank you for inviting me to present evidence related to Motion 47. My concern is not with pornography use as such, but strictly with the digital porn widely consumed today. No doubt other witnesses will supply evidence linking internet porn (IP) to wider public health issues such as increased aggression, performer risks, and sex trafficking. I will focus on the aspects I know best: IP’s adverse effects on users, and the need for IP research to investigate causation.
Evidence suggests that today’s streamed IP videos are sui generis, with unique properties such as inexhaustible sexual novelty at a click or tap, effortless escalation to more extreme material, and ready accessibility for viewers of all ages, and that these unique properties are giving rise to severe symptoms in some consumers. Although a full review of research correlating IP use with social and personal problems is beyond the scope of this brief, existing studies associate IP use with greater anxiety, shyness, depression, poorer academic performance, ADHD9, body dysmorphia, and relationship dissatisfaction. Researchers have also linked IP use with arousal,
attraction, and sexual performance problems with partners, including difficulty orgasming and erectile dysfunction (ED), negative effects on partnered sex, a need for stronger pornographic material, and a preference for using IP to achieve and maintain arousal rather than having sex with a partner.
5. Witness: Cordelia Anderson
For the past 40 years, I’ve worked to promote sexual health and prevent sexual harm. While my early work involved treating prostituted women, sex offenders and survivors of sexual abuse/sexual violence, most of my focus has been on prevention. In 1976, I began my work and study at the Program in Human Sexuality (PHS), University of Minnesota. There, I was trained that pornography was harmless and in fact a useful aid for couples and individuals with sexual problems. I learned a lot of excellent information about sexuality, the importance of promoting sexual health and the harms of sexual oppression. However, my work after that point challenged and changed my thinking related to pornography. Next, I was asked to develop a child sexual abuse prevention program (no others existed at the time) in the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office and to work as a child victim advocate. Throughout this time, I also worked as a consulting therapist. I began to see a very different impact of pornography on individuals and culture.
I’ve conducted over 2,500 presentations and developed numerous educational materials including plays; most recently, “Fired Up” based on the stories of adult survivors or sexual abuse and exploitation. Throughout my career, I’ve tried to bring attention to what types of materials promote sexual health and functioning and what promotes sexual harms and dysfunction. In the 80’s I co-authored a play, “For Adults Only” that addressed many of these issues and then after all the changes with technology, in 2011, I wrote a booklet, “The Impact of Pornography on Children Youth and Culture.” In the past, we had qualitative data from stories and information from clinical practices, but now there is extensive research that speaks to an altered impact from advances in technology and an increasingly egregious sexually exploitive content.
6. Witness: Janet Zacharias
WOMEN AND EXPLOITATION
Pornography producers and consumers are mostly male (Dines, 2010; Gorman, MonkTurner & Fish, 2010). Moreover, women submission to any and all kinds of sexual acts without resistance are common in pornography.
An overall significant link between pornography use and beliefs that reinforce violence against women exists. (Hald, Malamuth & Yuen, 2010; Malamuth et al., 2012; Peter & Valkenburg, 2007).
*Behaviors such as rape are often significantly underreported for political reasons; thus, government statistics can be skewed and inaccurate (Phillips et al.,2015)
FORMS OF EXPLOITATION
Exploitation is the source of profits in trafficking in persons cases, and therefore, the key motivation for traffickers to carry out their crime. Traffickers, who may be more or less organized, conduct the trafficking process in order to gain financially from the exploitation of victims. The exploitation may take on a range of forms, but the principle that the more productive effort traffickers can extract from their victims, the larger the financial incentive to carry out the trafficking crime, remains. Victims may be subjected to various types of exploitation.
The two most frequently detected types are sexual exploitation and forced labour. The forced labour category is broad and includes, for example, manufacturing, cleaning, construction, textile production, catering and domestic servitude, to mention some of the forms that have been reported to UNODC. Victims may also be trafficked for the purpose of organ removal, or for various forms of exploitations that are not forced labour, sexual exploitation or organ removal. These forms have been categorized as ‘other forms of exploitation’ in this Report, and this Section will also examine the detections of these ‘other forms’ in some detail.
Information on the forms of exploitation was provided by 88 countries. It refers to a total of 30,592 victims of trafficking in persons detected between 2010 and 2012 whose form of exploitation was reported.
Looking first at the broader global picture, some 53 per cent of the victims detected in 2011 were subjected to sexual exploitation, whereas forced labour accounted for about 40 per cent of the total number of victims for whom the form of exploitation was reported.
Now, with all of this information, one would think that the bulk of the final report would cover abuse and sexual exploitation of vulnerable people. However, you would be wrong.
8. UN On Sale Of Children, Child Porn
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography
States Parties shall prohibit the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography as provided for by the present Protocol.
For the purposes of the present Protocol:
(a) Sale of children means any act or transaction whereby a child is transferred by any person or group of persons to another for remuneration or any other consideration;
(b) Child prostitution means the use of a child in sexual activities for remuneration or any other form of consideration;
(c) Child pornography means any representation, by whatever means, of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes.
In response to these concerns and reflecting the recommendations heard in oral testimony and presented in written submissions, the Committee therefore recommends that:
1. The Public Health Agency of Canada update the 2008 Canadian Guidelines for Sexual Health Education to address sexual health in the digital age, gender-based violence, consent, supplementary information for young people to learn about the different spectrum of sexual expressions and identities including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, intersex, queer, questioning, 2 spirited (LGBTQ2+) communities and provide support for their implementation.
2. The Public Health Agency of Canada, in collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, health care providers, public health and education experts and other relevant stakeholders, develop a Canadian sexual health promotion strategy that would provide comprehensive information on sexuality and sexual health that would include, but not be limited to, sexual identity, gender equity, gender-based violence, consent and behaviour in the digital age and possible risks of exposure to online violent and degrading sexually explicit materials and encourage its usage in school curriculums.
3. The Public Health Agency of Canada apply Gender-based Analysis Plus in the development of the proposed Canadian sexual health promotion strategy and in the update of the Canadian Guidelines for Sexual Health Education.
4. a. The Public Health Agency of Canada compile and make available:
a list of best practices, information, and currently available tools for parents and families on how to protect children from exposure to online sexually explicit material.
b. That technology companies, electronics manufacturers, software and browser developers work to create better content filters and tools that respect individual privacy while empowering parents to protect children online.
What, no mention of the trafficking, or exploitative nature of pornography? No recommendations to fight against people being forced into this “industry”? Way to miss the mark.
Sure, there is some mention of educating students on the issue of explicit materials, but it almost seems to be an afterthought.
This isn’t selective editing or quoting. The final report seems to be a very watered down version of what was actually submitted and discussed at the hearings.
Yes, this was actually discussed in several Parliamentary hearings in the Spring of 2019: should we decriminalize the failure to disclose HIV positive status in sexual encounters?
1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation
The TSCE series is a broad area, one that covers many overlapping topics. This includes the open borders agenda, organ harvesting, and various NGOs who help facilitate it. A subtopic for this article is using gay rights as a way to make this seem less wrong.
2. Just Another Scott Wiener Here?
California State Senator Scott Wiener was the subject of a recent piece. He helped pass legislation that reduced the penalty of KNOWINGLY spreading HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor. He also helped pass SB 145, which made sex offender registration optional for gay pedos.
This may be even worse, since proponents in the Canadian debate want to decriminalize non-disclosure of HIV status altogether.
In what should surprise no one, HIV Legal Network has been lobbying the Federal Government a lot over the last several years. Don’t worry, Canadian tax dollars are helping to pay for this.
HIV Legal Network is also not the only group trying to weaken the criminal penalties. There are several more.
5. Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund
One would think that a women’s group with a feminist tilt would be very concerned about removing penalties for crimes that can devastate women. Instead, Karen Segal of LEAF argued that non-disclosure of HIV during sexual encounters should be removed from the sexual assault laws, and possibly decriminalized altogether. Segal was more concerned with protecting the rights of causing this.
Remember LEAF? They come out with yet another anti-woman stance, this time, on protecting women from HIV infected people.
6. Recent Court Decision By ONCA
 Over a period of many months, after being diagnosed with HIV and warned about the need to disclose his HIV status to sexual partners, the appellant engaged in repeated acts of vaginal sexual intercourse with three different women. The appellant wore condoms but did not disclose his HIV-positive status and was not on antiretroviral medication. The complainants testified that they would not have consented to having sexual intercourse with the appellant had they been aware of his HIV-positive status.
 The appellant was charged with multiple offences, including three counts of aggravated sexual assault. The trial focused on whether the appellant’s failure to disclose his HIV status to the complainants, prior to sexual intercourse, constituted fraud vitiating their consent to that sexual activity in accordance with the principles laid down in R. v. Mabior, 2012 SCC 47,  2 S.C.R. 584. Although one of the complainants was diagnosed with HIV after her sexual relationship with the appellant, there was no proof that she contracted the virus from him.
And this goes to the heart of the matter: the other person would not have consented if the HIV status had been disclosed ahead of time. While these convictions were upheld, all of this can change if the Federal Government does implement changes to the criminal code.
5.1.1 Immediately Prohibiting the Use of Sexual Assault Provisions
The Committee agrees with witnesses that the use of sexual assault provisions to deal with HIV non-disclosure is overly punitive, contributes to the stigmatisation and discrimination against people living with HIV, and acts as a significant impediment to the attainment of our public health objectives. The consequences of such a conviction are
too harsh and the use of sexual assault provisions to deal with consensual sexual activities is simply not appropriate.
5.1.2 Limiting Criminalization to the Most Blameworthy Circumstances
The Committee believes that a new offence should be created in the Criminal Code to cover HIV non-disclosure cases in specific circumstances. The new offence should not be limited to HIV but cover the non-disclosure of infectious diseases in general. The Committee is of the view that people living with HIV should not be treated differently than people living with any other infectious disease.
That the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada immediately establish a federal-provincial working group to develop a common prosecutorial directive to be in effect across Canada
• to end criminal prosecutions of HIV non-disclosure, except in cases where there is actual transmission of the virus;
• to ensure that the factors to be respected for criminal prosecutions of HIV non-disclosure reflect the most recent medical science regarding HIV and its modes of transmission and only applies when there is actual transmission having regard to the realistic possibility of transmission. At this point of time, HIV non-disclosure should never be prosecuted if (1) the infected individual has an undetectable viral load (less than 200 copies per millilitre of blood); (2) condoms are used; (3) the infected individual’s partner is on PrEP or (4) the type of sexual act (such as oral sex) is one where there is a negligible risk of transmission.
The report is correct in one regard: that this shouldn’t be limited to HIV. However, it otherwise comes across as pretty indifferent to the real world consequences of withholding such information to a partner.
While it talks about creating a new offence, it would most likely have very minor penalties.
8. Lametti Promises To Implement If Re-Elected
The Liberals hope to address the criminalization of HIV nondisclosure if re-elected in the fall, the federal justice minister said Friday as advocacy groups pushed the government to make changes to the law.
HIV nondisclosure has led to assault or sexual assault charges because it’s been found to invalidate a partner’s consent — the rationale being that if someone knew a person had HIV, they wouldn’t consent to sexual activity because of the risk of transmission.
Advocates say the justice system lags behind the science on the issue, with a growing body of evidence saying there is no realistic possibility of transmission of HIV if a person is on antiretroviral therapy and has had a suppressed viral load for six months.
A parliamentary committee has been examining the issue for months and is expected to release a report with recommendations next week. Justice Minister David Lametti said the Liberals want to address the matter but won’t have time to act before the October election.
This misses the point. While antiretrovirals may be able to treat the person with HIV, the other person would likely still withdraw their consent anyway.
It must be noted however, that the CPC members on the committee dissented in their views.
(One of the many, MANY examples of Black Lives Matter harassing innocent bystanders. This was aired by Sky New Australia — of a DC restaurant — and shown August 25)
1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation
MSM outlets in the West intentionally avoid many topics. They ignore serious issues like human smuggling or trafficking, the link between open borders, and human smuggling, or between abortion and organ trafficking. These groups will also never get into the organizations NGOs who are pushing these agendas.
Even when slavery is brought up, it is solely in the context of Whites oppressing and enslaving others. The rest of slavery’s history is never discussed This would destroy the narrative that Whites owe everyone else reparations, and shatter the idea that Whites should forever feel guilt over distant ancestors.
2. Contribution By Blaise Vanne
Since whites are disproportionately incarcerated more than Asians, do Asians, many of who have been here since the 1800s, then owe whites reparations? Should Democrats, who have caused the black underclass in their leftist cities, be the ones who pay? Can we count the $15 to 22 trillion already spent in the War on Poverty towards this figure (and where we now have MORE poverty than when we started) towards reparations? Will the Learjet leftists in Hollyweird be forced to open up their zillion room mansions to house inner city blacks (think far left Tom Hanks’ 14,500 sq. foot mega mansion in Pacific Hts, bought for $36mm in 2020), or will their self-serving pandering be more than enough? Will Nancy Pelosi’s highly protected (by men with GUNS) mega- mansion in Pacific Hts, San Francisco take in squatters? Will you ask multimillionaire Bernie Sanders to open up one of his three houses, such as the $600k one with 500’ of Lake Champlain lakefront? Reparations up to $14 trillion were suggested to Bret Baier by black zillionaire BET president Bob Johnson, but given that black Harvard prof Henry Louis Gates says 388,000 Africans landed on N. American shores, total, while in contrast Dr. Robert Davis of Ohio State says up to 1.25 million Europeans were taken as slaves by Muslims to their lands during roughly same period (3 times as many!), with their corsairs even reaching as far as Iceland, does that mean Muslims owe white Europeans $42 trillion (3x as much)? Can someone tell me where to sign up? Just asking. I could sure use the “free” dough.
Also, will white descendants of indentured servants get some reparations, or should descendants of blacks who owned other blacks as slaves owe reparations, such as Anthony Johnson (c. 1600 – 1670), a black Angolan who was one of the earlier slave owners legally recognized by the Colony of Virginia courts. Do we owe Russia money (the word “Slav” as in “Slavic language” derives from the same root as our word for slave (from late 13c., “a person who is the chattel or property of another,” from Old French esclave (13c.), in turn derived from Medieval Latin Sclavus “slave” – so used in this secondary sense because of the many Slavs sold into slavery by conquering peoples.), or perhaps the Irish, for by the 1630’s, Ireland was the primary source of slaves in the English slave trade. In fact, a 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves. Even Scientific American has questioned why the Irish surnames have such a strong presence in places such as Montserrat, Jamaica, St. Kitts, etc. Once Iceland gets paid for its citizens taken as slaves to Muslim North Africa and Turkey, does Iceland then owe Ireland money, in that perhaps half the population genetically speaking was Irish slaves, taken by Vikings? Oh yes, I forgot: Muslims also took many English as slaves, with perhaps 3 – 5,000 in Algiers alone. And of course, the Romans had almost everyone has slaves, many from Germanic tribes, so they must owe everyone?
Finally, if we are looking at systemic discrimination, any word from your founders in Black Lives Matter, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi, re. their roots in the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, which is a descendant of the Maoist inspired New Communist Movement. The reason I ask is The Black Book of Communism, published by Harvard Univ. Press, says that various flavours of communism and leftism murdered around 100 million people last century. Since Antifa seems to be concerned about “oppression,” they just may want to look at that.
Oh yes, I almost forgot! Could Antifa also advise why your allies in the US are now destroying statues of leading anti-slavery statues, including defacing Lincoln himself, as well as Matthias Baldwin, who fiercely fought against slavery 30 years before the Civil War (in which MILLIONS died to end slavery), John Greeleaf, a prominent Quaker pacifist/anti-abolitionist? Anyhow, I thought “Hate had no home here” – or do your friends in your Tripartite Pact have special exemptions?
LEAF comes across as such a well intentioned and benevolent group. However, dig a little deeper, and the problems start to show through.
1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation
While abortion is trumpeted as a “human right” in Western societies, the obvious questions have to be asked: Why is it a human right? Who are these groups benefiting financially, and why are so they so fiercely against free speech? Will the organs be trafficked afterwards?
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, to search Corporations Canada registry. CLICK HERE, for funding announcement for LEAF. CLICK HERE, for LEAF and so-called “reproductive justice” CLICK HERE, for calls to finance foreign abortions. CLICK HERE, for Private Member’s Bill C-225. CLICK HERE, for LEAF trying to ban Meghan Murphy. CLICK HERE, for LEAF wants mercy for drug mule. CLICK HERE, for LEAF supports ON sex-ed program. CLICK HERE, for RCMP and illegal organ trade. CLICK HERE, for Bill S-204, buying trafficked organs abroad.
 WOMEN’S LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FUND FOUNDATION
Corporation Number: 255753-3
Business Number (BN): 880802897RC0001
 WOMEN’S LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FUND INC.
Corporation Number: 189741-1
Business Number (BN): 108219916RC0001
A point of clarification: there are actually 2 separate Federal corporations registered with the Government. They have different (though similar) names, and different corporate and business numbers. They also have different addresses in Toronto.
It’s worth pointing out that LEAF has branches across Canada and the United States. They operate with the same basic philosophy.
4. Mental Gymnastics In LEAF Agenda
The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) works to advance the substantive equality rights of women and girls through litigation, law reform, and public education. Since 1985, we have intervened in landmark cases that have advanced equality in Canada—helping to prevent violence, eliminate discrimination in the workplace, provide better maternity benefits, ensure a right to pay equity, and allow access to reproductive freedoms. For more information, please visit www.leaf.ca.
LEAF claims to be committed to a variety of good causes. However, their logic seems messed up. While they want better childcare benefits, it’s okay to kill the child up to the point of birth. And even when the mother DOES kill the child after birth, the penalties should be reduced.
And by what stretch of logic is murdering children compatible with preventing violence?
5. Canadian Taxpayers Are Financing This
Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) is receiving $880,000 to develop a modern, intersectional, and feminist strategic litigation plan that will enable feminists and gender equality advocates to address systemic barriers to gender equality and eliminate gender discrimination.
Canadian taxpayers will be footing the bill for some $880,000, for this 2019 grant. This is to develop a litigation plan to for what they refer to as fighting for gender equality. It’s unclear from the announcement how much (if any) will end up being diverted into actual court challenges.
6. LEAF’s Take On “Reproductive Justice”
1987 Baby R.
LEAF argued that children not yet born shouldn’t be allowed to be taken by government officials. Custody should be for people already alive. leaf.intervenor.factum.1988-baby-r
1989 Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General)
LEAF argued that the right to life should apply to the mother (and not to the child). The criminal code and charter shouldn’t apply to the unborn baby. leaf.intervenor.factum.1989-borowski
1989 Daigle v. Tremblay
LEAF argued that biological fathers should have no say over whether the child lives or dies, and that otherwise, it is an attempt to control the mother using the child as a proxy. leaf.intervenor.factum.1989-daigle
1991 R. v. Sullivan
LEAF argued that 2 midwives convicted of criminal negligence causing death (for the death of the baby) should have that charge thrown out, since the baby isn’t actually a person. leaf.intervenor.factum.1991-sullivan
1996 R v. Lewis
LEAF argued in favour maintaining “bubble zones”. These effectively were areas where abortion protesting would be banned. Free speech is fine, just not in certain areas. leaf.intervenor.factum.1996-lewis
1997 Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.)
LEAF argued against the the state’s ability to detain a pregnant women, who was harming her own child. In this case, the mother was sniffing glue. leaf.intervenor.factum.1997-winnipeg-child-family
2003 R. v. Demers
LEAF argued again against the rights of people who were protesting abortion, although the arguments differed somewhat. leaf.intervenor.factum.2003-demers
LEAF is Pro-Life?
Yeah, not really seeing that here.
LEAF is Anti-Life
1987 Baby R
1989 Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General)
1989 Daigle v. Tremblay
1991 R. v. Sullivan
1996 R v. Lewis
1997 Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.)
2003 R. v. Demers
2006 Watson v. R; Spratt v. R
2016 R v. MB
Keep in mind, these are not cases that impact LEAF directly. Instead, they go searching for cases to act as an intervenor (or interested party). In short, they insert themselves into OTHER cases in order to get the outcomes they want.
An astute person will realize that LEAF is fundamentally anti-free speech. Among the challenges they brag about is getting free speech restricted in order to facilitate abortion access.
This list is hardly exhaustive, but should give a pretty good idea of the things they stand against: rights for unborn children.
7. LEAF Wants Foreign Abortions Funded Too
As organizations who are deeply committed to the rights of women and girls, we are very concerned by recent statements regarding the Government of Canada’s refusal to fund safe abortion services abroad, including in cases of rape and for young women and girls in forced marriages. This approach represents a serious setback on women’s human rights and the health and wellbeing of survivors of sexual violence and girls in early and forced marriages.
We call on the Canadian government to:
1. Include access to safe abortion services as part of the package of sexual and reproductive health services funded by Canadian international cooperation initiatives;
2. Support effective strategies to ensure that survivors of sexual violence and young women and girls in early and forced marriage have access to a comprehensive package of sexual and reproductive health services, including safe abortion; and
3. Produce clear policy for Canada’s international initiatives that adopts a human rights-based approach to sexual and reproductive health.
What about the babies being killed? Don’t their human rights matter? Oh, that’s right, these groups don’t consider babies to be people.
The undersigned organizations:
-Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) / Coalition pour le droit à l’avortement au Canada (CDAC)
-Action Canada for Population and Development / Action Canada pour la population et le développement
-Amnesty International Canada (English)
-Amnistie International Canada (Francophone)
-Canadian Council of Muslim Women
-Canadian Federation for Sexual Health
-Canadian Federation of University Women
-Canadian Women’s Foundation
-Choice in Health Clinic
-Clinique des femmes de l’Outaouais
-Fédération du Québec pour le planning des naissances (FQPN)
-Institute for International Women’s Rights – Manitoba
-MATCH International Women’s Fund
–Planned Parenthood Ottawa
-West Coast LEAF
-Women’s Health Clinic, Winnipeg
-Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund / Fonds d’action et d’education juridiques pour les femmes
(also addressed to)
-CC The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C.
Prime Minister of Canada
-CC Hélène Laverdière, NPD, MP
NDP International Development Critic
-CC Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, MP
Liberal International Development and Status of Women Critic
-CC Paul Dewar, NDP, MP
NDP Foreign Affairs Critic
-CC Marc Garneau, Liberal, MP
Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic
-CC Niki Ashton, NDP, MP
NDP Status of Women Critic
Not content with killing Canadian children, this coalition demands that the Canadian Government finance foreign abortions as well. That is correct. Use taxpayer money to pay to kill children in other countries.
It’s not at all a surprise to see a Planned Parenthood Ottawa has joined this group in making the call. After all, Planned Parenthood is involved in trafficking organs.
It never seems to dawn on these people that in many parts of the world, girls and women are viewed as far less than boys and men. This leads often to SEX SELECTIVE abortions. Is it really a feminist idea to deliberately target female babies?
8. No protection For Unborn Victims Of Crime
Considering the 1989 Boroski intervention (see list of cases above), it’s no surprise that LEAF, and other feminist groups oppose Bill C-225. This would have made it an additional crime to injury or kill a fetus while in the commission of another offense.
9. LEAF Forcing Abortion/Euth On Doctors
There was a 2019 decision from the Ontario Court of Appeals. It mandated that doctors either had to perform abortions and/or euthanasia, or provide a referral to someone who would. LEAF was one of the groups pushing it. They had no standing, other than to push their own pro-death views on others.
10. LEAF Wants Gender Ideology Critic Banned
The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) is troubled by the decision of the Toronto Public Library (the “TPL”) to rent one of its branch spaces to a group hosting an event with Meghan Murphy, who has a track record for denying the existence and rights of trans women. We are particularly concerned with Murphy’s history of publicly opposing efforts to codify the rights of trans people, specifically trans women, including her vocal opposition to federal human rights legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression.
LEAF was founded in 1985 with a mandate to advance substantive equality for women and girls in Canada. LEAF has long been committed to a vision of feminism that is inclusive of all, regardless of sex, gender identity or gender expression. LEAF’s advocacy is and remains focused on challenging sex and gender discrimination that results in inequality for self-identified women and girls. The long-term success of this mission demands that LEAF work towards challenging and dismantling patriarchy, in all its forms.
LEAF believes freedom of speech plays an important role in strengthening and upholding substantive equality. Holding space for respectful dialogue among diverse viewpoints is essential to this work. However, LEAF has long maintained that freedom of speech is not absolute. Like all rights enjoyed by Canadians, freedom of speech must be balanced with other fundamental rights and freedoms, especially equality. Speech that perpetuates harmful stereotypes only serves to further marginalize and exclude an already vulnerable population and does not merit protection.
In a case of “eating your own“, LEAF tried to get Meghan Murphy dis-invited from a Toronto talk on trans-activism. And Murphy is about as hardcore feminist as they come. According to her biography:
Bachelor’s degree in women’s studies
Master’s degree in women’s studies
Wrote for feminist publications
Believes in the wage-gap nonsense
Believes women are oppressed
Still, that wasn’t enough to prevent feminist and “women’s rights” groups life LEAF from turning against her.
For a group that “claims” to support women, one has to ask why LEAF is trying to take away the rights of a woman (Murphy), specifically her free speech.
Murphy does address legitimate issues that trans-activists are involved with, (such as sports, pronounc, etc…), and how they are conflicting head on with the rights of women. It seems that the committment to women’s rights can be tossed aside in favour of this extremely small group.
11. LEAF: Reduce Sentence For Drug Mule
Somehow, LEAF believes that arguing against a mandatory minimum sentence for a person convicted of smuggling 2kg of cocaine (worth some $200,000), is a woman’s rights issue. What about the women who are harmed as a result of the drug trade? Don’t they matter?
While not directly related to the abortion/organs issue, it’s still bizarre to see how this group feels entitled to meddle in other people’s cases.
12. LEAF Supports ON Sex-Ed Agenda
This week’s move is getting a thumbs-up from a national women’s legal organization that teaches older students about consent.
“It’s extremely important for everyone to understand what their rights and responsibilities are under the law,” said Kim Stanton, legal director of the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, which runs workshops for high school and university students. “Students need to know what’s OK and what’s not.
Candid honesty is extremely rare in political circles. However, this critique of LEAF and Leslyn Lewis, is a true gem. Also see the video. Well worth the 10 minutes or so.
Now, what is the result of anti-life laws becoming normal?
14. RCMP & Illegal Organ Trade
There are far more people in the world in need of a new organ than there are organs available. Like in any market where a dollar can be made because demand far outweighs supply, people can turn to the black market to find what they need. When a person’s life is on the line, the will to survive may override morals. The following facts depict the seedy underbelly of organ trafficking.
The United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking (UN GIFT) says the organ trade occurs in three broad categories: traffickers who force or deceive victims to give up an organ, those who sell their organs out of financial desperation, often only receiving a fraction of the profit or are cheated out of the money altogether and victims who are duped into believing they need an operation and the organ is removed without the victim’s knowledge.
Organ trafficking is considered an organized crime with a host of offenders, including the recruiters who identify the vulnerable person, the transporter, the staff of the hospital or clinic and other medical centres, the medical professionals themselves who perform the surgery, the middleman and contractors, the buyers and the banks that store the organs.
And according to the UN GIFT, it’s a fact that the entire ring is rarely exposed.
A World Health Assembly resolution adopted in 2004 urges Member States to “take measures to protect the poorest and vulnerable groups from ‘transplant tourism’ and the sale of tissues’ and organs.
“Transplant tourism” is the most common way to trade organs across national borders. These recipients travel abroad to undergo organ transplants (WHO Bulletin). There are websites that offer all-inclusive transplant packages, like a kidney transplant that ranges from US$70,000 to US$160,000.
There’s no law in Canada banning Canadians from taking part in transplant tourism — travelling abroad and purchasing organs for transplantation and returning home to Canada.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), one out of 10 organ transplants involves a trafficked human organ, which amounts to about 10,000 a year.
While kidneys are the most commonly traded organ, hearts, livers, lungs, pancreases, corneas and human tissue are also illegally traded.
In a recent report, Global Financial Integrity says that illegal organ trade is on the rise, and it estimates that it generates profits between $600 million and $1.2 billion per year with a span over many countries.
In Iran, the only country where organ trade is legal, organ sales are closely monitored and the practice has eliminated the wait list for kidney transplants and has provided an increase in post-mortem organ donations, which aren’t remunerated in Iran.
A Harvard College study says donors come from impoverished nations, like countries in South America, Asia and Africa, while recipients are from countries like Canada, the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Israel and Japan.
According to research out of Michigan State University that looked at the black market for human organs in Bangladesh, the average quoted rate for a kidney was US$1,400 but has dropped because of the abundant supply.
In Bangladesh, the trade is propelled by poverty, where 78 per cent of residents live on less than $2 a day. They give their organs to pay off loans and take care of their families. If they received the money at all, it disappears quickly and they are often left sick and unable to work after the operations.
The Voluntary Health Association of India estimates about 2,000 Indians sell a kidney every year.
Given that the organ trade is often a transnational crime, international law enforcers must co-operate across borders to address the crimes.
This comes from a 2014 post on the RCMP’s website. Despite being several years old, it has a lot of useful information.
Now, it’s true that there are only so many people dying with usable organs. It’s also true that abducting and/or murdering people for their organs is risky, and can only be done so often. However, that isn’t really the case with aborted babies, as they typically have healthy organs. Sure, they are smaller, but still usable at some point.
Ever wonder why the recent push to have later and later abortions? It’s because the organs of a 35 week fetus are much more developed than those of a 20 week fetus.
15. UNODC On Organ, Human Trafficking
III. Guidance for response
6. Article 3 (a) defines trafficking in persons: “Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.”
It’s illegal to kidnap, force, or otherwise coerce people into giving up organs. However, aborted babies (even very late term) are just considered property with no legal rights of their own. At least, this is the case in Canada.
This UNODC paper is from 2011. However, its information is still very relevant today.
Whether this is intentional or not, it is one of the consequences of the actions of groups like LEAF. Removing any sort of legal protection from the unborn creates legal carte blanche to harvest and sell their organs at will.
This was addressed in Part 9, the connection between illegal immigration, and the trafficking and smuggling of migrants. However, in the context of organ harvesting, it does put the issue in a whole new light.
17. Bill S-204, Criminal Code Change
Senate Bill S-204 would make it criminal offence to go abroad for the purposes of obtaining organs where consent was not given. While promising, however, it hasn’t gone anywhere since being introduced. Now, would these penalties apply to the trafficked organs of aborted fetuses, or only to trafficked organs of people living for some period of time?
18. Abortion Fuels Organ Trafficking
Now, to tie all of this together: the abortion industry helps fuel the organ trafficking industry.
It’s a straightforward idea: in order to traffic organs in a large scale, there has to be a large, constant supply available.
The abortion industry (and their advocates) ensure this by waging lawfare. They fight in court to keep stripping away any protections unborn children may have. They also change the law to allow for later and later abortions, and thus, more developed organs. Advocates will gaslight others who make attempts to limit this, or enshrine rights for the children. Child rights must be removed in favour of women’s rights.
Is LEAF involved with trafficking organs? They don’t appear to be, but their frequent court efforts ensure that this will continue. Whether intentional of not, groups like LEAF are part of the problem.
And to be clear, LEAF openly supports restricting free speech, under the guise of protecting abortion and gender rights. Of course, open discourse on these subjects would immediately weaken their arguments.
19. Defending Non-Disclosure Of HIV
Note: this was added after the article was originally published. LEAF argued in a Parliamentary hearing that failure to disclose HIV status should be removed from sexual assault laws, and in some cases, decriminalized altogether. Way to protect women.
There is a lot already covered in the TSCE series. Many of the laws politicians pass absolutely ensure this obscenity will continue. This piece will focus on the various legislation advanced by California State Senator, Scott Wiener, who has been very active. Also, for more general background information, take a look at Open Borders movement, and the NGOs who are supporting it.
Wiener has lashed out at critics to his various legislation, calling them homophobes and anti-Semites. Wiener is gay and Jewish, according to his background information, but that is not where the bulk of the hate comes from. His Bills “do” give a legitimate cause for concern, and this appears to be a way of deflecting from that.
4. SB-132: Male Inmates In Female Prisons
SB 132, as amended, Wiener. Corrections.
Existing law establishes the state prisons under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Existing law authorizes a person sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison or a county jail
for a felony to be, during the period of confinement, deprived of those rights, and only those rights, as is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.
This bill would, commencing January 1, 2021, would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to, during initial intake and classification, and in a private setting, ask each individual entering into the custody of the department to specify the individual’s gender identity and sex assigned at birth, and, if the individual’s gender identity is different from their sex assigned at birth, whether the individual identifies as transgender, nonbinary, or intersex, and their gender pronoun and honorific. The bill would prohibit the department from disciplining a person for refusing to answer or not disclosing complete information in response to these questions. The bill would authorize a person under the jurisdiction of the department to update this information. The bill would prohibit staff and contractors staff, contractors, and volunteers of the department from failing to consistently use the gender pronoun and honorific an individual has specified in verbal and written communications with or regarding that individual that involve the use of a pronoun or honorific.
SB-132 would allow putting prison inmates in whichever prison they want, according to what they claim to be. Disturbingly, this would presumably cover male rapists and sex offenders being allowed into prisons with women. And yes, it also requires prison staff to use preferred pronouns.
5. SB-145: Sex Offender Registry, Gay Pedos
SB 145, Wiener. Sex offenders: registration.
Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, requires a person convicted of one of certain crimes, as specified, to register with law enforcement as a sex offender while residing in California or while attending school or working in California, as specified. A willful failure to register, as required by the act, is a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the underlying offense. This bill would exempt from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register.
Scott Wiener claims there is a loophole, which mandates registry as a sex offender for certain acts, ones that straight couples would presumably not engage in. This Bill would remove the requirement for a Judge to designate the person as a sex offender if there is less than a 10 year age gap. In short, lower the age of the victim this would apply to. Instead of an exemption if the person is 18 years old, 15 to 17 year olds would now be included.
While Wiener may have a valid point, a far better option would be to RAISE the minimum age of the victim overall, not lower it.
Regular readers on this site will likely remember Part 17, and Part 18 of the series. This included lowering the age of consent for anal, and reducing the penalties for sex crimes against children in Canada.
Spoiler: it’s not homophobic to oppose letting adults have sex with children. It’s called being a decent person with some morals.
6. SB-201: Surgeries For Intersexed Children
SB 201, as amended, Wiener. Medical procedures: treatment or intervention: sex characteristics of a minor. Under existing law, the Medical Practice Act, it is unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to fail to comply with prescribed informed consent requirements relating to various medical procedures, including sterilization procedures, the removal of sperm or ova from a patient under specified circumstances, and the treatment of breast cancer. Any violation of the law relating to enforcement of the Medical Practice Act is a misdemeanor, as specified.
a person born with variations in their physical sex characteristics who is under 6 years of age unless the treatment or intervention is medically necessary. The bill, on or before December 1, 2021, would require the Medical Board of California, in consultation with specified persons and entities, to adopt regulations to determine which treatments and interventions on the sex characteristics of a person born with variations in their physical sex characteristics who is under 6 years of age are medically necessary, as specified. Any violation of these provisions would be subject to disciplinary action by the board, but not criminal prosecution.
SB-201 would make it much harder, if not impossible, for parents of intersex children to get them surgeries so as to better conform with 1 of the 2 genders. Interestingly, Wiener supports the rights of trans-children to do what they want to their bodies. However, parents apparently can’t be trusted to act in their best interests.
7. SB-233: Decriminalizing Sex Work (Hooking)
SB 233, Wiener. Immunity from arrest.
Existing law criminalizes various aspects of sex work, including soliciting anyone to engage in, or engaging in, lewd or dissolute conduct in a public place, loitering in a public place with the intent to commit prostitution, or maintaining a public nuisance. Existing law, the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act (CUCSA), also criminalizes various offenses relating to the possession, transportation, and sale of specified controlled substances.
This bill would prohibit the arrest of a person for a misdemeanor violation of the CUCSA or specified sex work crimes, if that person is reporting that they are a victim of, or a witness to, specified crimes. The bill would also state that possession of condoms in any amount does not provide a basis for probable cause for arrest for specified sex work crimes.
This Bill would decriminalize many minor aspects of sex work, and give immunity to prostitutes for more serious matters if they are reporting crimes to the police.
8. SB-239: No Longer A Felony To Spread HIV
(1) Existing law makes it a felony punishable by imprisonment for 3, 5,or 8 years in the state prison to expose another person to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by engaging in unprotected sexual activity when the infected person knows at the time of the unprotected sex that he or she is infected with HIV, has not disclosed his or her HIV-positive status, and acts with the specific intent to infect the other person with HIV. Existing law makes it a felony punishable by imprisonment for 2, 4, or 6 years for any person to donate blood, tissue, or, under specified circumstances, semen or breast milk, if the person knows that he or she has acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), or that he or she has tested reactive to HIV. Existing law provides that a person who is afflicted with a contagious, infectious, or communicable disease who willfully exposes himself or herself to another person, or any person who willfully exposes another person afflicted with the disease to someone else, is guilty of a misdemeanor
This bill would repeal those provisions. The bill would instead make the intentional transmission of an infectious or communicable disease, as defined, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 6 months if certain circumstances apply, including that the defendant knows he or she or a 3rd party is afflicted with the disease, that the defendant acts with the specific intent to transmit or cause an afflicted 3rd party to transmit the disease to another person, that the defendant or the afflicted 3rd party engages in conduct that poses a substantial risk of transmission, as defined, that the defendant or the afflicted 3rd party transmits the disease to the other person, and if the exposure occurs through interaction with the defendant and not a 3rd party, that the person exposed to the disease during voluntary interaction with the defendant did not know that the defendant was afflicted with the disease. The bill would also make it a misdemeanor to attempt to intentionally transmit an infectious and communicable disease, as specified, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 90 days. This bill would make willful exposure to an infectious or communicable disease, as defined, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 6 months, and would prohibit a health officer, or a health officer’s designee, from issuing a maximum of 2 instructions to a defendant that would result in a violation of this provision. The bill would impose various requirements upon the court in order to prevent the public disclosure of the identifying characteristics, as defined, of the complaining witness and the defendant. By creating new crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
In the notes provided, it shows that this bill would reduce the penalties from knowingly infecting someone with HIV from a 3, 5, or 8 year sentence (and a felony conviction), to a 6 month maximum (tried as a misdemeanor). It also prevents the publication of that offender. This effectively protects such predators, by ensuring that there aren’t real penalties. Check out the full text of the bill.
9. SB-888: Cash Or Vouchers For Meth Users
SB 888, as amended, Wiener. Birth certificates. Substance use disorder services: contingency management services.
Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, and under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services, including substance use disorder services that are delivered through the Drug Medi-Cal Treatment Program and the Drug Medi-Cal organized delivery system. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions.
This bill would, to the extent funds are made available in the annual Budget Act, expand substance use disorder services to include contingency management services, subject to utilization controls. The bill would require the department to issue guidance and training to providers on their use of contingency management services for Medi-Cal beneficiaries who access substance use disorder services under any Medi-Cal delivery system, including the Drug Medi-Cal Treatment Program and the Drug Medi-Cal organized delivery system. The bill would provide that contingency management services are not a rebate, refund, commission preference, patronage dividend, discount, or any other gratuitous consideration. The bill would authorize the department to implement these provisions by various means, including provider bulletin, without taking regulatory action, and would condition the implementation of these provisions to the extent permitted by federal law, the availability of federal financial participation, and the department securing federal approval.
There was originally provisions to issue new birth certificates indicating whatever gender the person wanted, but that seems to have been removed. As the Bill stands, it would build into the budget, sums of money to help meth users, in the hopes they will get clean.
10. SB-932: Collecting LGBTQ Data Everywhere
SB 932, Wiener. Communicable diseases: data collection.
(1) Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to establish a list of reportable communicable and
noncommunicable diseases and conditions and to specify the requirements for a health officer, as defined, to report each listed disease and condition. Existing law requires a health officer to report the listed diseases and conditions and to take other specified measures to prevent the spread of disease. A violation of these requirements imposed on a health officer is a crime. This bill would require any electronic tool used by a health officer, as defined, for the purpose of reporting cases of communicable diseases to the department, as specified, to include the capacity to collect and report data relating to sexual orientation and gender identity, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would also require a health care provider, as defined, that knows of or is in attendance on a case or suspected case of specified communicable diseases to report to the health officer for the jurisdiction in which the patient resides the patient’s sexual orientation and gender identity, if known. Because a violation of these requirements by a health care provider or a health officer would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated-local program.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
(3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately
as an urgency statute
It’s not entirely clear why there would be this need to ask and record everyone’s gender, and who they sleep with. Perhaps it’s to play the victim, and get extra funding at some point.
11. California Has Bigger Problems
There are other Bills that Wiener has been involved with, of course. However, the above sample should demonstrate his priorities as a California State Senator.
Surely, California has far more important issues to deal with than the topics that Scott Wiener has drafted legislation for. The State is bankrupt, and flooded with illegal aliens, a crashed economy, and the social services are near collapse, but he doesn’t seem to care.
It’s not hard to see Wiener’s legislation is deliberate efforts to uproot social norms and to create chaos. There seems to be little to no concern for the long term consequences.
Wiener may not be a pedophile himself, but he certainly seems sympathetic to those who are.
12. Remember The Trudeau Liberals
The content of Scott Wiener’s Bills is shockingly similar to some of the efforts of the Trudeau Government. See here, here, and here.
Never forget, these are some of the crimes which Bill C-75 amended. They are now eligible to be tried summarily (misdemeanor), as opposed to it being mandatory to proceed by indictment (felony).
Section 58: Fraudulent use of citizenship
Section 159: Age of consent for anal sex
Section 172(1): Corrupting children
Section 173(1): Indecent acts
Section 180(1): Common nuisance
Section 182: Indecent interference or indignity to body