Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation Archives - Page 10 of 13

May 16, 2020December 1, 2024

Does The Canadian Government Actually Support Human Trafficking?

(UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for UN Review On Smuggling Migrants.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention On Transnational Crime.
http://archive.is/q0XqK
CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol Against Human Trafficking.
http://archive.is/cjnJt
CLICK HERE, for UN Opt. Protocol On Rights Of The Child.
http://archive.is/onmrr
CLICK HERE, for UN Global Initiative To Fight Trafficking.
http://archive.is/Fjuv6
CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol To Prevent/Punish Trafficking.
CLICK HERE, for UN Rights Of The Child, Sale, Prostitution, Porn.
http://archive.is/onmrr
CLICK HERE, for Eliminate Worst Forms Of Child Labour.
http://archive.is/OZQM
CLICK HERE, for the Rome Statute, Int’l Criminal Court.
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s antitrafficking strategy, 2019-24.
http://archive.is/15ov0

3. Context For This Piece

There was a story in the mainstream media today about the Trudeau Government has cut funding for the victims of trafficking and exploitation, forcing 9 centers across Canada.

For someone who repeatedly brags about being a “feminist” the hypocrisy is mind boggling. Trudeau will shovel out money (borrowed from the international banking cartel), for just about any cause, but not to help women and girls who really need it.

Beyond the shame and hypocrisy, there is a question that genuinely needs to be asked: does this government actually support human trafficking and sex trafficking in Canada? Consider some things that have happened in recent years.

Agreements like the UN Global Migration Compact
Even terrorists allowed back into Canada
Certain ideologies embraced as “diversity”
Refusing to properly enforce national borders
Allowing foreign NGOs to rewrite our border laws
Reduced penalties for child sex crimes
Cutting funding for help for victims

The pattern this government has shown can be described as:

[A] Come off as unserious, pandering, or overly compassionate; and
[B] Divert attention away from the real objective

All of these events in isolation “could” be viewed simply as extremely incompetent governing. It may be seen as excessive pandering and virtue signalling. However, what if these events were in fact connected? Could all of these inexplicable policy moves be to promote the same goal?

To avoid confusion, let’s distinguish two things:

[I] SMUGGLED people are accomplices who willingly cross illegally
[II] TRAFFICKED people are prisoners who are brought somewhere

Much of the information has been addressed in earlier parts of the TSCE (trafficking, smuggling, & child exploitation) series above. References will be made, but feel free to go back through the individual stories for more information. The actions made by our government seem to facilitate both trafficking and smuggling.

4. Global Migration Agreements

(There is a connection between smuggling and “irregular migration”)

(UN High Commission on Refugees)

unhcr.guidelines.exceptions
UNCHR.advice.for.illegal.crossings

Objectives for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration
(1) Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence-based policies
(2) Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin
(3) Provide accurate and timely information at all stages of migration
(4) Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation
(5) Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
(6) Facilitate fair and ethical recruitment and safeguard conditions that ensure decent work
(7) Address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration
(8) Save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants
(9) Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants
(10) Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration
(11) Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner
(12) Strengthen certainty and predictability in migration procedures for appropriate screening, assessment and referral
(13) Use migration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
(14) Enhance consular protection, assistance and cooperation throughout the migration cycle
(15) Provide access to basic services for migrants
(16) Empower migrants and societies to realize full inclusion and social cohesion
(17) Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to
shape perceptions of migration
(18) Invest in skills development and facilitate mutual recognition of skills, qualifications and
competences
(19) Create conditions for migrants and diasporas to fully contribute to sustainable development in all countries
(20) Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants
(21) Cooperate in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as sustainable reintegration
(22) Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits
(23) Strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships for safe, orderly and regular migration
Also, consider the fact that the United Nations has studied the connection between illegal immigration and human smuggling. This is from a 2011 study released.

un.global.migration.compact

#4: Ensure proof of identity? That might make it easier to help get falsified documents, either from a government or a private party.

#5: Enhancing pathways for migration? Both from a legal and illegal point of view it seems open to abuse.

#9: Even though the Global Migration Compact claims to oppose human smuggling, it explicitly states (see above picture), that people who are part of smuggling won’t be prosecuted. Remember, smuggling is voluntary, unlike being trafficked.

#10: Despite wanting to monitor “irregular” routes — which are ILLEGAL entries, the UNHCR openly encourages people to enter Canada illegally, and even provides advice on how to do it. Seems pretty unhelpful to condemn human trafficking and smuggling, but then offer advice on how to circumvent local laws.

#13: Detention only as a last resort. It won’t help to deter people from bringing others in (legally or otherwise) if there are no real penalties.

#17: Sensitizing the media and promoting “proper language”. There is also a provision for pulling the funding for media deemed to be hateful. Could lodging valid criticism of human trafficking and smuggling be considered hateful?

#20: Faster, safer and cheaper remittances and “financial inclusion”? Could also double as a way to launder money out of the country, or help finance the next group of people to bring over.

2.1 Smuggling of migrants and the concepts of irregular migration and trafficking in persons
2.1.1 Irregular migration
The relationship between irregular migration and smuggling of migrants has been discussed in the literature, with most authors acknowledging the crucial role of smuggling of migrants in facilitating irregular migration.

In looking at the relationship between the two concepts, Friedrich Heckmann stresses that smuggling of migrants plays a crucial role in facilitating irregular migration, as smugglers may provide a wide range of services, from physical transportation and illegal crossing of a border to the procurement of false documents.

Yes, this seems very obvious, but let’s hammer it home. Smuggling of people across borders is directly connected to the “irregular migration” that occurs at the end. It is the end result of these actions which show no respect for national borders or sovereignty. The UN review is rather blunt on the subject.

While the UN agreements Canada signs (the 2018 Global Migration Compact is just one) are “claiming” that respect for borders is important, the truth is that they do a lot to undermine national borders. And weak borders make for easy smuggling and trafficking.

5. Repatriation Of Terrorists To Canada

Early in Trudeau’s first mandate, Bill C-6 was introduced. It prevented dual national convicted of terrorism or treason from having their Canadian citizenship stripped and being deported. While it’s true that the UN supports terrorists being able to remain (or return) to any country they hold a passport for, this government supported doing it anyway.

Beyond terrorists themselves, the government supports a continued replacement migration from areas of the world where women and girls don’t have equality rights, and abuse it rampant.

One has to ask why though. It may be to appear compassionate in the eyes of others. It may also be to bring back or normalize an ideology that has a very different idea about what it means to be an adult. In other parts of the world, women and children have little to no rights. Remember, it’s not exploitation if it’s cloaked as multiculturalism.

6. Embracing Incompatibles As “Diversity”

True, all politicians pander to get votes. However, our current government takes that issue much farther, and embraces the globohomo agenda. The current LGBTQ movement, lacking real issues to address, has gone down the path of sexualizing children. Even former supporters are abandoning the movement. Breaking down any sense of normality is not healthy for society, but this government supports it.

Several associates of Justin Trudeau are known pedophiles. True, one shouldn’t be judged by the company they keep, but there is a limit to that philosophy. Trudeau himself has had many bizarre claims levelled against him. (For the sake of limiting liability, let’s leave it at that.)

The government’s love of promoting (and financing) abortion at home and abroad is creepy. There’s something Satanic about the eugenics of children.

What is the real agenda behind pushing for the sexual liberation of children, or at least the ones who aren’t aborted? Is there some more heinous shoe yet to drop?

7. Lack Of Genuine Border Enforcement

When Federal politicians are seriously discussing the ideas of expedited work permits and health care for illegals, they aren’t serious about border security. In a similar vein, when amnesty-for-illegals pilot programs are starting up, or sanctuary cities are allowed, how does that secure the border? When we don’t have a proper entry/exit system tracking people across the border, how are we more secure?

Beyond the politicians refusing to implement real border security, NGOs like: (a) Bridges not Borders; (b) Plattsburg Cares; (c) Solidarity Across Border, and others, coordinate in helping to smuggle illegal aliens across the border. The information is easy to find, yet the authorities do nothing.

There are many theories as to why the powers that be are standing down. It could be a globalist agenda. It could be open borders. It could be to import cheaper labour.

But there is another possibility. If a group of people wanted to smuggle (or traffic) young and vulnerable people across the border, what better way to do it? Would it not be much easier to move people across the border if there is no real border control?

8. Foreign NGOs Writing Our laws

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), have been trying to effectively erase the Canada/U.S. border for a long time. They do it by going lobbying Parliament to rewrite our laws, and they do it by going to court and challenging our laws as “inhumane”. Here are 3 attempts that have been made in about the last 30 years.

FIRST ATTEMPT: KILL “SAFE COUNTRY” DESIGNATION
(a) Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3

(b) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada,
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534

(c) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236
1992.SCC.Rules.No.Standing

SECOND ATTEMPT: KILL CANADA/US S3CA
(a) 2008 ruling S3CA has no effect
Docket: IMM-7818-05
S3CA Provisions Struck Down

(b) The 2008 ruling is overturned on appeal
Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada, 2008 FCA 229
Appeal granted, S3CA restored

THIRD ATTEMPT: TORONTO CASES TO STRIKE S3CA
(a) 2017, Prothonotary Milczynski considers consolidation
IMM-2229-17, IMM-2977-17, IMM-775-17
Milczynski Considers Consolidation

(b) 2017, CJ Crampton transfers cases to J. Diner
Crampton Transfers Consolidated Cases

(c) 2017, Justice Diner grants public interest standing
Citation: 2017 FC 1131
Amnesty Int’l, CDN Councils of Churches, Refugees

(d) 2018, Justice Diner grants consolidation of 3 cases
Citation: 2018 FC 396
Cases to be consolidated

(e) 2018, Justice Diner allows more witnesses
Citation: 2018 FC 829
2018.Diner.Calling.More.Witnesses

(f) 2019, Justice McDonald says no more witnesses
Citation: 2019 FC 418
2019.McDonald.No.More.Intervenors

The above notes are from part 16 of the series, and outline 3 attempts in Federal Court that NGOs have made to eliminate the Canada/U.S. border. This is by no means all the attempts that have been made, nor is the only border that these groups try to dissolve. Note: if a border cannot effectively stop people from entering, then it ceases to exist.

With the last attempt to strike down the Safe Third Country Agreement, the Government decided instead to just let “refugees” from the United States enter anyway through regular ports of entry.

Also worth noting is that the same NGOs who go to court for “refugee rights” and “immigrant rights” are the same ones who lobby politicians against having effective borders and tight immigration rules. The lawfare is waged both in Court, and in Parliament.

Since the Federal Government seems onboard with the open borders agenda, one has to ask why. Is it a misguided gesture of compassion to the entire world? Or is it a way to reduce barriers to letting certain people in?

9. Reduced Penalties For Child Sex Crimes

In 2016, the Liberals introduced Bill C-32, which would have lowered the age of consent for anal sex from 18 to 16. This would mean striking Section 159 from the criminal code. After public outrage, the bill was allowed to die. However, the idea was simply stuffed into Bill C-75, which also reduced the potential criminal penalties for many serious crimes.

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 210: Keeping common bawdy house
Section 211: Transporting to bawdy house
Section 242: Not getting help for childbirth
Section 243: Concealing the death of a child
Section 279.02(1): Material benefit – trafficking
Section 279.03(1): Withholding/destroying docs — trafficking
Section 279(2): Forcible confinement
Section 280(1): Abduction of child under age 16
Section 281: Abduction of child under age 14
Section 291(1): Bigamy
Section 293: Polygamy
Section 293.1: Forced marriage
Section 293.2: Child marriage
Section 295: Solemnizing marriage contrary to law
Section 435: Arson, for fraudulent purposes
Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime

Bizarrely, Sections 279.02(2), and 279.03(2), which related to adults, is still an indictable offence. Guess it’s not as bad when it happens to minors.

While reducing the terrorism penalties is a messed up decision, the inclusion of these other charges largely passed unnoticed by the public. Even this website initially missed it. If it really was about pandering to Muslims (who disproportionately commit terrorism), why add these offenses in as well?

Was the focus on the terrorism offences a means to divert attention away from the watering down of child sex crimes? Is this a way to water down the penalties for people getting caught, but without making it obvious that it was the case?

10. Cutting Funding To Victims’ Shelters

The Government of Canada brags about how much it takes the matter seriously. Yet, a recent news story reported that several groups which help victims can’t get their funding renewed.

The London Abused Women’s Centre (LAWC) said programs that help over 600 women and girls who are victims of human trafficking are being cancelled after the federal government denied funding.

LAWC, in addition to other organizations, was receiving funding through the Measures to Address Prostitution Initiatives (MAPI) fund, a five-year program that ended in March 2020.

MAPI provided funding for women and girls at risk of trafficking and those who were trafficked.

While in operation, the program helped a total of 3,107 trafficked, prostituted, sexually-exploited and at-risk women and girls in London. This included individual long-term, trauma-informed service to 650 trafficked and sexually exploited women and girls, 939 at-risk women and girls who attended groups, 173 family members from across Canada looking for their missing daughters, and 1,343 at-risk women and youth through community outreach.

However, the government recently declined to renew funding for several institutions devoted to helping trafficked victims. This was particularly bitter considering how Trudeau routinely markets himself as a feminist. Despite the recent spending spree, the Federal Government doesn’t have the money available for them.

There is another way to look at this. What organizations loudly advocate for victims though? Which groups want to see this issue pushed more in the media? What people are most likely to try to track down identities of perpetrators involved? And unlike some portions of law enforcement, who is ideologically driven to put a stop to it?

One way to help keep trafficking alive in Canada is to bankrupt institutions that are devoted to fighting this injustice. Intentional or not, that is the effect.

11. Connecting The Dots

How else would one explain the series of events as described in the above section? If not a coordinated effort to facilitate human smuggling and trafficking, then what are they? Just coincidental?

Although agreements like the UN Global Migration Compact explicitly state they oppose human smuggling, the text elsewhere says otherwise. The document objects to smuggled people to be prosecuted; it demands free social services, even for illegals; pensions and social benefits are rights; access to identity documents is a right; detention of illegals is to be minimized; and so on. The compact invites people to come to the West illegally, because of the rewards it offers. And smugglers will take advantage of it.

Our government believes that anyone with Canadian identity documents should be allowed back into Canada, regardless of what crimes they may have committed abroad. Since we’re “repatriating” Canadians, maybe they’ll bring back a child or two as well.

The globohomo agenda has gotten even more bizarre, where things like drag queen story hour are becoming normalized. Sex Ed. is being pushed on ever younger children, and younger children are being encouraged to transition. Is this a deliberate plan to desensitise the public?

Our politicians (all parties) do not take border security seriously. They allow people to come illegally, and be released into the public almost immediately. Successive governments have also failed to implement a genuine entry/exit system to track people crossing. Cities like Toronto and Hamilton are “sanctuary” cities, meaning illegals can reside there and get social benefits. Is this incompetence, or does not having border security make it harder to track smuggled and trafficked people?

Not only do our politicians and courts fail to act in the interests of Canadians, they allow NGOs (often foreign ones) to rewrite our laws. Foreign NGOs are given “public interest standing” to challenge our border laws in court. Those same groups are able to legally “lobby” Canadian public officials into supporting legislation to weaken existing laws, or just not enforce current laws. Consequently, our leaders work for outsiders, not for us.

While most people were focused on the reduced terrorism penalties in Bill C-75, many offences against children were listed as well. Why would a government not want such heinous crimes to be severely punished?

Despite repeatedly professing to support women and girls (especially when they’re in need), the Federal Government recently declined to continue funding groups to aid victims of trafficking. There’s money to spend on everything, but not on groups who would fight for these victims.

If the Government doesn’t support human trafficking, what else could explain this? Or is it all unrelated?

May 13, 2020July 18, 2024

Bill C-32/C-75; Lowered Age Of Consent; Reduced Penalties For Crimes Against Children

In 2016, Justin Trudeau announced that it was a priority to lower the age of consent for anal sex from 18 to 16. This was done under the guise of equality, and not treating people differently due to sexual orientation.

A mea culpa to begin with: although Bill C-75 was covered in the fall of 2018 (see previous review), it seems that I missed the more subtle aspect of the bill. Watering down penalties for terrorism offences was only part of it. C-75 was also a smokescreen for bringing more degeneracy to Canada, but under the radar. Yes, most terrorism committed in the West is done by Muslims, and that was how to accomplish this.

The agenda can be summarized as such:

Focus on ideology, reduced terrorism penalties
Let other perversions slip through

Most commentators (yes, guilty here too), focused on the terrorism and let far too much of the other content go pretty much unnoticed. It’s time to fix that.

One particular example, was the Prime Minister using the opportunity to slip in a clause to lower the age of consent (for anal) from 18 years old to 16, by repealing Section 159 of the Criminal Code. It was previously introduced in Bill C-32, but because of a public backlash, it never got past first reading. By embedding it in Bill C-75 instead, it passed almost unnoticed.

After some serious thought, this article will be made part of the TSCE series (trafficking, smuggling, & child exploitation). The reason being, that Bill C-75 makes it easier to harm children by reducing the penalties for child predators and child sex predators.

1. Bill C-32 Introduced In November 2016

Criminal Code
Amendment to the Act
R.‍S.‍, c. 9 (3rd Supp.‍), s. 3
1 Section 159 of the Criminal Code is repealed.

Clause 1: Existing text of section 159:
.
159 (1) Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act engaged in, in private, between
(a) husband and wife, or
(b) any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more,
both of whom consent to the act.
.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2),
(a) an act shall be deemed not to have been engaged in in private if it is engaged in in a public place or if more than two persons take part or are present; and
(b) a person shall be deemed not to consent to an act
(i) if the consent is extorted by force, threats or fear of bodily harm or is obtained by false and fraudulent misrepresentations respecting the nature and quality of the act, or
(ii) if the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the person could not have consented to the act by reason of mental disability.

Yes, lowering the age of consent for anal sex was apparently a priority of the Trudeau Government from early on. One has to wonder why there is this level of pandering. A cynic may suspect there could be a personal stake in getting the age lowered.

However, the public was very unhappy and suspicious about this bill, and why this was a priority for the government. What is interesting is that although Bill C-32 never got past first reading, the idea of lowering the age of consent still went ahead. Instead, it would be slipped into Bill C-75.

A serious alternative: if Trudeau wants all sexual acts to be treated the same, what would be wrong with RAISING the age of consent for all acts to 18? This is normal in many countries.

2. Bill C-75 Brought In March 2018

Yes, just a single line in Bill C-75 mentions the repeal of Section 159 of the Canadian Criminal Code. Of course, if you didn’t know what to look for, or didn’t have a copy handy. you wouldn’t know what it meant.

Think this over: Bill C-32 was met with public hostility over the proposal to lower the age of consent for anal sex. So that Bill is allowed to die, while the provision is slipped into Bill C-75.

Keep talking about (Islamic) terrorism, penalties
Let other degeneracy, perversions go ahead

The sleight-of-hand worked out as planned. While Canadians were rightly shocked at the prospect of having terrorism offences hybridized (available for either summary or indictable method for trial), instead of only the more serious indictable, this was allowed to pass. That way, the other items would get little to no scrutiny. And yes, this site is also guilty of the oversight.

3. Bill C-75 Used Partly To Divert Attention

These are the areas of Bill C-75 which the media focused on. Certainly, they are very serious, and need to be addressed. These are the offences which are now “hybridized”, meaning they are eligible to be tried summarily.

Section 52: Sabotage
Section 65: Rioting
Section 69: Neglect by peace officer
Section 82: Possession of explosives
Section 83.02: Providing property for certain purposes
Section 83.03: Making services/property available for terrorism
Section 83.04: Using property for terrorism purposes
Section 83.18(1): Participation in terrorist activity
Section 83.181: Leaving Canada to participate in terrorism
Section 83.23(1): Concealing who carried out terrorism
Section 280(1): Abduction of child under age 16
Section 281: Abduction of child under age 14

Now let’s briefly address some of the more disturbing aspects of Bill C-75 that weren’t covered by the mainstream or alternative media.

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 210: Keeping common bawdy house
Section 211: Transporting to bawdy house
Section 242: Not getting help for childbirth
Section 243: Concealing the death of a child
Section 279.02(1): Material benefit – trafficking
Section 279.03(1): Withholding/destroying docs — trafficking
Section 279(2): Forcible confinement
Section 291(1): Bigamy
Section 293: Polygamy
Section 293.1: Forced marriage
Section 293.2: Child marriage
Section 295: Solemnizing marriage contrary to law
Section 435: Arson, for fraudulent purposes
Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime

See what’s going on here? The focus is on some of the more blatant and obvious crimes, and how they have become “hybridized” offences. Yet some extremely serious ones are mostly ignored, despite the same thing happening to them.

In later sections of the bill, it discusses access to justice, and reducing the standards for accused people to be released until trial.

4. Hybridization Of Offences Continues

Corrupting children
172 (1) Every one who, in the home of a child, participates in adultery or sexual immorality or indulges in habitual drunkenness or any other form of vice, and thereby endangers the morals of the child or renders the home an unfit place for the child to be in, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

172 (1) Every person who, in the home of a child, participates in adultery or sexual immorality or indulges in habitual drunkenness or any other form of vice, and by doing so endangers the morals of the child or renders the home an unfit place for the child to be in, is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) [Repealed, R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 6]

Indecent acts
173 (1) Everyone who wilfully does an indecent act in a public place in the presence of one or more persons, or in any place with intent to insult or offend any person,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months.

Yes, corrupting children, and committing indecent acts against children now, thanks to the Trudeau Government, are eligible to be tried summarily. How exactly does this help protect children? The punishments for doing these crimes are reduced.

Common nuisance
180 (1) Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby
(a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
(b) causes physical injury to any person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Common nuisance
180 (1) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who commits a common nuisance and by doing so
(a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
(b) causes physical injury to any person.

Also worth noting is that Section 181 (spreading fake news to create mischief) has been repealed as a criminal offence.

Marginal note:
Dead body
182 Every one who
(a) neglects, without lawful excuse, to perform any duty that is imposed on him by law or that he undertakes with reference to the burial of a dead human body or human remains, or
(b) improperly or indecently interferes with or offers any indignity to a dead human body or human remains, whether buried or not,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 178

note:
Dead body
182 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who
(a) neglects, without lawful excuse, to perform any duty that is imposed on him by law or that he undertakes with reference to the burial of a dead human body or human remains, or
(b) improperly or indecently interferes with or offers any indignity to a dead human body or human remains, whether buried or not.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 1822019, c. 25, s. 63

Interfering with a dead body, even indecent interference, or indignity to a corpse can now be tried summarily.

Neglect to obtain assistance in child-birth
242 A female person who, being pregnant and about to be delivered, with intent that the child shall not live or with intent to conceal the birth of the child, fails to make provision for reasonable assistance in respect of her delivery is, if the child is permanently injured as a result thereof or dies immediately before, during or in a short time after birth, as a result thereof, guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 226

Neglect to obtain assistance in childbirth
242 A female person who, being pregnant and about to be delivered, with intent that the child shall not live or with intent to conceal the birth of the child, fails to make provision for reasonable assistance in respect of her delivery is, if the child is permanently injured as a result of the failure or dies immediately before, during or in a short time after birth, as a result of the failure, guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 242 2019, c. 25, s. 82

Yes, it’s no big deal if you don’t bother to call for help when about to give birth. If the child dies, covering it up doesn’t seem very important either. What a twisted direction to be going.

Concealing body of child
243 Every one who in any manner disposes of the dead body of a child, with intent to conceal the fact that its mother has been delivered of it, whether the child died before, during or after birth, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 227

Concealing body of child
243 Every person who in any manner disposes of the dead body of a child, with intent to conceal the fact that its mother has been delivered of it, whether the child died before, during or after birth, is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 243 2019, c. 25, s. 82

As for those people wanting to participate in multiple marriages, forced marriages, child marriages, or other such abominations, guess what? Lesser penalties are heading your way.

Polygamy
293 (1) Every one who
(a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into
(i) any form of polygamy, or
(ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time,
whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or
(b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii),
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Polygamy
293 (1) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who
(a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into any form of polygamy or any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage; or
(b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in paragraph (a).

Polygamy typically involves one man having several wives. It opens the door to abuse and exploitation, since the “wives” generally don’t have the same rights as the man. Of course, there is nothing to say that these are child marriages and/or forced marriages.

Forced marriage
293.1 Everyone who celebrates, aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is marrying against their will is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
2015, c. 29, s. 9.

Forced marriage
293.1 Every person who celebrates, aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is marrying against their will is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction
2015, c. 29, s. 92019, c. 25, s. 115.

Forced marriage amounts to sex slavery. Typically, it is a very young girl forced to “marry” a much, MUCH older man. What sane person would make this eligible to be tried as a summary offence? This crosses the line for any so-called cultural accommodations and crosses into (child) exploitation.

Marriage under age of 16 years
293.2 Everyone who celebrates, aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is under the age of 16 years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
2015, c. 29, s. 9

Marriage under age of 16 years
293.2 Every person who celebrates, aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is under the age of 16 years is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
2015, c. 29, s. 92019, c. 25, s. 115

Given that very young children are not able to give informed consent, would this not be the same exploitation and child sex slavery as addressed above?

Marginal note:
Pretending to solemnize marriage
294 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years who
(a) solemnizes or pretends to solemnize a marriage without lawful authority; or
(b) procures a person to solemnize a marriage knowing that he is not lawfully authorized to solemnize the marriage.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 2942018, c. 29, s. 29

Pretending to solemnize marriage
294 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who
(a) solemnizes or pretends to solemnize a marriage without lawful authority; or
(b) procures a person to solemnize a marriage knowing that he is not lawfully authorized to solemnize the marriage.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 2942018, c. 29, s. 292019, c. 25, s. 116.

Why would someone pretend to solemnize a marriage? It could be because the terms of the marriage would not be accepted in everyday society, such as child marriages, or forced marriages.

Arson for fraudulent purpose
435 (1) Every person who, with intent to defraud any other person, causes damage by fire or explosion to property, whether or not that person owns, in whole or in part, the property, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Arson for fraudulent purpose
435 (1) Every person who, with intent to defraud any other person, causes damage by fire or explosion to property, whether or not that person owns, in whole or in part, the property, is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

So burning down your place of business or home (and endangering the public) could possibly be tried summarily. Just make sure that you set the fire for the insurance money.

Participation in activities of criminal organization
467.11 (1) Every person who, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament, knowingly, by act or omission, participates in or contributes to any activity of the criminal organization is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Participation in activities of criminal organization
467.11 (1) Every person who, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament, knowingly, by act or omission, participates in or contributes to any activity of the criminal organization is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Smuggling children across the border, or providing children for these marriages could be considered organized crime. Perhaps that is why they were included in the hybridization list.

And of course, lowering the age of consent for anal sex was addressed in previous sections. There are many provisions in Bill C-75 that were not addressed. The likely reason was that the terrorism changes made were so shocking.

5. Submissions In Bill C-75 Hearings

CanadianAllianceForSexWorkLawReform-e
The Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform made a submission for the Bill C-75 hearings, asking for restrictions to sex work be removed. The rationale being that having portions of the “job” that were not fully legal endangered the workers and limited their access to courts and the police if need be.

UNICEFCanada-e
UNICEF also made a submission in the hearings. They claim that their mandate is to advocate for the well being of all children. That extends to both child victims of crime, and child criminals. While the intent may be good, foreign institutions should not be trying to influence Canadian law.

CanadianCentreForGenderSexualDiversity-e
The Canadian Centre for Gender & Sexual Diversity made a submission, including a list of items they thought should have been included in Bill C-75.
1-Bill C-75 fails to address sex work criminalization
2-Bill C-75 fails to protect intersex children from non-consensual surgery
3-Bill C-75 fails to repeal the ‘bawdy house’ laws or obscenity laws that disproportionately affect queer and trans people
4-Bill C-75 fails to properly define marginalized person

VancouverRapeReliefAndWomensShelter-e
The Vancouver Rape Relief wrote in support of the “reverse-onus” burden in domestic violence cases, where men would have to show that they deserve bail. However, the group laments that “rich white men” will be able to get off the hook, while men of colour will more often remain locked up. Oh, intersectionality at its finest.

CanadianCentreForChildProtection-e
The Canadian Center for Child Protection spoke very critically about certain changes which would weaken the penalties for abduction of children and forced marriages. A well written piece, but pretty sad that these facts need to be stated.

It was also addressed in the previous review that changes were being made to (for the most part) make it easier for accused criminals to get out on bail and to remain out even when breaching conditions. Crime just isn’t something the government takes seriously.

6. Liberals All Voted For This

All Liberal MPs voted for Bill C-75. Every single one who was in the House of Commons. They all voted for a Bill that reduces the criminal penalties for terrorism offences, and crimes against children. Regardless of whether the vote was whipped (it probably was), MPs in the government should have been standing up against this.

7. More Then Just Terrorism At Stake

The review from 2018 seems to be incomplete, so a follow up was called for. While terrorism related charged were prominent in the bill, there were many other things that needed to be addressed as well.

Slipping in content from Bill C-32 (lowering the age of consent for anal sex) was just one thing that wasn’t discussed in the media. Seems that when Bill C-32 died, the discussion died as well. A cynic might wonder if the exclusive focus on the terrorism elements was deliberate.

(a) Focus on the reduced penalties for terrorism offences
(b) Ignore the degeneracy, child exploitation aspects of the bill

In watering down penalties in this manner, the Trudeau Government puts people — particularly children — in danger. It is difficult to comprehend how this makes children safer when the potential punishments for crimes against children are reduced.

Under the guise of criminal justice reform, the Trudeau Government is making it more likely that children will continue to be harmed. After all, Bill C-75 reduces potential penalties for serious crimes against children.

Hopefully this gives a more rounded summary of Bill C-75 than the what last article did.

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/canadas-bill-c-75-watering-down-penalties-for-terrorism-rioting-weapons/
(2) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=8587634
(3) http://archive.is/p1AqH
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-75/royal-assent
(5) http://archive.is/QYxr0
(6) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/
(7) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10210275
(8) http://archive.is/efXwo

March 20, 2020April 12, 2022

TSCE #8(F): Bit Of History, NGOs Trying To Open Canada’s Borders For Decades

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Why Canadians Should Care

It should worry Canadians greatly when there is a sustained effort to undermine and erode our borders. The overwhelming majority of people don’t know how far back this goes. Although efforts predate these cases, this is where we will start.

On the first attempt, the Canadian Council of Churches went to court to try to get certain new legislation thrown out. This legislation would have made it harder for people to enter Canada from the U.S. and claim asylum. It went to the Supreme Court, but ultimately, it was ruled the group did not have public interest standing.

3. Court History Over The Years

Again, many more attempts have been made in recent decades to erase borders, but this article will only focus on a few of them.

FIRST ATTEMPT: KILL “SAFE COUNTRY” DESIGNATION
(a) Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3

(b) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada,
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534

(c) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236
1992.SCC.Rules.No.Standing

SECOND ATTEMPT: KILL CANADA/US S3CA
(a) 2008 ruling S3CA has no effect
Docket: IMM-7818-05
S3CA Provisions Struck Down

(b) The 2008 ruling is overturned on appeal
Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada, 2008 FCA 229
Appeal granted, S3CA restored

THIRD ATTEMPT: TORONTO CASES TO STRIKE S3CA
(a) 2017, Prothonotary Milczynski considers consolidation
IMM-2229-17, IMM-2977-17, IMM-775-17
Milczynski Considers Consolidation

(b) 2017, CJ Crampton transfers cases to J. Diner
Crampton Transfers Consolidated Cases

(c) 2017, Justice Diner grants public interest standing
Citation: 2017 FC 1131
Amnesty Int’l, CDN Councils of Churches, Refugees

(d) 2018, Justice Diner grants consolidation of 3 cases
Citation: 2018 FC 396
Cases to be consolidated

(e) 2018, Justice Diner allows more witnesses
Citation: 2018 FC 829
2018.Diner.Calling.More.Witnesses

(f) 2019, Justice McDonald says no more witnesses
Citation: 2019 FC 418
2019.McDonald.No.More.Intervenors

4. 1992: SCC Rules No Standing

1992.SCC.Rules.No.Standing
The CanLII link is here.

Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3
.
Rouleau J. dismissed the application. His judgment reflects his concern that there might be no other reasonable, effective or practical manner to bring the constitutional question before the Court. He was particularly disturbed that refugee claimants might be faced with a 72-hour removal order. In his view, such an order would not leave sufficient time for an applicant to attempt either to stay the proceedings or to obtain an injunction restraining the implementation removal order.
.
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534
.
MacGuigan J.A. speaking for a unanimous Court allowed the appeal and set aside all but four aspects of the statement of claim.
.
In his view the real issue was whether or not there was another reasonably effective or practical manner in which the issue could be brought before the Court. He thought there was. He observed that the statute was regulatory in nature and individuals subject to its scheme had, by means of judicial review, already challenged the same provisions impugned by the Council. Thus there was a reasonable and effective alternative manner in which the issue could properly be brought before the Court.
.
He went on to consider in detail the allegations contained in the statement of the claim. He concluded that some were purely hypothetical, had no merit and failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action. He rejected other claims on the grounds that they did not raise a constitutional challenge and others on the basis that they raised issues that had already been resolved by recent decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal.
.
He granted the Council standing on the following matters raised on the statement of claim

Without getting too much into the technical details, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the Canadian Council of Churches, an organization, should be granted public interest standing to strike down all or part of the immigration laws. Ultimately, the ruling was no.

Disposition of the Result
.
In the result I would dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal on the basis that the plaintiff does not satisfy the test for public interest standing. Both the dismissal of the appeal and the allowance of the cross-appeal are to be without costs.
Appeal dismissed and cross-appeal allowed.
.
Solicitors for the appellant: Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto.
.
Solicitor for the respondents: John C. Tait, Ottawa.
.
Solicitors for the interveners The Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped and The Quebec Multi Ethnic Association for the Integration of Handicapped People: Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, Toronto.
.
Solicitors for the intervener League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith Canada: David Matas, Winnipeg, and Dale Streiman and Kurz, Brampton.
.
Solicitors for the interveners Women’s Legal Education and Action (LEAF) and Canadian Disability Rights Council (CDRC): Tory, Tory, DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto and Dulcie McCallum, Victoria.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court thought that a refugee, someone with actual standing (or something at stake) should be the one making the case.

Also worth noting, consider who some of the intervenors are in this case. A lot of people who want to make it easier to get into Canada.

5. 2008: S3CA, Parts Of IRPA Struck Out

S3CA, Parts of IRPA Struck

IT IS ORDERED THAT this application for judicial review is granted and the designation
of the United States of America as a “safe third country” is quashed.

Yes, the Canada/U.S Safe Third Country Agreement was actually declared to have no legal effect. However, this is not the end of it, as we will soon see.

IT IS DECLARED THAT:
.
1. Paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United
States of America are ultra vires and of no legal force and effect.
2. The Governor-in-Council acted unreasonably in concluding that the United States of
America complied with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the
Convention Against Torture.
3. The Governor-in-Council failed to ensure the continuing review of the designation
of the United States of America as a “safe third country” as required by
paragraph 102(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
4. Paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations and the operation of the Safe Third Country Agreement between
Canada and the United States of America violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are not justified under section 1 thereof.

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS are certified as serious questions of general
importance:
.
1. Are paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and
the United States of America ultra vires and of no legal force and effect?
2. What is the appropriate standard of review in respect of the Governor-in-Council’s
decision to designate the United States of America as a “safe third country” pursuant
to s. 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?
3. Does the designation of the United States of America as a “safe third country” alone
or in combination with the ineligibility provision of clause 101(1)(e) of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is such violation justified under section 1?

If the United States is not a safe country, then why do tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people try to apply for asylum there every year?

The Safe Third Country Agreement was meant to prevent “asylum shopping” from taking place, but that is exactly what this ruling would have allowed.

6. 2009: Previous Ruling Overturned

The impugned Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement are not ultra vires the IRPA. Subsection 102(1) of the IRPA gives the GIC the power to promulgate regulations governing the treatment of refugee claims which may include provisions designating countries that comply with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. This is a broad grant of authority intended to give effect to Parliament’s expressed intent that responsibility for the consideration of refugee claims be shared with countries that are respectful of their Convention obligations and human rights. The factors to be considered before designating a country are expressly set out in subsection 102(2) of the IRPA. The applications Judge’s misapprehended concern that the GIC would have the discretion to designate a country that does not comply with the Conventions led him to transform the statutory objective of designating countries “that comply” into a condition precedent.

The applications Judge adopted a hypothetical approach to the respondent organizations’ Charter challenge, i.e. that a class of refugees would be treated a certain way if they were to present themselves at a Canadian land border port of entry. This approach went against the well-established principle that a Charter challenge cannot be mounted in the abstract. There was no evidence that a refugee would have to bring a challenge from outside Canada. The respondent organizations’ ability to bring the Charter challenge depended on John Doe. As the latter never presented himself at the border and therefore never requested a determination regarding his eligibility, there was no factual basis upon which to assess the alleged Charter breaches. The applications Judge thus erred in entertaining the Charter challenge.

[14] On December 29, 2005, the respondents launched an application for leave and judicial review seeking a declaration that the designation of the U.S. under section 102 of the IRPA was ultra vires, that the GIC erred in concluding that the U.S. complied with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and further, that the designation breached sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. For purposes of clarity, it is useful to set out in full the issues set out in the judicial review application filed before the Court:

[130] In short, a declaration of invalidity of the STCA Regulations is not required in order to ensure that they are not applied to claimants for protection at the land border in breach of either Canada’s international obligations not to refoule, or the Charter.
.
D. CONCLUSIONS
.
[131] For these reasons I would allow the appeal

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Lower Court considered a hypothetical scenario, and wrongly applied it to a Charter challenge. Put simply, Charter challenges are supposed to be ground in fact, and not “what if” situations. The ruling was overturned, and the Safe Third Country Agreement was restored.

7. 2017-Present: Toronto Challenge

Chief Justice Paul Crampton transferred 3 related cases to Justice Diner for case management. This is the same CJ Crampton who ruled that private citizens wishing to oppose the destruction of the S3CA don’t have standing.

Justice Diner granted public interest standing to 3 NGOs: Amnesty International, Canadian Council for Refugees, and Canadian Council of Churches.

Justice Diner order the 3 cases to be consolidated and tried together because of the overlapping issues.

Note: also see here, for decisions from the Federal Court in the matter above.

The case is still pending.

8. So Who Are These NGOs?

Amnesty International
ai.01.certificate.of.continuance
ai.02.bylaws
ai.03.changes.in.directors
ai.04.notice.of.financials

B’nai Brith League For Human Rights
bblhr.01.bylaws
bblhr.02.change.registered.office
bblhr.03.amendments
bblhr.04.certificate.of.incorporation
bblhr.05.director.changes

B’nai Brith National Organization
bbno.01.director.changes
bbno.02.certificate.of.incorporation
bbno.03.change.registered.office
bbno.04.notice.of.financials

Bridges, Not Borders
Bridges Not Borders, Mainpage
Bridges Not Borders, About
Bridges Not Borders, Why They Cross
Bridges Not Borders, Media Page
Bridges Not Borders, Pro Asylum Shopping

Canadian Association Of Refugee Lawyers
carl.01.directors
carl.02.change.of.office
carl.03.bylaws.2015
carl.04.notice.of.return
carl.05.certificate.of.continuance

Canadian Council For Refugees
ccr.01.2019.director.changes
ccr.02.bylaws
ccr.03.bylaws.from.2014
ccr.04.certificate.of.continuance
ccr.05.annual.return

Plattsburgh Cares
Plattsburgh Cares Main Page
Plattsburgh Cares, Humanitarian Support

Solidarity Across Borders
Solidarity Across Borders’ Homepage
SAB Supports Illegal Migrant Caravans
SAB Supports Sanctuary Cities For Illegals
SAB Calls To Open Up The Borders

These are of course not the only NGOs working to open up our borders (and other nations’ borders as well), but it does at least provide some insight.

Also, see the above links in Section #1 for other articles published on these NGOs.

9. Look At The Bigger Picture

Last fall, the story made the news that a challenge would be coming to Toronto to the Safe Third Country Agreement.

However, the Canadian media left out important information. Shocking.

First, it didn’t go into any detail on the groups lobbying for this. It wasn’t just some helpless “asylum claimants”, but an organized effort to help erase Canada’s border with the U.S.

Second, the full extent of the NGO meddling is not mentioned. True, some media DO reference the 2007 case, but not further. It doesn’t provide a complete picture of what is going on. Nor does it mention how these groups are pushing similar initiatives elsewhere. Amnesty International, for example, claims to have 7 million members pushing to bring more migrants (primarily) to the West. The Canadian Council for Refugees, as another example, spends considerable time and effort lobbying our Parliament for more refugee friendly laws.

Third, there seems little concern for the Canadian who would have their safety and sovereignty eroded should this pass. Instead, the focus is always on people coming to Canada and what their needs are.

This is lawfare: using our courts and legal system to open our borders.

March 18, 2020April 12, 2022

TSCE #8(E): David Berger, Ex-MP, Ex-Israel Ambassador, Now With JRAN, CCR

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-berger-20313212/
(2) http://archive.is/8HaiV
(3) http://lornematalon.com/2017/12/04/the-other-side-of-roxham-road-canada-grapples-with-border-refugees/
(4) http://archive.is/pjwr7
(5) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ex-diplomat-takes-refugee-case/article20425189/
(6) archive.is/yvsOx
(7) https://www.ifcj.ca/site/SPageNavigator/ca/work/ca_our_board.html?NONCE_TOKEN=6BB7108F7FAECB5D4C167116DAC88011
(8) http://archive.is/ZqEmK
(9) http://jran.ca/
(10) http://archive.is/HjDov (2017)
(11) http://archive.is/3zwWq (2020)
(12) http://jran.ca/about-us/the-jewish-refugee-connection
(13) http://archive.is/j5RQN
(14) http://jran.ca/jran-members
(15) http://archive.is/ScX9k
(16) http://jran.ca/the-issues
(17) http://archive.is/pQ56M
(18) http://jran.ca/news-events/news/2014/10/20/open-letter-to-prime-minister-harper-from-the-jewish-refugee-action-network-about-syrian-refugees
(19) http://archive.is/fetf1
(20) https://www.canada-immigration-law.com/our-team/
(21) http://archive.is/eSdft
(22) https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-most-african-migrants-in-israel-not-refugees/
(23) http://archive.is/LUS4d

3. From LinkedIn Page

My practice includes many different aspects of immigration, refugee and citizenship law including skilled worker applications, business immigration programs, and work or study permits.
.
I provide counsel to individuals, families and businesses in all facets of an application, notably in identifying the most expeditious manner of obtaining a visa or permit, communications with government officials, and appeals. I also have had particular success with difficult applications where clients faced considerable obstacles in obtaining or maintaining status in Canada.
.
Immigration to Canada represents opportunity but also difficulties and risks. I help clients to minimize the difficulties and risks and ensure the best possible results.

Just from the LinkedIn page we can get lots of information about David Berger. He was a Member of Parliament for several terms, is a former Ambassador to Israel, and now works for the NGO, Canadian Council for refugees.

4. Berger Pushed Asylum For UK “Refugee”

Dr. Khalid, 32, was forced into exile in London in March, along with her husband, but maintains she had always intended to seek asylum in Canada, where her relatives live.

Canada was one of the first countries to include gender-based persecution in its refugee determination process, and should come to the aid of the high-profile victim of violence, said Mr. Berger, a former Quebec Liberal MP (Westmount-St. Henri) who was posted to Israel as ambassador in 1995.

“The U.K. may not be the safest place for her,” said Mr. Berger, a lawyer who has taken Dr. Khalid’s case pro bono.
“It appears for some time Dr. Khalid has indicated she wanted to come to Canada and this is the country where she would be the happiest.”

Two interesting points about this Globe and Mail article. The first is that Mr. Berger sees nothing wrong with asylum shopping, and that refugees should simply be allowed to go where they please.

The other is that he claims the UK is not a safe country. Could this be because of their policy of bringing in huge numbers of Muslim migrants? Now the demographic shift has made the UK unsafe? In that case, why should we bring Muslims to Canada, and turn it into the UK (or essentially the 3rd world)?

5. David Berger Part Of CCR

Immigration lawyer and David Berger is a member of the Canadian Council of Refugees, an NGO that advocates for migrants. Berger is also Canada’s former Ambassador to Israel and a former member of Canada’s Parliament. “We’ve got a backlog today of 30,000 claims whereas about two years ago the backlog was 10 or 15 thousand,” he explained. He said there aren’t enough immigration judges, formally known in Canada as decision makers.

“We believe the government has to appoint more decision makers. 120 decision makers is just not enough,” Berger continued. He added that Canada is a better country for the contributions refugees make. He represents or has represented people with advanced degrees in literature and finance, images that defy stereotypes harbored by some anti-immigrant forces.

David Berger is part of the Canadian Council for Refugees, which, among other things, is working to strike down the Canada/U.S. Safe 3rd Country Agreement. If this is successful (it was initially, but overturned on appeal a decade ago), people from the warzone that is the United States will be free to waltz in and claim they are refugees, regardless of how meritless the claims may be.

6. Jewish Refugee Action Network

Overview of JRAN’s concerns
Since 2012, significant changes have been made to Canada’s treatment of refugees. For decades, Canada’s refugee system worked towards protecting people in danger and other humanitarian goals. The new changes, however, do the following: discriminate between individuals based on their country of origin or how they arrived in Canada; create serious challenges in the refugee determination process, which could lead in some cases to the deportation of individuals to their home countries and a real risk of persecution or worse; and limit certain humanitarian protections. In addition, since 2012, a half century’s old system of providing healthcare coverage to people seeking refugee status has been cut, thereby stranding thousands of people who are lawfully in Canada without emergency or life-saving healthcare.

1. Refugee Determination Process
Since 2012, changes to the refugee determination system make it difficult for many refugee claimants to prove their claims, and limits their ability to get a fair hearing due to severely shortened timelines, restrictions on appeal rights, and restrictions on other legal processes. Without a fair refugee hearing, there is a risk that people will be deported to countries where they face danger to their safety, freedom, or even their lives….

2. “Designated Countries of Origin” (DCOs)
The new Designated Countries of Origin (DCO) scheme creates a new category of refugee claimant. Refugee claimants from designated countries are not entitled to the same legal process as refugee claimants from non-designated countries. Ostensibly created to distinguish between refugee claimants from “safe” countries and claimants from other countries, in reality the DCO scheme creates a two-tiered system that discriminates between refugee claimants based on their country of origin, and limits the ability of claimants to get a fair hearing regarding their individual case….

3. “Designated Foreign Nationals” (DFNs)
Under the new designated foreign national (DFN) scheme, the Minister of Public Safety may “designate” two or more refugee claimants who arrive in Canada without the appropriate Canadian visas or documents, if the Minister believes that they have paid someone to help them enter Canada, or if they lack the papers necessary to prove their identity in what the Minister believes is a “timely manner.” Being identified as a DFN has serious consequences, including mandatory group detention for what may be lengthy periods, restrictions on appeal rights, and restrictions on gaining permanent residence status…

4. Cuts to Refugee Healthcare Coverage
In 2012, the Canadian government made drastic cuts to healthcare coverage for refugee claimants. An Order in Council took away even basic emergency and life-saving medical care from thousands of refugee claimants who have lawfully sought Canada’s protection…

The Jewish Refugee Action Network states that it is concerned about rights and social services for refugees coming into Canada. Interesting that Berger, a several term Member of Parliament, shows far more concern for the well being of foreigners than he does Canadians.

Now let’s get to what JRAN considers the “refugee issue”, and it attempts to give some historical context.

Jews as Refugees – Biblical Connection
The Exodus from Egypt, one of the central stories in Jewish tradition, is a foundation document of Jews as refugees. Having been held slaves under the pharoahs for several hundred years, the Israelites were desperate for their freedom. Their dramatic departure reached its climax at the Red Sea, when the Israelites were finally able to escape Pharoah’s soldiers and Egypt.
.
Jewish law – Spiritual Connection
Jewish texts and laws provide a constant reminder about the Exodus and about the experience of slavery in Egypt. The Exodus is the central experience recounted in the Torah. It is mentioned as part of our weekly Friday night blessings, and is told in far greater detail at our annual Passover seders. At the seder, surrounded by comfort and good food, we are encouraged to remember the story as if we were the ones who had been slaves and refugees.
The experience in Egypt is repeated often in the Torah, with the explicit admonition to treat others with compassion and justice. Our Biblical laws – requiring us to provide for the widow and orphan, to treat workers fairly, and to help the foreigners in our midst – explain that we must do so because we ourselves were foreigners in Egypt. This idea is echoed more than 30 times in the Torah. Here too, we are asked to put ourselves in the position of our ancestors: slaves and foreigners in Egypt.
.
Jews as Refugees – Historical Connections
The Shoah (Holocaust) was another defining moment for the Jewish people. The genocide of six million Jews was a tragedy, heightened by the indifference of those free countries who refused to admit Jews to safety on their shores. Canada is one of several countries who bear the shame of having refused to receive 900 Jewish refugees who had managed to escape Germany aboard the ocean liner St. Louis. Many Canadian Jews remember the treatment of these desperate Jewish refugees.
.
Jews and Roma – Parallel Histories of Persecution
The persecution of Jews in Europe for many centuries, bears certain similarities to that experienced by the Roma people, who also faced restrictions on their employment and permitted living areas, violence, expulsions, and other forms of oppression. The Roma people, like the Jews, were the only other group legally targeted for extermination by the Nazis, and experienced their own genocide known as the Porajmos. Unfortunately, the Roma in Europe continue to suffer many forms of violence, discrimination, at the hands of bigots and fascists with the collusion of some governments.

Clearly, never missing an opportunity to play the victim narrative. David Berger is a Board Member of this group. This is the list.

JRAN Members
Honorary Members

Stephen Lewis, Honorary Canadian Co-Chair
Michele Landsberg, Honorary Canadian Co-Chair

Board Members

Rabbi Arthur Bielfeld, founder of JRAN
Ken Rosenberg, Chair
Maureen Silcoff
Mary Jo Leddy
Noa Mendelsohn Aviv
Dr. Philip Berger
Bernie M Farber
Mitchell Goldberg
Valerie Hyman
Audrey Macklin
Anna Porter
Gabriela Ramo
Avrum Rosensweig
Jon Telch
Rivka Augenfeld
Cynthia Levine-Rasky
David Berger
Mira Oreck
Hesh Troper

7. Berger, JRAN, Lobbied For “Syrian Refugees”

As a wealthy and peaceful country, we have a shared international responsibility to be a safe haven for refugees and to treat them with fairness. As Jewish Canadians, we join other faith groups, legal organizations, and settlement workers in calling on our government to do our share for the vulnerable people fleeing Syria. Specifically:

1. To put in place flexible provisions to allow family members of Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and recognized refugees to enter Canada by issuing Temporary Resident Permits, with the possibility of access to permanent residence later.

2. In close consultation and coordination with sponsorship agreement holders, to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees from refugee camps within the next year. The UNHCR recently requested countries to settle 100,000 Syrian refugees. Canada has traditionally agreed to resettle 10 per cent of UNHCR requests.

3. That all pending applications for Syrian refugees be processed expeditiously, and that in no case should the processing of a refugee claim take more than one year.

4. That processing of Syrians not replace or divert any resources from other refugee or family reunification programs.

Refugees from Syria cannot afford to lose any more time. People are in crisis, and the world is watching. Prime Minister, the government must act now. We would be pleased to meet with you or members of your staff to further discuss this urgent issue.

Yours very truly,
.
Noa Mendelsohn Aviv
Rivka Augenfeld
David Berger, former Ambassador to Israel
Dr. Philip Berger
Rabbi Arthur Bielfeld
Bernie Farber
Mitchell Goldberg
Valerie Hyman
Michele Landsberg, OC
Maureen Silcoff
Jon Telch
Ken Rosenberg

The Jewish Refugee Action Network (which Berger is a Director of) was a major player in lobbying then PM Harper to take in so-called Syrian refugees.

Was Berger “ever” working for Canadians? Even during his several terms as an MP, or his tenure as Ambassador to Israel? Or was he a refugee lobbyist this entire time?

8. David Berger’s Many Roles

Canadian Bar Association (Immigration Section)
Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
Jewish Refugee Action Network
associate member of the Canadian Council for Refugees
former President of the Canadian Football League
former Member of Parliament
former Ambassador to Israel

8. David Berger’s Law Practice

David Berger, B.A., B.C.L.
David Berger, B.A. (Toronto) 1971; B.C.L. (McGill) 1975, was admitted to the Barreau du Québec in 1986.
David relies on a unique experience in elective office, diplomacy, business, and law in advising and representing his clients.
.
From 1979 to 1994, David served as a Member of the House of Commons of Canada, representing the constituencies of Laurier and St-Henri-Westmount.
.
From 1995 to 1999, David served as Canadian ambassador to the State of Israel, representative to the Palestinian Authority and High Commissioner to Cyprus.
.
Earlier in his career, from 1975 to 1979, David was executive vice-president of the Montreal Alouette Football Club, Inc. In 1978-1979, he served as President of the Canadian Football League.
David assists people in applications for temporary and permanent residence, including work and study permits and visitor visas, skilled worker applications, business immigration, family sponsorships and humanitarian and compassionate applications.
.
He represents clients in refugee claims, appeals to the Immigration Appeal Division, and judicial review applications to the Federal Court of Canada and the Quebec Superior Court.
David speaks English, French and Spanish.
.
David is a member of AQAADI (L’Association Québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration), the Canadian Bar Association (Immigration Section), the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Jewish Refugee Action Network, and an associate member of the Canadian Council for Refugees.
.
David is a director of several not for profit organizations including the Canada International Scientific Exchange Program (CISEPO), the Jerusalem Foundation of Canada, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (Canada), and the Trevor Williams Kids Foundation.

9. Israel Refuses To Take Refugees

During a solidarity visit to Tel Aviv last Thursday, Netanyahu, Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan and Culture Minister Miri Regev toured south Tel Aviv and vowed that the government would “give back” the neighborhood to its Israeli residents.

Netanyahu has previously said the government would take a three-pronged approach to the issue: a security fence along the Egyptian border, which has already succeeded in significantly reducing the number of migrants who cross into Israel from African countries; increased enforcement against those employ illegal migrants and migrants who break the law; and the ministerial committee, which the prime minister said he will lead himself.

Expulsion to a third country is largely unprecedented in the Western world. Italy and Australia signed similar agreements with third-party countries — Italy with Libya, and Australia with Malaysia — but both proposals were shot down by local courts. In both cases, courts ruled the bills inconsistent with international law and the 1951 UN convention on refugees — to which Israel is also a party.

Interesting. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel claims that the migrants in the country are not refugees, and seems content to deport them. Where is the outrage of people like David Berger? If Canada should do its part to take in people in a vast humanitarian effort, why the outrage at Israel refusing to do the same?

Netanyahu wants to keep Israel a Jewish nation, and he doesn’t want hordes of very different people irreversibly changing the demographics. Yet Berger, and people like him, see nothing wrong with forcibly remaking the west.

Why isn’t the former Ambassador to Israel lobbying for Israel to take refugees and open up its borders? After all, isn’t humanity and compassion supposed to be universal? Why the double standard?

March 17, 2020November 30, 2021

TSCE #8(D): Bridges Not Borders, Plattsburgh Cares & Solidarity Across Borders Coordinates Illegal Crossings At Roxham Rd

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Important Links

3. BnB Doesn’t Believe In Borders

Also, the original links for the YouTube videos above are here and here

Earlier in 2017 President Trump signed executive orders that suspended the refugee admission program and allowed for widespread arrest and deportation of undocumented people in the USA. This means that people needing protection can be sent back to their countries of origin where they may face torture, persecution or even loss of life. Yet, this is prohibited under international law.

Trump has also withdrawn Temporary Protected Status from citizens of Haiti, El Salvador and Honduras. This will come into effect in late 2019. The Haitians had fled to the USA following the disastrous earthquake in 2010. Haiti was hit hard again by Hurricane Matthew in 2016 and is still in a very bad state, facing huge problems of homelessness, poverty, illiteracy, violence against women and indentured child labour (see PDF Guardian article below).

For all the above reasons many people no longer feel safe in the USA and want to seek asylum and safety in Canada. But they face a hurdle in the 2002 Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) between Canada and the USA which came into effect in 2004.

The STCA means that, if someone crosses into Canada from the USA at an official border crossing and asks for asylum, they will be sent back to the USA, unless they fall under one of four exceptions to the Agreement. However if they cross the border at an irregular crossing such as Roxham Road, the Agreement does not apply. They can then make a claim for refugee status. That is why many people are choosing that route, so as to not risk being sent back to the USA and being unable to make a refugee claim in Canada in the future.

There are two issues here. The first one is: can the USA really be considered to be a safe country for refugees? The Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Council of Churches and Amnesty International don’t think so and have launched a legal challenge to the STCA (see PDF files below including our Briefing document). The second issue is that of irregular crossings. Given the STCA, most asylum seekers are in a ‘catch 22’ situation: it’s not safe for them to stay in the USA and it’s not safe for them to enter officially. The 1951 Refugee Convention, ratified by Canada, says that states shall not penalize asylum seekers if they enter a country irregularly, providing they present themselves without delay to the authorities. Section 133 of the (Canadian) Immigration and Refugee Protection Act also states that people seeking asylum will not be prosecuted for irregular entry into Canada.

People crossing irregularly are not ‘illegal immigrants’ as has been wrongly asserted. Nor are they ‘queue jumpers’, as refugee claims are treated as received. We believe the STCA should be revoked, so that everyone seeking asylum could enter Canada safely and with dignity at an official border crossing. This is especially important during the winter or any period of extreme weather. During the winters of 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, many people suffered hypothermia and frostbite during irregular crossings into Canada and have lost fingers and toes. Tragically, in spring 2017, a woman from Ghana, Mavis Otuteye, died while trying to cross from Minnesota into Manitoba.

Straight from the horse’s mouth. This group believes that everyone should be allowed to enter Canada, and this includes from the United States. The fact that the U.S. gives asylum to tens of thousands of people each year seems to not matter.

4. BnB Encourages Asylum Shopping

URGENT MESSAGE FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS: If you have applied for asylum in the USA (or in the United Kingdom, New Zealand or Australia) you are no longer entitled to the full independent refugee determination process in Canada. Instead you only have access to a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) hearing conducted by a government official. You will be able to have a lawyer or immigration consultant present with you. You need to be aware that the PRRA is a much less thorough process and has a low success rate. However, if you are successful you will be recognized as either a refugee or a protected person in Canada. Please consider this carefully before deciding to enter Canada either via Roxham Road or at an official Port of Entry.

Why would you publish this information, unless it was to help advise so-called “refugees” to circumvent the process by entering the U.S. under false pretenses, and then come illegally to Canada?

5. BnB Coordinates With “Plattsburgh Cares”

We have close connections with members of Plattsburgh Cares, a group that supports refugees who want to cross into Canada. We’re also in contact with Solidarity Across Borders (Montreal), as well as with various groups, committees, and institutions that support refugees locally and in Montreal (including UNHCR).

That admission came from the about page. As for what Plattsburgh Cares claims to provide:

Let us know what support you can offer. Here’s a partial list of what we need:
-Translation. The refugees who come through the area speak a variety of languages. If you are proficient in any second language and would like to help, let us know.
-Transportation. Individuals may need help getting to the grocery store, doctor’s appointments and so forth.
-Legal advice. The refugees need access to qualified individuals with knowledge of immigration law.
-Short-term temporary housing. Some may need access to safe housing for a night or a week or two.
-Long-term temporary housing. Others may need a place for a longer period.
-Clothing. Some may need clothes, especially during the winter months.
-Educational outreach. We will need help getting educational materials into the hands of refugees coming into our region.

None of these items are bad per se. The problem is that this NGO, like many others, has no concern for whether people are in the country illegally. Moreover, they help facilitate illegal border crossings.

6. BnB Worked With Solidarity Across Borders

Our first group activity in September 2017 was a table at the Roxham Road Woolgathering, for which we had made buttons with the theme ‘Refugees Welcome’. We also provided information explaining how the ‘Safe Third Country Agreement’ between Canada and the USA forces refugees to cross irregularly to prevent being sent back to the USA (see the pages WHY and WHO for this info).

Our second activity was to participate in a demonstration at the border crossing at Lacolle which was organized by the Montreal-based group Solidarity Across Borders. This was a response to the presence at the Lacolle border of far right groups opposed to the irregular crossings of asylum seekers. A local artist created the beautiful ‘Bridges not Borders’ wood cut after which we named our group.

This came from the ABOUT section of Bridges Not Borders. Apparently wanting borders makes you a member of the far right. Now, who is “Solidarity Across Borders”?

Let’s just look at one of the demands of Solidarity Across Borders: free services for all illegals. Not joking. Here is the actual text.

We demand that:
.
everyone living here should have access to free health care in clinics, CLSCs and hospitals. Medical facilities should never ask for information on immigration status. Instead, they should work to provide appropriate and respectful care to all users. We want health care to be accessible to all and support efforts to defend the public health care system.
.
everyone living here should be able to attend school free of charge, regardless of their – or their parents – immigration status. We are in favor of universal education for all, from kindergarten to university, and defend accessible education at all levels and for all people.
.
the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) should not have any right to enter and arrest migrants in hospitals, clinics, shelters, schools, or any space providing essential services; ultimately, the CBSA should not be welcome anywhere in our communities.
.
any person living here should have access to social housing, food banks, unemployment benefits and any other social welfare regardless of immigration status.

This is one of the groups that Bridges Not Borders sees no problem in partnering with. Free services and effective amnesty for all illegals. What could possibly go wrong?

7. UNHCR Admits These Claims Are Bogus

CLICK HERE, for UNHCR 2019 data on illegals.
irregular-arrivals-at-the-border-background-information-janjul2019-en

The majority of asylum seekers had valid status in the U.S. at the time of crossing (often a visitor visa) and only transited in the U.S. for a short period with the intention of claiming asylum in Canada, the American visa being reportedly easier to obtain that the Canadian one.

Others had stayed in the U.S. for a number of years, including persons with pending/denied asylum claims and to a lesser extent, persons whose status in the U.S. had expired.

Under the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), individuals in the U.S. cannot make a claim at the Canadian official border post unless they qualify for an exception to the agreement, such as having a close family member in Canada.
.
The STCA does not apply to those who cross the border in-between official border posts, as at the time they claim asylum, there are already in Canada.

8. Completely Undermining Border Security

This is (partly) why borders are so damn hard to enforce. It’s because organizations like: (a) Bridges Not Borders; (b) Plattsburg Cares; and (c) Solidarity Across Borders are doing what they can do undermine it.

Further, efforts are crippled by the UNCHR, who make it clear that they see nothing wrong with illegal crossings, and hamstring local efforts to stop it. Efforts in court are at best mixed, since the “rights” of illegals must be balanced against those of society’s.

Finally, corrupt politicians (both government and controlled opposition), do little to nothing to stop this problem. In short, border security COULD be a very straightforward issue, if the system weren’t rigged to prevent that.

This is disheartening, to say the least.

March 11, 2020October 28, 2022

TSCE #8(C): Canadian Council For Refugees, Lobbying To Open Our Borders

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for CCR lobbying efforts since 1997.
http://archive.is/pHoQN
CLICK HERE, for CCR Communications Reports filed.
http://archive.is/xSrFC

CLICK HERE, for 2018/2019 tax information.
http://archive.is/FanEL

CLICK HERE, for CNN on DNA testing at US/Mex border.
http://archive.is/Ob6BT

CLICK HERE, for CCR supports Bill C-6, citizenship for terrorists.
http://archive.is/q1Kih

3. Context For This Article

Canadians should have control over their own laws. They should be drafted by and for Canadians. This should not be a difficult or controversial topic.

However, one organization, the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR), is attempting to lobby Canada’s politicians to create more “refugee” friendly laws. This has been going on for over a decade, and seems to have been a long term effort.

Yes, the CCR is one of the groups trying to strike down the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement in the Toronto Federal Court. However, this article will focus more on the political efforts that CCR has undertaken. Indeed, CCR has been busy trying change our laws.

4. CCR Lobbying The Federal Government

Here is an alphabetical list of those who have been lobbied by the Canadian Council for Refugees since 2008.

Gary Anandasangaree, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Sacha Atherly, Policy Advisor | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Matthieu Bélanger, Chief of Staff | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Bill Blair, Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction | Public Safety Canada (PS)
Jacques Cloutier, Vice-President | Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)
Claudette Deschênes, Assistant Deputy Minister | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Dawn Edlund, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Steve Foster, Senior Policy Advisor (specializing in social justice issues) | House of Commons
Ralph Goodale, Minister | Public Safety Canada (PS)
Sadia Groguhé, MP, Deputy Critic Immigration, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism | House of Commons
Alyx Holland, Office of the Minister of Public Safety Canada | Public Safety Canada (PS)
David Hurl, Director of Policy and Parliamentary Affairs | Public Safety Canada (PS)
Ahmed Hussen, Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Jenny Kwan, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Les Linklater, Assistant Deputy Minister | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
David Manicom, Assistant Deputy Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
John McCallum, Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Marta Morgan, Deputy Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Kyle Nicholson, Director of Policy | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Kim Pate, Senator | Senate of Canada
Olga Radchenko, Director of Parliamentary Affairs | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Murray Rankin, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Ali Salam, Chief of Staff | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Oline Twiss, Policy and Stakeholders Relations Officer | House of Commons
Richard Wex, Associate Deputy Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)

Now, let’s take a look at some specific proposals that CCR is advocating for. Sections 4-10 cover the most important ones. But those are by no means all of them.

5. CCR Challenges Canada/US S3CA

US-Canada safe third country agreement – oppose denial of access to refugee determination in Canada on the basis of the Safe Third Country Agreement

The Canadian Council for Refugees is one of the groups aiding a challenge in Toronto to strike down the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement. If this were to be successful, it would mean that (even at official border ports), so called “refugees” from the US could simply stroll in and be legally entitled to a hearing.

6. CCR Opposes DNA Testing

Interestingly, they also oppose DNA testing. (see the last section for the screenshot). Now why would any responsible organization be doing this? Wouldn’t they want to ensure that children are being reunited with their true, biological relatives?

Washington (CNN)The Department of Homeland Security will start a DNA testing pilot program next week to help identify and prosecute individuals posing as families in an effort to target human smuggling, two department officials confirmed to CNN.

The Rapid DNA testing, as it’s known, involves a cheek swab and can, on average, provide results in about 90 minutes, a senior Immigration and Customs Enforcement official said.

The pilot program will run for two to three days in two border locations.

It’s the latest move by the Trump administration to address the swell of migrants, predominantly families and children from Central American countries, at the border using a wide variety of technology and increased resources to fight illegal immigration.

That was an American article, but it also raises an interesting question here. If there is a risk of child smuggling or child trafficking, why WOULDN’T the Canadian Council for Refugees want to ensure that true families are being reunited? Do they want to aid and abet smuggling and trafficking?

7. CCR Against Custody Req’t For Illegals

Immigration detention policies – advocating for the end to the immigration detention of children and families and for reduction in immigration detention, including through the introduction of fair and effective alternatives to detention.

Why should people in the country illegally, or accused of other crimes while not a citizen be locked up for any reason? Perhaps self deportation would be in everyone’s best interests….

8. CCR Challenges Removing Criminally Inadmissible PR

Removals of permanent residents on the basis of criminal inadmissibility, particularly in the wake of amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act made in 2013. CCR’s concern relates to lack of due consideration of humanitarian and compassionate factors in making removals, particularly of long-term residents.

9. CCR Challenges Deportations To Certain Countries

Removals to situations of risk – calling for suspension of removals to countries of generalized risk and policies ensuring individuals at risk have removal deferred.

10. CCR Promotes Amnesty For Illegals

Regularization of persons without status – promoting measures to allow persons in Canada without status to obtain permanent residence, including advocating for regularization of “legacy” claimants, ie. those who made a refugee claim before 15 December 2012.

This is exactly what it sounds like. The Canadian Council for Refugees is lobbying for amnesty-for-illegals, which will create a path to permanent residence, and presumably citizenship at some point.

11. CCR Wants Canadians To Foot The Bill

Availability of legal aid to refugee claimants and other vulnerable migrants, including the role of the federal government in providing adequate funding to provinces to cover the costs of legal aid.

It wouldn’t really be complete without ensuring that Canadians were on the hook paying for these people’s legal costs, now would it?

12. Some Government Funding CCR Gets

City of Montreal
Canadian Heritage
City of Victoria
Government of Quebec
Federal Government (IRCC)

While CCR undoubtedly has some private donors, it is a recipient of Government aid. Or to be more precise, it receives taxpayer aid.

13. Info From Canada Revenue Tax Filings

Receipted donations $94,255.00 (22.94%)
Non-receipted donations $17,110.00 (4.16%)
Gifts from other registered charities $117,291.00 (28.55%)
Government funding $5,000.00 (1.22%)
All other revenue $177,168.00 (43.13%)
Total revenue: $410,824.00

Receipted donations $80,885.00 (9.85%)
Non-receipted donations $221,686.00 (27.01%)
Gifts from other registered charities $208,696.00 (25.42%)
Government funding $38,086.00 (4.64%)
All other revenue $271,506.00 (33.08%)
Total revenue: $820,859.00

Receipted donations $85,242.00 (12.44%)
Non-receipted donations $47,860.00 (6.99%)
Gifts from other registered charities $103,198.00 (15.06%)
Government funding $142,513.00 (20.80%)
All other revenue $306,250.00 (44.70%)
Total revenue: $685,063.00

Receipted donations $93,961.00 (12.99%)
Non-receipted donations $49,488.00 (6.84%)
Gifts from other registered charities $119,054.00 (16.45%)
Government funding $109,905.00 (15.19%)
All other revenue $351,132.00 (48.53%)
Total revenue: $723,540.00

More detailed information

14. Corporate Documents

ccr.01.2019.director.changes
ccr.02.bylaws
ccr.03.bylaws.from.2014
ccr.04.certificate.of.continuance
ccr.05.annual.return

15. CCR’s Previous Attempt On S3CA

In 2007, the CCR (along with Amnesty International, and the Canadian Council of Churches) were successful in getting the Safe 3rd Country Agreement struck down.
2007.safe.3rd.country.struck.down

However, in 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned that ruling, stating that these groups didn’t have standing to bring it themselves.
2009.fca.appeal.overturns.ruling

Now, the trio (Amnesty International, Canadian Council for Refugees, and Canadian Council of Churches) are at it again. They’ve taken up the cases of “refugees” from the US who want this law struck down.

16. CCR Supported Bill C-6 (Citizenship for Terrorists)

CCR calls for further amendments to Citizenship Act to reduce barriers and make all citizens equal
The Canadian Council for Refugees published today its submission on Bill C-6, welcoming the introduction of amendments to the Citizenship Act and calling for further changes to provide equal access to citizenship and fair process.
.
“We need to bring down barriers to citizenship, especially for already disadvantaged groups such as refugees, the elderly, and women,” said Loly Rico, CCR President. “In line with Canada’s international obligations, we encourage the government to craft a new citizenship regime to which all applicants will have equal access without discrimination.”
.
Bill C-6 mostly reverses changes made under the previous Bill C-24, which took effect in 2015. The CCR welcomes the changes that will give refugees and other newcomers earlier access to citizenship, which will lead to better integration.
.
Bill C-6 also rightly re-affirms the equality of all citizens by eliminating provisions allowing for dual citizens to lose their citizenship in cases of “treason” or “terrorism” and requiring applicants for citizen to have an “intent to reside in Canada”.
.
While Bill C-6 contains many good measures to strengthen citizenship, other changes are also needed to remove barriers and end second class citizenship. The CCR is calling on Parliament to amend the bill to:
Create a right to apply for citizenship for youth under 18 who do not have a parent or legal guardian in Canada.
Create a system to exempt people from citizenship fees if they can’t afford them.
Provide better accommodation for applicants with disabilities.
Prevent long wait times by requiring the government to process applications within a reasonable time.
Stop the use of citizenship applications to launch a process to strip status from former refugees (through cessation).
Provide better procedural rights for loss of citizenship based on fraud or misrepresentation.
Restore Canadian citizenship to second generation born abroad to Canadian citizens. In the alternative, at least give citizenship for those who would be otherwise be stateless.

Yes, the CCR supported Trudeau’s Bill C-6, which would have stripped Canadian citizenship away from dual citizens convicted of terrorism or treason. Way tp pick a winning issue.

17. CCR Is A Political Organization

Despite the presumption that charities or NGOs simply act for a god cause that they represent, this is not really the case here. The Canadian Council for Refugees has a political branch to it, which is trying to change Canadian laws. Let’s summarize a few:

Trying to strike down Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement
Opposing DNA testing for refugees
Removing immigration detention
Permanent residence for criminal inadmissibles
No deportation to various countries
Amnesty/PR for illegals
Taxpayer funded court services
Citizenship for terrorists

Those are just a few of the things that CCR lobbies for. It is a political organization deliberately lobbying to weaken our borders even more. It’s time to call a spade a spade.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Important Links

3. Context For This Piece

4. Global Migration Agreements

5. Repatriation Of Terrorists To Canada

6. Embracing Incompatibles As “Diversity”

7. Lack Of Genuine Border Enforcement

8. Foreign NGOs Writing Our laws

9. Reduced Penalties For Child Sex Crimes

10. Cutting Funding To Victims’ Shelters

11. Connecting The Dots

Share this:

Like this:

1. Bill C-32 Introduced In November 2016

2. Bill C-75 Brought In March 2018

3. Bill C-75 Used Partly To Divert Attention

4. Hybridization Of Offences Continues

5. Submissions In Bill C-75 Hearings

6. Liberals All Voted For This

7. More Then Just Terrorism At Stake

Share this:

Like this:

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Why Canadians Should Care

3. Court History Over The Years

4. 1992: SCC Rules No Standing

5. 2008: S3CA, Parts Of IRPA Struck Out

6. 2009: Previous Ruling Overturned

7. 2017-Present: Toronto Challenge

8. So Who Are These NGOs?

9. Look At The Bigger Picture

Share this:

Like this:

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Important Links

3. From LinkedIn Page

4. Berger Pushed Asylum For UK “Refugee”

5. David Berger Part Of CCR

6. Jewish Refugee Action Network

7. Berger, JRAN, Lobbied For “Syrian Refugees”

8. David Berger’s Many Roles

8. David Berger’s Law Practice

9. Israel Refuses To Take Refugees

Share this:

Like this:

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Important Links

3. BnB Doesn’t Believe In Borders

4. BnB Encourages Asylum Shopping

5. BnB Coordinates With “Plattsburgh Cares”

6. BnB Worked With Solidarity Across Borders

7. UNHCR Admits These Claims Are Bogus

8. Completely Undermining Border Security

Share this:

Like this:

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Important Links

3. Context For This Article

4. CCR Lobbying The Federal Government

5. CCR Challenges Canada/US S3CA

6. CCR Opposes DNA Testing

7. CCR Against Custody Req’t For Illegals

8. CCR Challenges Removing Criminally Inadmissible PR

9. CCR Challenges Deportations To Certain Countries

10. CCR Promotes Amnesty For Illegals

11. CCR Wants Canadians To Foot The Bill

12. Some Government Funding CCR Gets

13. Info From Canada Revenue Tax Filings

14. Corporate Documents

15. CCR’s Previous Attempt On S3CA

16. CCR Supported Bill C-6 (Citizenship for Terrorists)

17. CCR Is A Political Organization

Share this:

Like this: