Category: Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Posted on

Hypocrisy In Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations

Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention

59 countries endorses the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations. This was designed to prevent the rights of foreign nationals from being abused for political reasons. However, there are some issues to address.

1. Declaration Sounds Fine On The Surface


https://twitter.com/JosepBorrellF/status/1361332231378243588

The arbitrary arrest or detention of foreign nationals to compel action or to exercise leverage over a foreign government is contrary to international law, undermines international relations, and has a negative impact on foreign nationals traveling, working and living abroad. Foreign nationals abroad are susceptible to arbitrary arrest and detention or sentencing by governments seeking to compel action from other States. The purpose of this Declaration is to enhance international cooperation and end the practice of arbitrary arrest, detention or sentencing to exercise leverage over foreign governments.

Recognising a pressing need for an international response to the prevalence of these practices, and guided by international law and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations:

1. We reaffirm that arbitrary arrests and detentions are contrary to international human rights law and instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international and regional human rights instruments;

2. We express grave concern about the use of arbitrary arrest or detention by States to exercise leverage over foreign governments, contrary to international law;

3. We are deeply concerned that arbitrary arrest, detention, or sentencing to exercise leverage over foreign governments undermines the development of friendly relations and cooperation between States, international travel, trade and commerce, and the obligation to settle international disputes by peaceful means;

4. We are alarmed by the abuse of State authority, including judicial authority, to arbitrarily arrest, detain or sentence individuals to exercise leverage over foreign governments. We call on States to respect their obligations related to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal;

5. We urge all States to refrain from arbitrary arrest, detention, or sentencing to exercise leverage over foreign governments in the context of State-to-State relations;

6. We reaffirm the fundamental importance of the rule of law, independence of the judiciary, respect for human rights, and respect for the obligation to provide consular access in accordance with international law, including the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and other applicable international instruments;

7. We call upon States to take concrete steps to prevent and put an end to harsh conditions in detention, denial of access to counsel, and torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of individuals arbitrarily arrested, detained or sentenced to exercise leverage over foreign governments. We reaffirm the urgent need to provide these individuals with an effective remedy consistent with international human rights law, and call for their immediate release;

8. We stand in solidarity with States whose nationals* have been arbitrarily arrested, detained or sentenced by other States seeking to exercise leverage over them and acknowledge the need to work collaboratively to address this issue of mutual concern at the international level.

This Declaration remains open to endorsement.
.
(*) Including dual nationals in accordance with endorsing countries’ laws on nationality.

On the surface, there is nothing wrong with any of this. People’s rights shouldn’t be denied or abused in order to make some geopolitical power play. The text of the treaty sounds fine. However, there are some problems that need to be addressed.

Of course, how would such a treaty be enforced? Who and where would it be enforced? Could a country simply withdraw and go about business as usual? How could anyone scrutinize or investigate possible violations?

2. China Is The Elephant In The Room

There seems to be no mention of China, who has been holding 2 Canadians as prisoners for years. This of course, refers to Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. This happened in retaliation for Canada arresting a Huawei executive. Also, what about the mass arrests and persecutions of religious minorities that China has long been accused of committing?

What is really the purpose of this Declaration? Is it to send a message? Is it to appear virtuous? Of course, appearing virtuous is not the same thing as being virtuous. It can’t be for ideological reasons, given the following issue:

3. Arbitrary Detention In So-Called Pandemic

For any of these countries to be taken seriously, what about the human rights abuses that are going on domestically against their own citizens? Is it okay, or less wrong, when it’s done locally? Do any of these sound familiar?

  • Forced quarantine detentions
  • Forced curfews
  • Forced stay-at-home orders
  • Forced closures of businesses
  • Forced closures of religious services
  • Forced masks on adults
  • Forced masks on children
  • Forced nasal rape for bogus tests
  • Peaceful assembly banned
  • Banning free speech as “misinformation”
  • Arrests for violating any of the above

While these 59 countries are crowing about how virtuous they are, many have implemented some or all of the above measures. Of course, this is done in the name of “public safety”. Are they not stripping their own people’s rights in order to implement political agendas? Shouldn’t human rights be applied universally, not just when travelling abroad?

Although it’s still just a proposal, public officials in Canada have openly suggested the idea of passing laws to ban what they call “misinformation”. Of course, this refers to people who will research and expose their lies.

Posted on

Twitter Sued For (Allegedly) Refusing To Remove Child Exploitation Material

Twitter is being sued in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. It’s alleged that Twitter refused to take down pornographic material, even after becoming aware that minors were involved, and they were exploited. The site, endsexualexploitation.org, posted a copy of the complaint. The names were redacted in the papers to protect the identities of the family.

Just a reminder: at this point, it is just accusations against Twitter.

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

Twitter CP Remained Up Lawsuit Filed Statement Of Claim
Endsexualexploitation,org Website Link
Interview With Epoch Times — American Thought Leaders
Twitter T.O.S.: Child Sexual Exploitation Policies
https://archive.is/PVP1w
Twitter Medical Misinformation Policies
https://archive.is/RLwRi
Twitter Misleading Information Updates
https://archive.is/zoqrD

3. Epoch Times Interviews Plaintiff’s Lawyer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHSO3hpBVrs

Lisa Haba, lawyer for the victim, gave an interview with Jan Jekielek of Epoch Times a few days ago. This is well worth a watch. They bring up several interesting topics, including using Section 230 as a legal defense.

4. Quotes From The Lawsuit Against Twitter

This is a civil action for damages under the federal Trafficking Victims’ Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 1595, Failure to Report Child Sexual Abuse Material, 18 U.S.C. § 2258A, Receipt and Distribution of Child Pornography, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A, and related state law claims arising from Defendant’s conduct when it knowingly hosted sexual exploitation material, including child sex abuse material (referred to in some instances as child pornography), and allowed human trafficking and the dissemination of child sexual abuse material to continue on its platform, therefore profiting from the harmful and exploitive material and the traffic it draws.

1. Sex trafficking is a form of slavery that illegally exists in this world—both throughout the United States and globally—and traffickers have been able to operate under cover of the law through online platforms. Likewise, those platforms have profited from the posting and dissemination of trafficking and the exploitative images and videos associated with it.

2. The dissemination of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) has become a global scourge since the explosion of the internet, which allows those that seek to trade in this material to equally operate under cover of the law through online platforms.

3. This lawsuit seeks to shine a light on how Twitter has enabled and profited from CSAM on its platform, choosing profits over people, money over the safety of children, and wealth at the expense of human freedom and human dignity.

4. With over 330 million users, Twitter is one of the largest social media companies in the world. It is also one of the most prolific distributors of material depicting the sexual abuse and exploitation of children.

28. Twitter explains how it makes money from advertising services as follows:
.
We generate most of our advertising revenue by selling our
Promoted Products. Currently, our Promoted Products consist of
the following:
.
• Promoted Tweets. Promoted Tweets, which are labeled as
“promoted,” appear within a timeline, search results or profile
pages just like an ordinary Tweet regardless of device, whether it
be desktop or mobile. Using our proprietary algorithms and
understanding of the interests of each account, we can deliver
Promoted Tweets that are intended to be relevant to a particular
account. We enable our advertisers to target an audience based on
an individual account’s interest graph. Our Promoted Tweets are
pay-for-performance or pay-for-impression delivered advertising
that are priced through an auction. Our Promoted Tweets include
objective-based features that allow advertisers to pay only for the
types of engagement selected by the advertisers, such as Tweet
engagements (e.g., Retweets, replies and likes), website clicks,
mobile application installs or engagements, obtaining new
followers, or video views.

65. In 2017, when John Doe was 13-14 years old, he engaged in a dialog with someone he thought was an individual person on the communications application Snapchat. That person or persons represented to John Doe that they were a 16-year-old female and he believed that person went his school.

66. After conversing, the person or persons (“Traffickers”) interacting with John Doe exchanged nude photos on Snapchat.

67. After he did so the correspondence changed to blackmail. Now the Traffickers wanted more sexually graphic pictures and videos of John Doe, and recruited, enticed, threatened and solicited John Doe by telling him that if he did not provide this material, then the nude pictures of himself that he had already sent would be sent to his parents, coach, pastor, and others in his community.

68. Initially John Doe complied with the Traffickers’ demands. He was told to provide videos of himself performing sexual acts. He was also told to include another person in the videos, to which he complied.

69. Because John Doe was (and still is) a minor and the pictures and videos he was threatened and coerced to produce included graphic sexual depictions of himself, including depictions of him engaging in sexual acts with another minor, the pictures and videos constitute CSAM under the law.

70. The Traffickers also attempted to meet with him in person. Fortunately, an in person meeting never took place.

85. John Doe submitted a picture of his drivers’ license to Twitter proving that he is a minor. He emailed back the same day saying:

91. On January 28, 2020, Twitter sent John Doe an email that read as follows:
.
Hello,
.
Thanks for reaching out. We’ve reviewed the content, and didn’t find a violation of our policies, so no action will be taken at this time.
.
If you believe there’s a potential copyright infringement, please start a new report.
.
If the content is hosted on a third-party website, you’ll need to contact that website’s support team to report it.
.
Your safety is the most important thing, and if you believe you are in danger, we encourage you to contact your local authorities. Taking screenshots of the Tweets is often a good idea, and we have more information available for law enforcement about our policies.
.
Thanks,
Twitter

In short, the victim met someone online pretending to be someone else, and got him to send nude photos under false pretenses. The teen — which is still a minor today — was then blackmailed into sending more.

Some of this was posted on Twitter. Despite verifying the age and identity of the victim, they refused to remove the content, saying that they found no violations in their terms of services. It was only after Homeland Security stepped in, that Twitter finally complied.

Interestingly, almost half of the complaint against Twitter consists of copies of its own rules, policies, and terms of service. Twitter has rules on the books to prevent exactly this type of thing, but (allegedly) refused to act when it was brought to their attention.

The comment about “potential copyright infringement” comes across as a slap in the face. That was clearly never the concern of the child.

Twitter has not filed a response, so we’ll have to see what happens next.

5. Current Twitter Policy On Exploiting Minors

Child sexual exploitation policy
Overview
October 2020
.
We have a zero-tolerance child sexual exploitation policy on Twitter.
.
Twitter has zero tolerance towards any material that features or promotes child sexual exploitation, one of the most serious violations of the Twitter Rules. This may include media, text, illustrated, or computer-generated images. Regardless of the intent, viewing, sharing, or linking to child sexual exploitation material contributes to the re-victimization of the depicted children. This also applies to content that may further contribute to victimization of children through the promotion or glorification of child sexual exploitation. For the purposes of this policy, a minor is any person under the age of 18.

What is in violation of this policy?
Any content that depicts or promotes child sexual exploitation including, but not limited to:
-visual depictions of a child engaging in sexually explicit or sexually suggestive acts;
-illustrated, computer-generated or other forms of realistic depictions of a human child in a sexually explicit context, or engaging in sexually explicit acts;
-sexualized commentaries about or directed at a known or unknown minor; and
-links to third-party sites that host child sexual exploitation material.

The following behaviors are also not permitted:
-sharing fantasies about or promoting engagement in child sexual exploitation;
-expressing a desire to obtain materials that feature child sexual exploitation;
-recruiting, advertising or expressing an interest in a commercial sex act involving a child, or in harboring and/or transporting a child for sexual purposes;
–sending sexually explicit media to a child;
-engaging or trying to engage a child in a sexually explicit conversation;
-trying to obtain sexually explicit media from a child or trying to engage a child in sexual activity through blackmail or other incentives;
-identifying alleged victims of childhood sexual exploitation by name or image; and
-promoting or normalizing sexual attraction to minors as a form of identity or sexual orientation.

At least on paper, Twitter has very strong policies against the sort of behaviour that is outlined in the California lawsuit. It’s baffling why Twitter wouldn’t immediately remove the content. This isn’t the hill to die on for any company.

Twitter can, and does, suspend accounts for insulting pedophiles and making comments about death or castration. Yet, this incident wasn’t against their terms of service.

6. Title 47, CH 5, SUBCHAPTER II Part I § 230

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
(d) Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.

The “Section 230” which is commonly referenced refers to the 1996 Communications Decency Act. This gave platforms — both existing, and ones that came later — significant legal protections. They were considered platforms, not publishers.

The distinction between platforms and publishers seems small, but is significant. Platforms are eligible for certain benefits and tax breaks, but are cannot (except in limited circumstances), be held liable. Publishers, however, can be much more discriminatory about what they allow to be shown.

The wording is such that it does give wiggle room for publishers to apply their own take on what material is considered offensive.

It has been suggested that Twitter could rely on its Section 230 protections, but that would not shield it from penalties for criminal actions. The allegations made in this lawsuit are not just civil, but criminal in nature.

While Twitter may not be liable for everything that goes on, this particular incident was brought to their attention. They asked for identification and age verification, received it, and then decided there was no violation to their terms of service. So claiming ignorance would be extremely difficult.

7. Loss On Social Media Anonymity?!

One issue not discussed as much is a potential consequence of legal actions against platforms like Twitter. Will this lead to the loss of anonymous accounts? Might identity verification come as an unintended consequence?

While no decent person wants children — or anyone — to be take advantage of, there is a certain security knowing that online and private life can be separated. This is the era of doxing, harassment and stalking, and as such, there are legitimate concerns for many people. This is especially true for those discussing more controversial and politically incorrect topics.

Do we really want things to go the way of Parler, who began demanding Government issued I.D., and then had a “data breach”?

8. Twitter Policies On “Medical Misinformation”

https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1267986500030955520
https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1278095924330364935
http://archive.is/fHoLx
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2020/updating-our-approach-to-misleading-information.html

This topic is brought up to show how selective Twitter’s commitment is to free speech, and to dissenting viewpoints. Even a charitable interpretation would be that there is political bias in how the rules and standardds are applied.

Strangely, Twitter takes a more thorough approach to monitoring and removing tweets and accounts for promoting “medical misinformation”. Despite there being many valid questions and concerns about this “pandemic”, far more of that is censored. Odd priorities.

Yet child porn and exploiting minors can remain up?

Posted on

Hypocrisy On Politicians Condemning Chinese Human Rights Abuses

While Canadians’ lives and livelihoods are destroyed by Governments using the false narrative of a “global pandemic”, Conservatives take the time to virtue signal about their disgust with China. While it’s abhorrent what goes on there, human rights abuses locally are ignored.

The ironically named “Official Opposition” complains about forced sterilization and genocide in China. However they support mass vaccination of Canadians, even though it may cause something similar.

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. Parliamentary Petitions: February 5, 2020

https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20210205/-1/34651

Seriously, how many of these petitions are needed to signal how evil China is? This is just grandstanding at this point. 9 were introduced in just one day of Parliament.

Now, even though all of these motions are excessive, it’s possible that politicians will strongly condemn the abuses that have happened in Canada and abroad this last year, right? Surely, they are outraged about the loss of freedom and opportunities that Canadians have suffered through no fault of their own. Well, it’s not so simple.

3. Bill S-240: Travelling To Obtain Organs

February 26, 2019 — House Committee

February 27, 2019 — House Committee

Bill S-240 would make it a crime for Canadians to go abroad to purchase or obtain organs for transplant, if there was a lack of consent. Specifically, this is designed at cutting down organ trafficking, and stopping the financial incentives for doing this.

Surely, politicians this committed to combatting human rights abuses must also want that applied at home, right? They would want their own citizens to have their rights protected, and be free victimization, correct? As it turns out, that is not really the case.

4. CPC Silence Canadian Human Rights Abuses

MOTION TEXT
That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to undertake a study on the emergency situation facing Canadians in light of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this study evaluate, review and examine any issues relevant to this situation, such as, but not limited to:
.
(a) rapid and at-home testing approvals and procurement process and schedule, and protocol for distribution;
.
(b) vaccine development and approvals process, procurement schedules, and protocol for distribution;
.
(c) federal public health guidelines and the data being used to inform them for greater clarity on efficacy;
.
(d) current long-term care facility COVID-19 protocols as they pertain solely to federal jurisdiction;
.
(e) the availability of therapeutics and treatment devices for Canadians diagnosed with COVID-19;
.
(f) the early warning system, Global Public Health Intelligence Network (GPHIN);
.
(g) the government’s progress in evaluating pre- and post-arrival rapid testing for travellers;
.
(h) the availability of paid sick leave for those in need, including quarantine and voluntary isolation;
.
(i) the adequacy of health transfer payments to the provinces, in light of the COVID-19 crisis;
.
(j) the impact of the government’s use of World Heath Organization (WHO) advice in early 2020 to delay the closure of borders and delay in the recommendation of wearing of masks on the spread of COVID-19 in Canada;
.
(k) the Public Health Agency of Canada’s communication strategy regarding COVID-19;
.
(l) the development, efficacy and use of data related to the government’s COVID Alert application;
.
(m) Canada’s level of preparedness to respond to another pandemic;
.
(n) the availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) in Canada and a review of Canada’s emergency stockpile of PPE between 2015 and present;
.
(o) the government’s contact tracing protocol, including options considered, technology, timelines and resources;
.
(p) the government’s consideration of and decision not to invoke the federal Emergencies Act;

That Motion was voted on in the the House of Commons on October 26, 2020. Notice that at no time is any concern shown for the people (Canadians) whose human rights have been abused under this false pretense of a viral pandemic.

No question about the validity of the virus isolation itself. Do public health officials even know what they are looking for?

No question about the extremely high false positive rates of the RT-PCR test. Sure, they may not work at all, but let’s get them out faster.

No question about the bogus and fraudulent modelling, used by opportunistic people to generate fear and coerce compliance.

No question about the serious possibility of data and privacy breaches from this “contact tracing” system.

No question is raise “why” Canada is part of the WHO, when its dictates are legally binding on Canada. No issue with the erosion of national sovereignty.

Even on quarantine itself, the Conservatives seem to have no problem with this happening. The only concern raised is one of paid leave.

No mention (even outside of Parliament), of tyrants like Doug Ford, Brian Pallister and Francois Legault imposing draconian measures on their residents.

No concern for the people who have died — unnecessarily — in large part because hospital and preventative medical care has been delayed or cancelled.

No concern for the deteriorating mental health of Canadians, the suicides, the loneliness and isolation, all caused by perpetuating this hoax.

Politicians feign outrage at people being unable to practice their religion in China, but shutting down religious institutions is fine when done within Canada.

4. Infanticide Okay If Applied Equally

How’s this for mental gymnastics? Abortion — or infanticide — is not banned because it is immoral, or ethically reprehensible. That said, as long as all babies are free to be aborted (and not because of their sex), there’s nothing wrong with it in the eyes of “conservatives”. Private Member’s Bill C-233 would have done exactly that.

Mass murder is okay, as long as it’s done without any consideration of race or sex. Equal opportunity chance for death. Sounds pretty communist.

5. FIPA Treaty With China Wasn’t A Problem

China may have a long history of human rights abuses. But that apparently is no reason not to sign a 31 year treaty with them, FIPA, one which erodes Canadian sovereignty.

6. Selective Concern For Human Rights

What about the Reserves in Canada? What about the Indian Act, which is itself removing people’s rights to autonomy and self-governance? What about lack of clean water and health care available?

What about Canadian military veterans who aren’t having their benefits agreements honoured, despite risking their lives for the country?

What about a growing amount of Canadians who live in poverty, or the working poor? What about children growing up that way?

What about ensuring that Canadians have basic rights during this so-called “pandemic”? Offering to implement the same agenda isn’t really opposition.

It’s sickening to see such level of virtue signaling under the guise of “human rights” over in China, when there seems to be no concern for it back home.

Posted on

“Healthcare Worker Refugee” Program Is Backdoor Amnesty For Illegals

Canada will be giving refugee claimants, (even those who entered illegally), a pathway to permanent residence, for essential health care work. This comes in spite of layoffs at hospitals for not having enough work. Remember, “non-essential” care has been cancelled or delayed.

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. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat than illegal aliens, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. There are also social, economic, environmental and voting changes to consider. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. Politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” have no interest in coming clean on this.

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement).
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

Note: If there are errors in calculating the totals, please speak up. Information is of no use to the public if it isn’t accurate.

3. Important Links

Ottawa, PR Pathway For “Refugee Claimants” In Health Care
Hospital Layoffs Because Of No Work
Quebec Specific Program For PR Pathyway
2020 Canada Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
Conditions For Eligibility For Program
https://archive.is/aMHri
Designated Country Of Origin (Struck in 2019)
https://archive.is/dShJ9
Employers And Social Insurance Obligations
https://archive.is/gSqeJ
Seasonal Agricultural Work Program
https://archive.is/zMOeQ

4. PR-Pathway A Backdoor Amnesty Program

Both failed and pending refugee claimants face uncertainty regarding their future status in Canada. This public policy enables the Government of Canada to recognize their significant contribution and risk to their health during the pandemic by providing them with a more secure future in Canada. In recognition that there may be refugee claimants who contracted COVID-19 and subsequently passed away, spouses and common-law partners of these individuals, who are in Canada, may also be granted permanent residence under this public policy.

As such, I hereby establish that, pursuant to my authority under section 25.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the Act), there are sufficient public policy considerations that justify the granting of permanent residence to foreign nationals who meet the eligibility criteria and conditions listed below.

Based on the public policy considerations, delegated officers may grant permanent residence to foreign nationals who meet the following conditions:
.
A) The foreign national:
.
[1] Is a pending refugee claimant or a failed refugee claimant, who made a refugee claim in Canada prior to March 13, 2020 and continued to reside in Canada when their application for permanent residence was made;

[5] Is not inadmissible other than for any of the following reasons: having failed to comply with conditions related to their temporary stay including having overstayed a visa, visitor record, work permit or student permit or having worked or studied without being authorized to do so under the Act (as long as it was solely as a result of losing their work authorization when a removal order against them became enforceable as specified under Condition A)2 described above); having entered Canada without the required visa or other document required under the Regulations; having entered Canada without a valid passport or travel document. However for the purpose of the granting of the permanent residence pursuant to this public policy, the foreign nationals and their family members are required by subparagraph 72(1)(e)(ii) of the Regulations to provide the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada any of the documents enumerated under subsection 50(1) of the Regulations. If the foreign national and their family members in Canada are unable to obtain any of the documents, enumerated under subsection 50(1) of the Regulations (e.g., valid passport or travel document), as required by subparagraph 72(1)(e)(ii) of the Regulations,an exemption from this requirement can be granted if these foreign nationals can provide any of the documents described in subsection 178(1) of the Regulations where such alternative document complies with the requirement of subsection 178(2) of the Regulations(specific wording of these provisions is provided in Annex B of this public policy).

[6] Is a pending refugee claimant or claimant who has received a final negative decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) and, if they have commenced an application for leave and judicial review of the negative IRB decision in Federal Court, or an appeal in relation to the underlying IRB decision at the Federal Court of Appeal, and who has complied with all other eligibility and admissibility conditions of this public policy, is required, in terms of the final condition of this public policy, to withdraw their refugee claim at the IRB or their appeal of the negative decision by the IRB at the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), Federal Court application or appeal at the Federal Court of Appeal of the underlying decision of the IRB, in order to be granted permanent residence through the public policy. Should the individual decide not to withdraw their refugee claim at the IRB, their appeal at the RAD, their application at the Federal Court or their appeal at the Federal Court of Appeal, those processes will continue to proceed but their application for permanent residence under this public policy will be refused.

What a huge bait-and-switch. While this program is sold as refugee claimants seeking protection, it’s open to people who came for a variety of reasons. In theory, you can come to Canada as a student or TFW, spend your time here, then turn around and claim asylum.

So, who’s eligible under this program for a pathway to permanent residence? Just from the information provided on this one page:

  • Pending refugee claimants
  • Failed refugee claimants
  • People who’ve exhausted all refugee pathways
  • People who’ve entered without a passport
  • People who’ve entered without an appropriate visa
  • People who’ve stayed after their visiting time had expired
  • People working without a visa
  • People working after a visa has expired
  • People studying without a visa
  • People studying after a visa has expired
  • Spouses/Common-law partners of the above
  • No mention of children, but probably

In short, pretty much anyone who is in Canada — illegally — would have some option to remain and get PR status if they were working (or provide evidence of working) in health care. Just apply for asylum.

Of course, this raises the interesting question of why health care facilities are hiring people who have no legal right to work or remain in the country anyway. It would be interesting to see what kind of proof of health care work is used in these cases.

5. People Entering Illegally Are Eligible

The Canadian Government doesn’t care about its people, and hence, has no real interest in enforcing existing border controls. Fake refugees from the U.S. are still allowed to enter, the S3CA, the Safe Third Country Agreement was struck down, and the concept of a safe country no longer exists.

To summarize, people can apply for asylum in Canada from anywhere, and it doesn’t matter if (or how many), intermediate countries they crossed through. Entering illegally from the U.S. is not important.

6. Family Members Are Eligible As Well

Conditions (eligibility requirements) applicable to Family Members
Family members of the principal applicant eligible for immigration to Canada under this public policy will be granted permanent residence, if they are also residing in Canada, are persons who meet the definition of a “family member” in subsection 1(3) of the Regulations as assessed by a delegated officer, and are not inadmissible on other grounds then those from which they are exempted via this public policy under condition 5 and if they are pending refugee claimants or claimants who have received a negative decision from the IRB, they meet condition 6 above.

It would be nice to see how many people (in total), this would cover, but that information doesn’t seem to be available.

7. Employers And Worker SIN Obligations

Ensure that any employees that have a SIN beginning with a “9” are authorized to work in Canada and that their immigration document has not expired.
-SINs beginning with a “9” are issued to temporary workers who are neither Canadian citizens nor permanent residents. These SINs are valid only until the expiry date indicated on the Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) document authorizing the person to work in Canada.
–Employers must continue to see the employee’s existing immigration document authorizing them to work in Canada (e.g. work permit, study permit) and verify that the immigration document is not expired.

Employers are required not only to see that the prospective employee is legally allowed to work, but to follow up if not a Canadian or Permanent Resident. How exactly are these “refugee claimants” working in a legitimate field without this paperwork, which is obligated under the law?

If employers are willing to cover for this, would they also lie about the kind of work experience a person has been getting?

8. Open Borders For Agriculture Workers

While not directly related to the issue of PR for “refugees”, this is worth an honourable mention. At a time when we have record unemployment in Canada, one would think that a “hire Canadian” policy would be a good idea. Nope. Outsourcing of jobs continues on. Officially, the program is capped, but we’ll have to see if it’s enforced.

9. Theory: Making Amnesty More Tolerable

Just a theory, but perhaps this “health care” approach is about making a mass amnesty easier to pitch to the Canadian public. While being honest about it would cause all kinds of backlash, this can be promoted as an act of necessity.

Do we really need to be importing large numbers of healthcare workers, at a time when job cuts are going on in Canada? Does it really benefit the public to put Canadians at the back of the line? It might, if there was another agenda being pushed.

One has to wonder if these layoffs were done in order to create an artificial shortage, in order to justify this policy.

Posted on

TSCE #13(D): Forums of Parliamentarians on Population and Development, Global Alliance To Kill Babies

New Zealand announced in March 2020 that it was drastically loosening its abortion laws. In the middle of a “pandemic”, the priority is making it easier to kill babies. As horrible and Satanic as Jacinda Ardern is, there are much bigger problems that just her.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

While abortion is trumpeted as a “human right” in Western societies, the obvious questions have to be asked: Why is it a human right? Who are these groups benefiting financially, and why are so they so fiercely against free speech? Will the organs be trafficked afterwards? And aren’t these groups just a little bit too coordinated?

2. Important Links

New Zealand Bill To Water Down Abortion Laws
Parliamentarians Against Human Trafficking
Family Planning New Zealand
NZPPD (Parliamentarians On Population & Dev), New Chair
Australian Parliamentary Group on Population and Development
Australia’s Global Network
Canadian Ass’n Of Parliamentarians On Population & Development
European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual & Reproductive Rights
Asian Forum of Parliamentarians on Population and Development (AFPPD)
NZPPD’s Facebook Page
Family Planning New Zealand’s Twitter Account
Life News: NZ Pushing Sex-Ed On 5 Year Olds
WHO On Population And Reproductive Rights
1994 Cairo Conference On Population Demoraphics
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem: Protect Down Babies

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement).
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

3. Cognitive Dissonance On Human Trafficking

Have to love the mental gymnastics here: Parliamentarians “claim” that they oppose human trafficking. However, there are also a lot of them who see no issue with promoting mass abortions. After all, those organs are often sold to others. It’s human trafficking, just on a piecemeal basis.

4. Abortion Aids Population Replacement Agenda

One thing to keep in mind, many of the same people pushing for fewer local births are also advocating increased immigration rates. These seemingly contradictory steps seem counterintuitive at first.

[1] Have less children here, more abortions
[2] More migration because of declining birth rate.

In short, this is the population replacement agenda. Get locals having few (or no) children, and then use it as a pretext for bringing more people over. The same group who touts abortion as a “human right” also champions “replacement migration”, to fix declining populations.

5. NZ Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development

New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development (NZPPD)
The New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development (NZPPD) is open to any New Zealand MP and focuses its work mainly in the Pacific. The group looks at issues around sexual and reproductive health, women’s rights, and development issues.
.
The group was established in 1998 in response to the International Conference on Population and Development and its programme of action.
.
Barbara Kuriger MP is the current Chair of the group, with Family Planning acting as its secretariat.
.
Follow the group’s Facebook page for more information and updates.

Apparently, working towards the destruction of the family, and the abortions of girls — who would grow up to become women — is considered women’s rights, empowerment, and feminism. It’s difficult to grasp who such a harmful ideology can be passed off as something beneficial to society.

6. Australian Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development

The Australian Parliamentary Group on Population and Development is part of a regional network of similar groups – the Asian Forum of Parliamentarians on Population and Development, and works with other similar parliamentary groups around the globe.

The Australian Parliamentary Group on Population and Development, as a cross-party group, has for 25 years worked collaboratively to champion gender equality, and sexual and reproductive health and rights in international development.

The APGPD’s remit is guided by the Sustainable Development Goals and the landmark 1994 International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action, which recognise gender equality and women’s empowerment as global priorities, integral to eradicating deprivation and injustice.

This group’s agenda, which includes a pro-abortion stance, is in line with the UN Sustainable Development Agenda. It’s alarming to see this nonchalant attitude towards the lives of the most vulnerable.

7. Canadian Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development

The Canadian Association of Parliamentarians on Population and Development (CAPPD) provides a forum for the exchange of ideas on population, sexual and reproductive health, human rights and development issues. Formed in 1997, CAPPD is open to all sitting Senators and Members of Parliament.

CAPPD coordinates efforts with several parliamentary associations throughout Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe to encourage governments to keep their commitments to reproductive health and women’s rights, as agreed by 179 countries at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo, Egypt.

A group of politicians in Canada are also committed to the agenda. Just another branch of the global alliance to promote this depopulation agenda.

  • Pam Damoff
  • Hedy Fry
  • Irene Mathyssen
  • Elizabeth May
  • Marilou McPhedran
  • Raj Saini
  • Anita Vandenbeld

These are sitting Members of Parliament from the Greens, NDP and Liberal Parties. A cross-party commitment to making “reproductive services” available to all.

8. EU Forum for Sexual & Reproductive Rights

We are stronger when we speak with a single voice. Amplifying the unified voice of MPs committed to SRHR is central to our mission. EPF provides a venue for parliamentarians to coordinate common statements on international developments related to SRHR.

Typically, these statements urge action from governments and international organisatons; or call on states to place women’s empowerment at the centre of key international agreements.

Over the years, EPF has built good relations with SRHR champions through the European All-Party Parliamentary Groups, the European Parliament working group MEPs for SRR and the Global Parliamentary Alliance for Health, Rights and Development.

Within the European Union, there are efforts to get pro-abortion politicians together in order to promote what they call “human rights”. A major “right” as they call it, is the right to abortion.

9. Asian Forum of Parliamentarians on Population and Development

The Asian Forum of Parliamentarians on Population and Development (AFPPD) is a regional non-governmental organization based in Bangkok, Thailand. AFPPD serves as a coordinating body of 30 National Committees of Parliamentarians on Population and Development.

AFPPD engages with parliamentarians from Asia and the Pacific to champion policies on population and development. AFPPD educates, motivates, involves, and mobilizes parliamentarians on the linkages between increasing population and development issues such as reproductive health, family planning, food security, water resources, sustainable development, environment, ageing, urbanization, migration, HIV/AIDS, and gender equality.

Asian politicians are also being consulted by this “population and development” group, which pushes for more abortion, and easier access to it.

10. Population Summit In Cairo, 1994

Referring to the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development, she said that revolution acknowledged that people –- women and men, mothers and fathers –- and not governments were the best judges of how many children to bring into the world, and where and when. A broader theme that ran through the Conference was the realization that, in talking about curtailing population growth and the complex relationships between population and development, or population and the protection of the environment, women had to be a central factor.

At “Cairo+10” [the 10-year anniversary of Cairo], she said, the same wide range of people and opinions heard in Cairo were beginning to be heard again. Some inside the United Nations system feared that a lobby led by an unlikely combination of conservative Middle Eastern nations, the United States and the Holy See would mount a major drive to dilute or undo the language. Others were more optimistic, as Cairo had been a seismic shift not easily reversed.

The Commission also addressed its agenda item “Programme implementation and future programme of work of the Secretariat in the field of population”. Mr. Chamie, introducing the Secretary-General’s report on “Programme implementation and progress of work in the field of population in 2003: Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs” (document E/CN.9/2004/5), and a note by the Secretary-General on the “Proposed strategic framework for the period 2006-2007” (E/CN.9/2004/6), said demographics were not merely about numbers. It was about development of human society. Development, in turn, related to low mortality, which was an indicator of the well-being of a society.

He then highlighted several activities of the Population Division, including production of a document on world population policies, a report on urbanization and two wall charts –- one on urban agglomerations and one on urban/rural movements. A chart on world contraceptive use was also available, he said, as well as an extensive database on trends in marriage since 1960.

A major idea of the 1994 Conference was to get countries having less children, and artificially drive down the birth rate. Instead, the focus would be on a better quality of life for those who were there. Abortion and contraception were heavily promoted as population control methods.

But remember: the United Nations (and many NGOs), promote a lower birth rate in Developed Nations. They also call for a replacement population to be imported to make up the difference.

This sort of thing should be considered genocide, should it not?

And why the recent focus on allowing later and later abortions? It wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the organs would be more developed, and thus worth more money, would it?

11. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem urged state lawmakers Tuesday to protect unborn babies with Down syndrome from discrimination by passing new pro-life legislation.

In her state of the state address, the pro-life Republican governor said legislation to ban abortions on unborn babies based on a Down syndrome diagnosis will be one of her top priorities for the year.

“Children with Down Syndrome are a gift to us all,” she wrote on Twitter. “I am asking the South Dakota legislature to pass a law that bans the abortion of a preborn child, just because that child is diagnosed with Down Syndrome. We must stand for the right to life of every preborn child.”

Prior to her address, Noem appeared on Fox and Friends with Fox News contributor Rachel Campos-Duffy and her husband, former Wisconsin Congressman Sean Duffy, and their daughter Valentina who has Down syndrome.

Let’s end this on a positive note: the Governor of South Dakota recently made a public call to protect babies with Down Syndrome from being targeted for abortion. Someone who actually values life.

Posted on

Canada Condemns China’s Human Rights Abuses, But Still Does Trade


Testimony at Parliament is available to watch. China’s human rights abuses are detailed in the House of Commons.

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

1948 UN Convention Genocide Prevention Punishing
Canadian Gov’t Condemns Treatment Of Uyghurs In China
House Of Commons Study
Testimony From Dominic Barton
Business Council Of Canada
Dominic Barton’s Century Initiative Profile
Canada-China Business Council
CBC Article By John Paul Tasker
CBC Article On New Canadian Measures For China

uyghur.01.letter
uyghur.02.another.letter
uyghur.03.prisoner.testimony
uyghur.04.situation.of.the.camps
uyghur.05.testimonial
uyghur.06.CSRDN.plea.for.help
uyghur.07.global.affairs.canada

December 8 Testimony

3. UN On Preventing/Punishing Genocide

Hereby agree as hereinafter provided :
Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

This is how the United Nations defines genocide, and how it seeks to punish it. Keep this in mind for later.

4. Canada Condemns Abuses By China

Building on the important testimony of seven witnesses over five sessions before the Subcommittee in 2018, on 20–21 July 2020 the Subcommittee convened urgent meetings to understand the latest developments in the plight of the Uyghurs. Over two days and 12 hours of testimony, the Subcommittee heard from academics, civil society as well as many survivors of the Government of China’s atrocities in the region. The subcommittee wishes to make clear that the condemnations in this statement are directed towards the Government of China, as represented by the Chinese Communist Party, and not the Chinese people, who the Subcommittee support wholeheartedly and hope that one day will benefit from the peace, freedom and security enjoyed by many others in this world.

The Subcommittee was profoundly disturbed by what it heard and is convinced of the need for a strong response. The Subcommittee heard that the Government of China has been employing various strategies to persecute Muslim groups living in Xinjiang, including mass detentions, forced labour, pervasive state surveillance and population control. Witnesses were clear that the Government of China’s actions are a clear attempt to eradicate Uyghur culture and religion. Some witnesses stated that the Government of China’s actions meet the definition of genocide as set out in Article II of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention).

The Subcommittee unequivocally condemns the persecution of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang by the Government of China. Based on the evidence put forward during the Subcommittee hearings, both in 2018 and 2020, the Subcommittee is persuaded that the actions of the Chinese Communist Party constitute genocide as laid out in the Genocide Convention.

The Government of Canada should also impose sanctions on entities and individuals that benefit from the use of forced labour. Furthermore, recognizing the impact that government and corporate corruption play in allowing the practice of forced labour to continue throughout the world, the Government of Canada must condemn corruption in all its forms and take firm actions to combat it.

The Government of Canada should empower the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise with independence and the power to investigate human rights abuse allegations and enact a comprehensive human rights due diligence law that compels businesses to respect the most current international human rights standards across their global operations and supply chains and be held accountable for harms caused or on behalf of their operations.

The Government of Canada should conduct a review of its procurement practices to ensure it is not purchasing products manufactured through forced labour. It should also create legislation with respect to federal government procurement practices to strengthen transparency and oversight mechanisms, such as reporting to parliament, particularly as it relates to product origins, production and manufacturing.

The Subcommittee was informed that the Government of China’s repressive measures against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang are part of a broader strategy to control the region. Xinjiang is a resource-rich area with important oil deposits. It also borders several Central Asian countries that the Government of China considers strategically important for its Belt and Road Initiative and its pursuit of expansionism. Because some Uyghurs desire more autonomy or independence from China, the Government of China considers them a threat to its economic development and prosperity. The Subcommittee was informed that its solution is the elimination of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in the region.

The Canadian Government has declared that what is going on in China amounts to genocide. These measures seem designed and calculated to bring about the destruction of these groups as a whole.

5. Open Borders Policies Are Genocide

Yes, displacing or eliminating a group is a human rights violation. To address the elephant in the room: current policies in Canada amount to open borders, and to erosion of distinct groups. These are things the public never voted for. Such a replacement would be considered genocide under the UN’s own definition here. But to speak up against the Kalergi Plan is considered racism.

6. Such Measures Now Used In “Pandemic”

Considering that many nations are at least considering mandatory vaccinations, would this not lead to mass sterilization? After all, that could easily happen. Given the “isolation centers” being built, and the increase in surveillance, is this not a roundabout way of imposing these conditions? Perhaps this “pandemic” is a method to get the public to accept this as normal.

7. Dominic Barton Supports Trade With China

Canada’s Ambassador to China, Dominic Barton, supports continued trade with China. It’s worth pointing out, however, he is a co-Founder, and former Board Member of Century Initiative, an NGO committed to growing Canada’s population 100 million people. Considering the economic focus of the group, Barton likely sees little real issue with China, or large scale Chinese immigration.

Barton has also been lobbied by the Business Council of Council, which Goldy Hyer is President and CEO. Hyer also is on the Board of Century Initiative.

As a bit of an aside, Century Initiative is chaired by Mark Wiseman. He was the Senior Managing Director of Blackrock, which owns SNC Lavalin.

8. Canada-China Business Council

There is Ambassador Barton, featured prominently.
Who else runs the group?

  • Paul Desmarais Sr. — former head of Power Corp (deceased)
  • Andre Desmarais — son-in-law of Jean Chretien
  • Oliver Desmarais — Vice President of Power Corp
  • Sam Boutziouvis — VP (Government Relations) of SNC Lavalin
  • Morgan Elliott — VP (Government Affairs) of Huawei
  • Tim McGuire — Executive VP, China Construction Bank
  • Martin Cauchon — was in Jean Chretien’s Cabinet
  • James Moore — was in Stephen Harper’s Cabinet
  • Stockwell Day — was in Stephen Harper’s Cabinet
  • Scott Brison — was in Justin Trudeau’s Cabinet

Do you think that these connections might have something to do with the fact that Canada is still doing business with China? Perhaps these things are related.

9. Canada (Not Really) Stops China Trade

The federal government announced a suite of new regulations today meant to ensure that Canadian companies are not complicit in human rights abuses or the use of forced labour in China’s Xinjiang province.

The measures include new requirements for firms that do business in the region and a pledge to ban the export of products from Canada to China if there is a chance they could be used by Chinese authorities for surveillance, repression, arbitrary detention or forced labour.

“Canada is deeply concerned regarding the mass arbitrary detention and mistreatment of Uighurs and other ethnic minorities by Chinese authorities,” Foreign Affairs Minister François-Philippe Champagne said in a news release shortly before leaving the department to become the new minister of Innovation, Science and Industry.

“Nobody should face mistreatment on the basis of their religion or ethnicity,” Champagne added.

To be clear on this, the Canadian Government has no issue with doing business with China, in spite the human rights abuses they allege. Instead, the requirement is that there be no exports if the goods themselves can be used to aid in those abuses.

This is a bit of tortured logic. If trading with China enriches the Government, then couldn’t ANY trade potentially be used to finance such abuses?

So, do human rights abroad mean anything? Or is the “illusion” of caring about human rights what matters? Seems that the Government’s actions are all just for show.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress