From the Toresays.com article, a 17 year old Texas teenager apparently gave birth, then murdered her infant. Here is a quote:
The infant girl was delivered naturally and there were nine entry wound sites. The infant was stabbed 5 times in her back, once on her side and three times in the neck. This was determined by Dr. Diaz who performed the forensic examination. She also determined that the child was found 12 hours after birth and died to homicidal violence.
Many of them quoted the snippets of coverage by MSM who claimed killing a child up until the time of birth is a “right of women’s health”. All these young children believe they have the right to end the life of an infant because “My Body My Right”.
What this young lady did was murder. She stabbed an innocent young baby girl 9 times and abandoned her in a shed and went straight to back to bed. The rhetoric of the radical leftists MSM along with the educational system that purports radical grievances and ideologies has torn the fabric of basic morals and the sanctity of life. “
This is disgusting. How did we get to the point where not only abortion is legal, but then giving birth and then killing your child is considered “your right”?
Perhaps the rationale here is: “well, I saved the taxpayers some money by not having them pay for a doctor, so I did you a favour.”
But at least there is some good news. The recent surge in pro-death sentiments has led to some backlash, and people reaffirming that life really does matter.
This review will mostly focus on the opening part. This is for a few reasons.
First: The book is fairly long.
Second: It gets very repetitive.
Third: You can get a good understanding just from the introduction.
Despite a resurgence of white-supremacist and fascistic violence across Europe and the United States, most consider the dead and the living to be safe because they believe fascism to be safely dead — in their eyes, the fascist enemy lost definitively in 1945. But the dead were not so safe when Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi described spending time in Mussolini’s prison camps as a “vacation” in 2003 or the French Front National (National Front) politician Jean-Marie Le Pen called Nazi gas chambers a mere “detail” of history in 2015.”
Assuming these details are accurate, Mark Bray lists 2 European leaders making inappropriate remarks as evidence of fascistic violence rising.
This book takes seriously the transhistorical terror of fascism and the power of conjuring the dead when fighting back. It is an unabashedly partisan call to arms that aims to equip a new generation of anti-fascists with the history and theory necessary to defeat the resurgent Far Right. Based on sixty-one interviews with current and former anti-fascists from seventeen countries in North America and Europe, it expands our geographical and temporal outlook to contextualize opposition to Trump and the alt-right within a much wider and broader terrain of resistance. Antifa is the first transnational history of postwar anti-fascism in English and the most comprehensive in any language. It argues that militant anti-fascism is a reasonable, historically informed response to the fascist threat that persisted after 1945 and that has become especially menacing in recent years. You may not walk away from this book a convinced anti-fascist, but at least you will understand that anti-fascism is a legitimate political tradition growing out of a century of global struggle.
Okay, some points to take away from this.
(1) The book’s author admits it is very partisan, and is a call to arms. And as he will show, he means it quite literally.
(2) Opposition to Trump and the Alt-Right? Seems an admission that Trump himself is not Alt-Right.
(3) Militant fascism is appropriate.
As historian Robert Paxton argued, fascists “reject any universal value other than the success of chosen peoples in a Darwinian struggle for primacy.” Even the party platforms that fascists put forward between the world wars were usually twisted or jettisoned entirely when the exigencies of the pursuit of power made those interwar fascists uneasy bedfellows with traditional conservatives. “Left” fascist rhetoric about defending the working class against the capitalist elite was often among the first of their values to be discarded. Postwar (after World War II) fascists have experimented with an even more dizzying array of positions by freely pilfering from Maoism, anarchism, Trotskyism, and other left-wing ideologies and cloaking themselves in “respectable” electoral guises on the model of France’s Front National and other parties
Bray seems not to grasp the hypocrisy here. This so-called Anti-Fascist movement does exactly that: it promotes the success of “marginalised people” in a struggle for supremacy. He is also correct about the “Left’s” claim to defend the working class is the first to be discarded.
Some historians have used this literal, minimalist definition to describe as “anti-fascist” a wide variety of historical actors, including liberals, conservatives, and others, who combated fascist regimes prior to 1945. Yet, the reduction of the term to a mere negation obscures an understanding of anti-fascism as a method of politics, a locus of individual and group self-identification, and a transnational movement that adapted preexisting socialist, anarchist, and communist currents to a sudden need to react to the fascist menace. This political interpretation transcends the flattening dynamics of reducing anti-fascism to the simple negation of fascism by highlighting the strategic, cultural, and ideological foundation from which socialists of all stripes have fought back. Yet, even within the Left, debates have raged between many socialist and communist parties, antiracist NGOs, and others who have advocated a legalistic pursuit of antiracist or anti-fascist legislation and those who have defended a confrontational, direct-action strategy of disrupting fascist organizing. These two perspectives have not always been mutually exclusive, and some anti-fascists have turned to the latter option after the failure of the former, but in general this strategic debate has divided leftist interpretations of anti-fascism.
(1) The author sees liberals and conservatives as unable to stop fascists, though he admits they are opposed to it.
(2) An interesting admission: Apparently legal and non-violent means of stopping fascism are ineffective, hence the need to turn to violence.
At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase incorrectly ascribed to Voltaire that “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” After Auschwitz and Treblinka, anti-fascists committed themselves to fighting to the death the ability of organized Nazis to say anything.
Thus, anti-fascism is an illiberal politics of social revolutionism applied to fighting the Far Right, not only literal fascists. As we will see, anti-fascists have accomplished this goal in a wide variety of ways, from singing over fascist speeches, to occupying the sites of fascist meetings before they could set up, to sowing discord in their groups via infiltration, to breaking any veil of anonymity, to physically disrupting their newspaper sales, demonstrations, and other activities. Militant anti-fascists disagree with the pursuit of state bans against “extremist” politics because of their revolutionary, anti-state politics and because such bans are more often used against the Left than the Right.
A lot to unpack in these passages:
(1) Anti-fascism is illiberal.
(2) Anti-fascists reject free speech ideals.
(3) Anti-fascists don’t believe “Nazis” should have the right to speak at all in any organized way.
(4) Anti-fascism opposes the far right, not just fascism.
(5) Anti-fascists will drown out speakers they don’t like.
(6) Anti-fascists will infiltrate groups they don’t like.
(7) Anti-fascists will commit violence.
Bray makes an interesting comment about bans being used more often against the left than the right. Bray seems completely unaware that his words make such a ban seem popular.
So who does Mark Bray reject?
A/ Nazis, Fascists
B/ Far right individuals
C/ Conservatives
D/ Liberals, or at least liberal beliefs
Or, to be blunt, most of the political spectrum.
Despite the various shades of interpretation, antifa should not be understood as a single-issue movement. Instead, it is simply one of a number of manifestations of revolutionary socialist politics (broadly construed). Most of the anti-fascists I interviewed also spend a great deal of their time on other forms of politics (e.g., labor organizing, squatting, environmental activism, antiwar mobilization, or migrant solidarity work). In fact, the vast majority would rather devote their time to these productive activities than have to risk their safety and well-being to confront dangerous neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Antifa act out of collective self-defense.
(1) This seems like a bogus attempt to give Antifa some legitimacy. Saying it is more than a single issue movement distracts from the harm it does to free societies. Remember, this group openly rejects free speech and liberal ideology.
(2) Just because Antifa members have other things to do with their lives doesn’t whitewash the violence they commit against speakers they disagree with.
(3) Collective self defense? Who is the collective? Antifa has written off everyone who is Liberal and any further right. And attacking people whose viewpoints you don’t like is not “self-defense”.
Finally, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that anti-fascism has always been just one facet of a larger struggle against white supremacy and authoritarianism.
The lack of self awareness here. Mark Bray advocates for a violent, illiberal, ideology that rejects free speech …. but at the same time rejects authoritarianism.
For this reason, it is vital to understand anti-fascism as a solitary component of a larger legacy of resistance to white supremacy in all its forms. My focus on militant anti-fascism is in no way intended to minimize the importance of other forms of antiracist organizing that identify with anti-imperialism, black nationalism, or other traditions. Rather than imposing an anti-fascist framework on groups and movements that conceive of themselves differently, even if they are battling the same enemies using similar methods, I focus largely on groups that self-consciously situate themselves within the anti-fascist tradition.
-Anti-fascism is just part of the bigger picture?
-Your wording is confusing. Is BLACK NATIONALISM a good thing?
-You just focus on the violent groups? Okay.
Mark Bray’s Fall 2017 Book Tour
9/16 Philadelphia: Wooden Shoe Books (w/ George Ciccariello-Maher)
9/18 Durham, NC: Duke University
9/19 Chapel Hill, NC: Flyleaf Books
9/23 Atlanta: A Cappella Books
9/25 Richmond, VA: Babes of Carytown
9/26 Highland Park, NJ: Reformed Church of Highland Park
9/27 Brooklyn: Powerhouse Arena (w/ Kim Kelly)
9/28 Baltimore: Red Emma’s
9/29 DC: Politics and Prose
10/5 Ithaca, NY: Ithaca College
10/7 Rochester, NY: Gay Alliance of the Genesee Valley
10/8 Pittsburgh: National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 84
10/9 Detroit: The International Institute of Metropolitan Detroit
10/10 Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Friends Meeting
10/11 Flint, MI: University of Michigan at Flint
10/12 Chicago: (info tbd)
10/15 Minneapolis (info tbd)
10/16 Madison, WI: A Room of One’s Own
10/17 Detroit: Wayne State University
10/18 Toronto: Workers’ Action Center, 720 Spadina Ave., Suite 223
10/19 Ottawa: Dalhousie Community Center
10/26 Woodstock, VT: Yankee Bookshop
10/27 Montreal: CÉDA, 2515 rue Delisle
10/30 Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University (see below)
No one tried to shut him down. Weak fascists.
This guy is a lunatic, who supports violent, illiberal policies, and opposes free speech. Ironic that he relies on free speech to sell his book, and to promote his ideas.
That was just the introduction covered. But Bray repeatedly conflates speakers and ideas he doesn’t like with fascists. He also conflates right wingers with Nazis and fascists.
Could Antifa Logic Shut Down Antifa?
Serious thought: if you say that violence must be used to prevent violence from happening, could groups of people not pre-emptively attack you? This is the precedent you set.
(Morgane Oger Foundation seems to be another Social Autopsy).
(A concise, but accurate review of “Social Autopsy”)
CLICK HERE, for the Morgane Oger Foundation. CLICK HERE, for MOF information on hate crimes. CLICK HERE, for the GlobalNews article on MOF’s agenda CLICK HERE, for Federal Liberals contemplating censorship under the guise of “removing extremist content”. CLICK HERE, for Proud Boys lawsuit against SPLC. CLICK HERE, for SPLC’s so called “hate-map”
What is the Morgane Oger Foundation?
Our Work…
The Morgane Oger Foundation is a small volunteer-driven organization entirely run and funded by people who care about justice and inclusion, like you. We focus on opportunities to reduce prejudice-driven inequality in Canada a few projects at a time and pride ourselves with a 100% success rate to date. We are working on several initiatives where we feel we can best help change things for the better..
Sounds harmless and well meaning enough. Let’s see some details.
“An advocacy organization says it wants to map hatred and discrimination across Canada in a move that is prompting warnings of caution from one civil liberties group.
The Vancouver-based Morgane Oger Foundation has issued a call for volunteers to help build the Canadian Atlas of Populist Extremism, to be known as CAPE.
Founder Morgane Oger said the mapping tool would tie together extremist groups and people regularly associated with them, and also map incidents involving hate across Canada.
The idea is to shed light on how hatred is propagated, she said, while being mindful that allegations can’t be tossed out willy-nilly.
“We can’t say someone is a murderer unless they are in fact a murderer, but maybe it would be interesting to see it’s always the same dozen people who are doing anti-trans advocacy in the (B.C.) Interior or the white supremacy groups are working with each other,” said Oger, a former provincial NDP candidate and a member of the party’s executive.
1/ Okay, nice to know they won’t make false accusations of being a murderer unless the person actually is one. However, that is where the reasonableness seems to end.
2/ The examples cited are vague at best.
(a) So called trans activists seem to think “everything” is transphobia. Express any doubt about transgender children, or the never ending demands for accommodation, and you’re a bigot.
(b) Also what white supremacist groups? To left wing activists, anyone opposing open borders or forced multiculturalism is a white supremacist apparently.
3/Serious question: will create this “hate network” lead to innocent people being doxed for no other reason than you have different opinions? Seem very intolerant.
4/ A call for volunteers? What screening will be put in place to ensure that these people don’t have malintent and are actually capable of distinguishing what is hate?
Some Canadian Laws
Criminal harassment
264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
Marginal note:
Prohibited conduct
(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of
(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;
(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.
Definition
298 (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
Marginal note:
Mode of expression
(2) A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or irony
(a) in words legibly marked on any substance; or
(b) by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words.
Just a few laws this group might want to know if they are serious about starting up this “database”.
Here are 2 prior examples of doxxing gone wrong
(1) Southern Poverty Law Center
The Southern Poverty Law Center in the United States has a “hate map,” which lists 1,020 groups. They include 51 Ku Klux Klan chapters, 49 anti-LGBT groups, 11 radical traditional Catholic groups and a combined 412 black and white nationalist groups.
The centre doesn’t list individuals, only organizations, and uses a similar definition to the FBI for them. The law centre defines a hate group as “an organization that – based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities – has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”
(2) Candice Owens and “Social Autopsy”
Prior to getting a media makeover and coming out as a conservative, Candice Owens launched a website called “social autopsy”. This was billed as an anti-bullying database. But it relied on people making personal complaints and sending personal information on others. See above videos.
Does Morgane Oger Foundation Want To Be Like That?
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and Social Autopsy are just 2 of the more well known examples of attempts to dox people they disagree with.
Bad ideas should be countered with good ideas. They shouldn’t be doxxed, threatened, or otherwise bullied.
(Article originally published on rightdecision.ca. It’s a recently started website with some different ideas and opinions.
The landscape has been changing even more in recent years. Who governs your country, and what agenda they have matters. But that divide is not what we have been led to believe.
It is not Left v.s. Right.
Rather,
It is Globalist v.s. Nationalist
A NATONALIST believes that their country should remain sovereign, and that the citizens should be responsible for determining its destiny. There will be differences of opinions, yes, but the belief is still that citizens should be in charge of their future. The culture, language, heritage and traditions should remain intact. Control should lie with elected representatives of a Federal Parliament/Congress.
A GLOBALIST believes that national sovereignty should be eroded or stopped altogether in the name of “the greater good”. This ideology rejects any sort of distinctive national identity, and promotes world government/1-world vision ideals. The needs and interests of host nations are obstacles to be overcome, and a global body should determine what is best for everyone.
If you think your Federal representatives don’t look after your interests, do you think Global reps would do any better?
There is not a single administration in Canada that is responsible for this. Successive governments have implemented UN and Globalists ideas for over 50 years now. It is death by a thousand cuts.
Across the Western World, so called “Conservative” parties implement much the same policies as Liberals. They just aren’t as gung ho when selling them to the people.
To name a few:
-UN Global Migration Compact-UN Agenda 21/2030
-UN Digitial Cooperation (Internet Regulation)
-UN Religious Defamation (Blasphemy Ban)
-UN Paris Accord (Carbon Taxes)
-UN Global Citizenship Initiative
-UN Gender Agenda
Much of the work on my site, Canuck Law, has been to draw attention to what is happening. Globalist forces are piece by piece taking away our freedoms and autonomy.
In addition to writing about this topic, I took action in a different way: going to court (3 times now).
Challenge to the UN Global Migration Compact:
As was reported, I went to Calgary on December 6, 2018 in an attempt to file a legal challenge to it being implemented.
The short version of events is this, after some back and forth, the Federal Court Judge threw out the case (and awarded $500 in court costs). Although numerous grounds were cited in the reasons, one important thing stands out.
THE FEDERAL COURT RULED THAT THE United Nations Global Migration Compact WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A BINDING LEGAL CONTRACT.
Many of us were worried that signing this agreement would become a sort of “soft law”, which legally binding future decisions could then be based off of. In a sense, leaving the Compact unchallenged would the worst . But now that a Court has ruled it’s not binding, that “should” put a stop to it.
There are 2 other matters pending:
1/ Attempting to close the loophole in the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement. Canada and the US recognize each other as safe countries. Therefore, people attempting asylum claims should not be able to “shop” around, but claim asylum in the first country they reach. However, due to poor wording, it seems to not apply if they cross anywhere other than an official port.
2/ Although still in the proposal stages, hundreds of high ranking officials within UN supporting countries are floating the ideal of a UN Parliamentary Assembly, or Global Government. Obviously, Canada will have no control over its own interests if we joined such a group. Canada would be just 1 of 193 nations (and hold 0.5% of voting rights).
It will be interesting to see how those turn out.
Regardless, Canadians do need to wake up to what is happening around them. We don’t have a country, if we cannot control our borders, immigration, laws, or domestic policies.
I openly advocate leaving the UN (see https://canucklaw.ca/canada-should-leave-the-un-the-masterlist/). As more and more Canadians become aware, this opinion will certainly grow.
LWOB was conceived in January of 2000 to create a global association of lawyers committed to internationally oriented Pro Bono service and rule of law.
It is not clear from this. Does the group wish:
1/ To enforce and aid “local” people in their own countries?
2/ To promote a single legal standard?
Who Are LWOB Supporter?
If you or your organization would like to become a founding partner, pro bono supporter (in kind service), or financial supporter of LWOB, please contact us.
LWOB supporters include lawyers and institutions from the most highly regarded circles in the international legal community who provide generous financial support and pro bono human and in-kind resources to LWOB programming and projects. LWOB depends upon the generosity of its donors and funds from grants to underwrite operational overhead and non-grant funded rule of law programming.
LWOB welcomes its newest supporter, easyprojects.net and recognizes them for their generous donation of premium access to their project management tool: EasyProjects. The program is straightforward, intuitive and combines timeline management, assignment, time keeping and management all in one easy to use intuitive program. Thanks Easy Projects!
I find this very odd. LWOB doesn’t list who its supporters or partners are. Considering the support they give to a non-profit, a little name recognition seems the least they can do.
Who Is On LWOB Board?
LWOB is managed by three relatively small boards and an advisory council consisting of representatives from LWOB’s major private donors. Our board members on all three boards are “working” board members, who tend to be very engaged with the organization by contributing in areas of their respective expertise, volunteering to represent LWOB at events, or volunteering as trial advocacy trainers and trial observers. Our board members, while concentrated in the legal profession, include individuals from accountancy, public relations, and educational sectors.
– The Executive Board of Directors chaired by Anne B. Rudman, Esq. She is joined by board members: Steven Wade, Stephen Hibbard, and Joel Cohen.
– The International Advisory Board of Directors, chaired by Dr. Amii OMara Ottunnu
– The local Connecticut Advisory Board chaired by Priscilla Pappadia, Executive Director of Lawyers for Children America
– Advisory Council members are: Laura Ellsworth, Stephen Hibbard, Joel Cohen, Gregory Palmer, Saralyn Cohen, Sara Lulo and Andrew Jones.
Also interesting. They list who their board members are, but not any of the supporting organizations which are behind their work. Is there a reason they don’t want their names listed?
LWOB develops the programming typically supported by grants that cover the hard costs of producing the pro bono work product or deliverable. We commit to our pro bono partners that their work “will never end up in a file drawer.” Where 3rd party financial underwriting is not available, LWOB will often tap into an array of in-kind supporters to self-fund and implement worthwhile programs. The ongoing Liberia Digest Project (now 10 years old) is one such project that launched with 3rd party funding in 2008, but continues now with generous pro bono and in-kind support from Linklaters and Thomson Reuters.
While our work is apolitical and neutrally oriented, security issues that have arisen around the world prevent us from disclosing the location and timetables of our work in real time. We hope you will appreciate that our effort to keep our volunteers safe and out of harm’s way is paramount and essential to the long-term sustainability of our pro bono model.
Linklaters and Thompson “are” mentioned as supporters, but oddly not in the “supporters” section. It look a little browsing to find this. It would be nice to know who these other supporters are
Security issues prevent you from disclosing your location and timetables in real time. This comes across as a red flag. If all you were doing was providing basic legal services, who would care what your real timetable is? Why is it necessary to operate entirely behind the scene?
3. Some Red Flags
From the frequently asked questions section:
What is Lawyers Without Borders?
An organization that is bringing lawyers together from around the world to give back through pro-bono service — supporting rule of law, economic development, conflict resolution, peacebuilding and sustainability in the legal sector throughout the world.
Do you represent individuals?
LWOB does not “represent” individuals. It is not a resource for individuals seeking personal pro bono representation.
From the main page:
Lawyers Without Borders is a not-for-profit 501c3 corporation whose mission is to promote rule of law around the world by leveraging and promoting pro bono service to meet the needs of the underserved, build capacity in justice sectors and support transitions and development aimed at protecting human rights, all with a neutral orientation.
So this group doesn’t actually represent clients. It just promotes rule of law around the world. Strange considering that they claim to prefer silent work to marketing.
LWOB holds special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council Division (ECOSOC) of the United Nations, has associative status with the United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI) and is accredited to the Department at the UN on the question of Palestine. LWOB and its lawyers engage regularly with the United Nations. LWOB online volunteers through the United Nations Online Volunteering service have been recognized for four successive years for their contributions to human rights and development through their work with LWOB.
Now we get to it: LWOB is basically a consulting firm for the UN. Although the site does not specify it, one can assume that a large amount of funding (if not most), comes from the UN.
LWOB doesn’t actually represents clients. Rather, they observe and consult in order to promote a certain “international law”. Yet another tentacle of the UN.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK SOUGHT CLICK HERE, the mandate for developing a legally binding framework (2004) You suckers thought this was “voluntary”? CLICK HERE, for the “non-legally binding” legal framework.
The United Nations wants to globally regulate forests as well.
What “don’t” they want to regulate?
What areas of nationhood “don’t” they want to control?
International Arrangement on Forests
The International Arrangement on Forests (IAF) has five main components: the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF) and its Member States, the UNFF Secretariat, the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF), the UNFF Global Forest Financing Facilitation Network (GFFFN), and the UNFF Trust Fund.
Some of the key objectives of the IAF include:
1/ Promoting implementation of sustainable forest management (SFM), in particular the implementation of the UN Forest Instrument;
2/ Enhancing the contribution of forests to the post-2015 development agenda;
3/ Enhancing cooperation, coordination, coherence and synergies on forest-related issues;
4/ Fostering international cooperation, public-private partnerships and cross-sectoral cooperation;
5/ Strengthening forest governance frameworks and means of implementation;
6/ Strengthening long-term political commitment towards the achievement of SFM;
7/ Enhancing coherence, cooperation and synergies with other forest-related agreements, processes and initiatives
Note: It is worth pointing out that many of these UN initiatives have very detailed, lofty goals. However, when it comes to “implementation details”, they get very fuzzy.
Does the UN not know how they will implement their agendas? Would they just rather not say? Are they worried about the consequences of posting “written evidence” on their website?
What about the policy document?
Name
The name of the partnership is the Collaborative Partnership on Forest, hereinafter referred to as the CPF or the Partnership.
Mission
The mission of the CPF is to help enhance the contribution of all types of forests and trees outside forests to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and other internationally agreed development goals, promote the sustainable management of all types of forests and to strengthen long-term political commitment to that end.
Functions
The core functions of the CPF are to: support the work of UNFF and its member countries; provide scientific and technical advice to the Forum and governing bodies of other CPF members, at their request; enhance coherence, cooperation as well as policy and programme coordination at all levels, including through joint programming and the submission of coordinated proposals to members’ governing bodies, consistent with their mandates; promote the implementation of the UN Forest Instrument and the United Nations Strategic Plan for Forests as well as the contribution of forests and trees to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and other major forest-related agreements.
Membership
The Collaborative Partnership on Forests currently consists of fourteen international organizations, institutions and secretariats (hereafter referred to as CPF members), that have substantial programmes on forests. Members have considerable capacity to deliver on CPF’s core functions. It is widely recognized that no single body or organization has the capacity or mandate to respond to the multiple demands of forests in a comprehensive manner. Collectively, CPF members, building on their comparative advantages, support the implementation of sustainable forest management worldwide.
The Partnership may periodically review its composition vis a vis its evolving mandate and decide on changes in its membership or establish temporary arrangements for the involvement of third parties to expand its capacities as needed.
Also Worth A Look, The “Major Groups”
The following Major Groups were identified in Agenda 21:
A/ Business and Industry
B/ Children and Youth
C/ Farmers
D/ Indigenous People
E/ Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs)
F/ Local Authorities
G/ Scientific and Technological Community
H/ Women
I/ Workers and Trade Unions
Again, all part of Agenda 21
(a) Business & Industry — this is to be expected, but more information would be nice on their role and expected compensation
(b) Children & Youth — Will there be child labour, or are children expected to specifically benefit?
(c) Farmers — Need more information
(d) Indigenous people — Need more information
(e) NGOs — this is perhaps the most interesting, since NGOs are notorious for flouting national law (think the human smugglers into Europe)
(f) Local authorities — to be expected
(g) Scientific community — the same ones pushing the climate change scam?
(h) Women — So, gender quotas?
(i) Workers & trade unions — Won’t that be a new form of take over?
While this all sounds great, some questions need to be asked:
1/ Will this “forest management” be happening in all countries?
2/ How will the funding be provided? (Specifically, with details)
3/ Who will oversee this?
4/ What if a national government decides participation is against its own interests?
5/ Will blocs of nations be able to “outvote” others?
This has been going on for decades, yet this is the first I am hearing about it?!?!
