Category: Criminal

Posted on

TSCE #11(C): Bill C-6, Banning Conversion Therapy As Act Of “Tolerance”

The latest form of tolerance: prohibiting legitimate discussion, advertising, or efforts to help people deal with a serious illness. It seems to be vaguely worded on purpose. Should minors really be making decisions about life altering changes to their bodies?

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

Bill C-6 Introduced Into House Of Commons
December 1, 2020 Hearing Testimony
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/43/2/14
Canada Criminal Code: Corrupting Morals
https://openparliament.ca/debates/2021/3/22/garnett-genuis-6/

3. Vote On October 28, 2020

  • Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher)
  • Mr. Tom Kmiec(Calgary Shepard)
  • Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot)
  • Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
  • Mr. Derek Sloan (Hastings—Lennox and Addington)
  • Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock)
  • Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River)

Bill C-6 passed Second Reading in October 2020. Only 7 MPs, all Conservatives, voted against this Bill. The final tally was 305-7, and it wasn’t even close. Just think: 15 years ago, Conservatives were willing to vote to conserve marriage. Now, they cuck like Liberals.

4. Conversion Therapy Lumped In W/Child Porn

Warrant of seizure
.
164 (1) A judge may issue a warrant authorizing seizure of copies of a recording, a publication, a representation or any written material, if the judge is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that
(a) the recording, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is a voyeuristic recording;
(b) the recording, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is an intimate image;
(c) the publication, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is obscene, within the meaning of subsection 163(8);
(d) the representation, written material or recording, copies of which are kept in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is child pornography as defined in section 163.1;
(e) the representation, written material or recording, copies of which are kept in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is an advertisement of sexual services; or
(f) the representation, written material or recording, copies of which are kept in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is an advertisement for conversion therapy.

Section 164:
Owner and maker may appear
(3) The owner and the maker of the matter seized under subsection (1), and alleged to be obscene, child pornography, a voyeuristic recording, an intimate image, an advertisement of sexual services or an advertisement for conversion therapy, may appear and be represented in the proceedings to oppose the making of an order for the forfeiture of the matter.
.
Order of forfeiture
(4) If the court is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the publication, representation, written material or recording referred to in subsection (1) is obscene, child pornography, a voyeuristic recording, an intimate image, an advertisement of sexual services or an advertisement for conversion therapy, it may make an order declaring the matter forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which the proceedings take place, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.
.
Disposal of matter
(5) If the court is not satisfied that the publication, representation, written material or recording referred to in subsection (1) is obscene, child pornography, a voyeuristic recording, an intimate image, an advertisement of sexual services or an advertisement for conversion therapy, it shall order that the matter be restored to the person from whom it was seized without delay after the time for final appeal has expired.

Some new sections will also be added entirely. Offering, coercing, forcing, and even advertising conversion therapy will now go against the criminal code.

Forced conversion therapy
320.‍102 Everyone who knowingly causes a person to undergo conversion therapy without the person’s consent is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
.
Causing child to undergo conversion therapy
320.‍103 (1) Everyone who knowingly causes a person who is under the age of 18 years to undergo conversion therapy is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
.
Mistake of age
(2) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (1) that the accused believed that the person was 18 years of age or older, unless the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain the person’s age.
.
Advertising conversion therapy
320.‍104 Everyone who knowingly promotes or advertises an offer to provide conversion therapy is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
.
Material benefit from conversion therapy
320.‍105 Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained or derived directly or indirectly from the provision of conversion therapy, is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

There is also a provision to make it a crime to go abroad to engage in conversion therapy.

Advertising material or services related to conversion therapy will now be treated much along the lines of child pornography or voyeuristic material. Advertising, promoting, or receiving material is also prohibited.

Interestingly, selling pornography (or other degenerate material) is fine if everyone is over 18 years old. In other words, financially benefiting from porn is okay. However, that doesn’t seem to apply at all to conversion therapy.

4. Clips From Parliamentary Hearings

A huge point to be made: sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same thing, and cannot be used interchangeably. Also, the definition and wording is pretty bad. Perhaps these “exploratory” conversations can only be had with people who already agree. The potential for long term harm, including suicides, seems downplayed.

5. Conservatives Capitulate Once Again

So much for standing on principle. The only concern seems to be with the wording of the bill, not the overall intent. Guess we’ll have to see what ultimately happens, but it doesn’t look promising.

Posted on

TSCE #9(A): Bill C-75 Revisited, The NGOs Pushing Degeneracy, Child Abuse

Bill C-75 was an omnibus piece of legislation. Given its size, it was impossible to properly debate back in 2017/2018. But it’s worth reviewing, even after the fact. It watered down penalties for terrorism offences, and once for reducing penalties for crimes against children. This piece looks more at some of the groups trying to influence the legislation.

1. EGALE Canada Human Rights Trust

From around 16:23 in this September 25, 2018 transcript from the Parliamentary Hearings on law and justice. A few points worth noting.

First: while this is cloaked as a social justice issue, there seems to be no concern for the consequences of the changes sought here. Second: what is wrong with the parents of young children wanting their (intersex) children from having normal lives as a recognized gender? Third: there is the claim that gays are discriminated against because the age of consent is higher than with straight couples. Strange how they always want it lowered, and never propose RAISING it overall.

2. Centre For Gender And Sexual Diversity

Following the introduction of C-39, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unconstitutional provisions) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the CCGSD was excited that the government was looking serious at equalizing age of consent legislation. We applaud the government on including this as is critical step forward. The CCGSD has been asking for this critical change since 2008. This is critical to the LGBTQI2+ communities as the criminalization of consensual sexual acts between Canadians should be seen as equal under the law regardless of your sexual orientation or gender identity

What they refer to as “equalizing the age” of consent was the provision to reduce the age of consent for anal sex from 18 to 16. Normal sex has a minimum age of consent of 16, years old, and even that was only recent. It used to be 14. The Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity has deemed it a “priority” to lower the age of consent — since 2008 — instead of asking for a higher universal standard.

They talk about equality for consensual acts between Canadians, but they don’t mentions consensual acts between ADULT Canadians. That detail seems left out.

1-Bill C-75 fails to address sex work criminalization
The criminalization of sex work has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme court and continues to put Canadian sex workers in danger. Local, provincial and federal police services continue to use existing legislation to harass and criminalize folks who should be allowed to do their job with the support and protection of the state.
We strongly recommend that a clear decriminalization of sex work be included in C-75.

There doesn’t seem to be any moral issues with sex work itself, or the dangers or moral issues it causes. Instead, CCGSD takes issue with there being laws against it.

2-Bill C-75 fails to protect intersex children from non-consensual surgery
In June 2017, the CCGSD came out with our Pink Agenda making it clear that we stand in solidarity with Intersex communities and their right to decide what is best for their bodies, and yet today Section 268(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada allows non-consensual surgery by medical practitioners to alter the bodies of infants and children whom they perceive to be ambiguous (i.e. intersex).
We strongly recommend that the repeal of Section 268(3) be included in C-75.

We can’t have parents attempting to correct birth defects the best way they know how, in order to help their children go about their lives. What is wrong with them simply being normal boys or girls?

3-Bill C-75 fails to repeal the ‘bawdy house’ laws or obscenity laws that disproportionately affect queer and trans people
The ‘bawdy house’ laws have continue to criticized by many LGBTQI2+ organizations, including most recently the coalition of LGBTQ2I+ and allied organizations during the debate on C-66, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other Acts (http://ccgsd-ccdgs.org/c66). These laws continue to be used to criminalize consensual LGBTQI2+ behaviours, and need to be full repealed.
We strongly recommend that the repeal of the ‘bawdy house’ laws be included in C-75

An bizarre argument. While claiming that gays aren’t perverts, the CCGSD also claims that laws against degeneracy disproportionately impact them. Doesn’t that undermine the original assertion?

3. Vancouver Rape Relief — Domestic Violence

The change to reverse onus bail in cases of male violence against women is an encouraging step to help reduce the number of men who immediately re-offend and attack their female intimate partners. It is a positive step because the onus is on the offender to prove why they should be let out on bail if they have a history of domestic violence. This sends a message that violence against women is a serious crime. It is, however, unfortunate that this reverse onus will not apply to those men without a criminal record for domestic violence, which will include convicted persons who received an absolute or a conditional discharge. What we see from our work is getting a conviction is rare; when it does happen often its a man of colour. As a result, we can see the possibility that something like this will disproportionately affect racialized men, while the majority of men who go without being charged and convicted remain unaccountable and undeterred.

Eliminating the mandatory use of preliminary inquiries as it relates to women who have been sexually assaulted is a positive step. We know from our experience accompanying women to court that preliminary inquiries are used by the defence as an attempt to discredit their testimony by pointing out minute discrepancies from their police statements, their preliminary inquiry evidence and their trial testimonies.

Vancouver Rape Relief brings a few interesting arguments into the discussion. First, they are upset that the “reverse onus” provisions of bail won’t apply to men without past convictions for domestic violence. Second, they support eliminating mandatory use of preliminary inquiries, which are an important step of discovery prior to trial. It doesn’t appear that they actually support the idea of due process.

4. Individuals Opposing Degeneracy Laws

Regarding the last video, the crime itself is failing to disclose HIV status with sexual partners. However, it’s frequently misnamed as “criminalizing people with HIV”. Knowing that the other person has this disease is pretty important, regardless of how deadly it might be.

It’s worth pondering: how many of those people who are okay with not disclosing HIV status to sexual partners would be okay with forcing masks and vaccines on people?

5. Does Anyone Care About These Reductions?

  • Section 58: Fraudulent use of citizenship
  • Section 159: Age of consent for anal sex
  • Section 172(1): Corrupting children
  • Section 173(1): Indecent acts
  • Section 180(1): Common nuisance
  • Section 182: Indecent interference or indignity to body
  • Section 210: Keeping common bawdy house
  • Section 211: Transporting to bawdy house
  • Section 242: Not getting help for childbirth
  • Section 243: Concealing the death of a child
  • Section 279.02(1): Material benefit – trafficking
  • Section 279.03(1): Withholding/destroying docs — trafficking
  • Section 279(2): Forcible confinement
  • Section 280(1): Abduction of child under age 16
  • Section 281: Abduction of child under age 14
  • Section 291(1): Bigamy
  • Section 293: Polygamy
  • Section 293.1: Forced marriage
  • Section 293.2: Child marriage
  • Section 295: Solemnizing marriage contrary to law
  • Section 435: Arson, for fraudulent purposes
  • Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime

These are not minor or unimportant crimes. In fairness, there are a few submissions that speak out about the hybridization of these offences (making them eligible to be tried summarily). Who came up with these though? Why are such crimes being shrugged off. Sure, the terrorism offence penalties caused backlash, but not these. It’s almost as if they wanted to divert attention.

As for watering down terrorism offences, where did that idea come from? CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs spoke against some of these provisions. But it’s unclear who was the brains behind the proposal

Now, it should be noted that changes to the MAXIMUM sentence of certain crimes would make law students and paralegals ineligible to work on such cases. While not a defense of criminals, everyone should have access to some representation.

Who was Bill C-75 really designed for? It comes across as if a group wanted to destabilize society, and wrote collaboratively on it.

(1) Parliamentary Study On Bill C-75 (Fall 2018)
(2) Bill C-75 Canadian Centre For Gender Sexual Diversity
(3) Bill C-75 Canadian Civil Liberties Association
(4) Bill C-75 EGALE Canada Human Rights Trust
(5) Bill C-75 Vancouver Rape Relief
(6) Bill C-75 Law Society Of Ontario
(7) Bill C-75 Tom Hooper Et AlBill C-75 UNICEF Canada
(8) Bill C-75 Families For Justice Alberta

Posted on

TSCE #9(H): AZ Rep. Hannley Opposes Mandatory Life For Repeat Child Predators, Since Most Inmates Are Non-White

This was previously covered in several American outlets. An Arizona State Representative, Pamela Powers Hannley, opposes mandatory life sentences for child sex offences. She claims it would disproportionately lock up people of colour. She focuses on INCARCERATION RATE as a metric, while ignoring the CRIME RATE, the only metric that matters.

She also leaves out that the life sentences would apply to REPEAT offenders. A huge omission.

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. Rep. Pamela Powers Hannley, Her Own Words

Let’s lock up the chronic abusers. I’m tired of reading stories about priests, church elders, coaches, Boy Scout leaders, and other adults who have spent their lives preying on children. Boyer’s 2019 bill would have given victims a voice. HB2889 doesn’t do that.

Mandatory sentencing feeds the prison industrial complex because it dictates a (often overly harsh) minimum sentence that judges must stick to. Why is mandatory sentencing a big deal? Because we know that justice in the United States is not colorblind. If our justice system were fair, the prison population would reflect the country’s population in terms of race and ethnicity. We all know that people of color are disproportionately imprisoned in this country. Once they have been prisoners, they lose their right to vote, and it is harder for them to get jobs and housing.

I voted against this bill because I stand against mandatory sentencing, for prison reform, and with the American Civil Liberties Union, Attorneys for Criminal Justice, and the American Friends Service Committee.

Let’s lengthen the time for adults who were abused as children to come forward and identify their abusers. That would go farther to stop child abuse than Biasiuuci’s bill.

This is actually an elected Representative in the Arizona State Legislature. Pamela Powers Hannley opposes a Bill to give child sexual offenders a mandatory life sentences. Although she does raise a few interesting issues about flaws in criminal justice, she loses the argument with another point. She opposes it since “people of colour” are the vast majority in prison. She believes that the prison population is supposed to reflect the nation’s general makeup, and not the makeup of people who commit crimes.

Strange that these types never seem to mind the fact that men comprise the bulk of the prison population. It seems equity has its limitations.

3. FBI Crime Statistics For Year 2019

51.2% – Murder and non-negligent manslaughter
26.7% – Rape
52.7% – Robbery
33.2% – Aggravated Assault
41.8% – Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc.
42.2% – Prostitution and commercialized vice
20.6% – Sex offenses (except rape and prostitution)
28.3% – Offenses against the family and children

That is from Table 43A of the FBI Crime Statistics for the year 2019. The numbers apply to blacks, who make up roughly 13% of the overall U.S. population. Are they disproportionately represented in American prisons? Yes, and for good reason. They commit a disproportionate amount of violent and sexual crimes.

However, a flaw in the reporting lumps whites and hispanics together, which makes the white crime rate seem much higher than it really is.

The idea that a prison population must reflect the population as a whole is ridiculous. It should reflect the makeup of people who actually commit serious crimes.

Perhaps Representative Hannley would support Gladue Rights, where we have different sets of laws based on race, in order to address these “disparities”. Or maybe she would support something like Bill C-75, which waters down the penalties for child sex offences. What does she think of California Senator Scott Wiener?

4. Text Of Arizona House Bill 2889

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Section 13-705, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

13-705. Dangerous crimes against children; sentences; definitions
.
A. A person who is at least eighteen years of age and who is convicted of a dangerous crime against children in the first degree involving commercial sexual exploitation of a minor or child sex trafficking or involving molestation of a child and the person has previously been convicted of a dangerous crime against children in the first degree involving molestation of a child shall be sentenced to imprisonment in the custody of the state department of corrections for natural life. A person who is sentenced to natural life is not eligible for commutation, parole, work furlough, work release or release from confinement on any basis for the remainder of the person’s natural life.

Q. S. For the purposes of this section:
.
1. “Dangerous crime against children” means any of the following that is committed against a minor who is under fifteen years of age:
.
(a) Second degree murder.
(b) Aggravated assault resulting in serious physical injury or involving the discharge, use or threatening exhibition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
(c) Sexual assault.
(d) Molestation of a child.
(e) Sexual conduct with a minor.
(f) Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor.
(g) Sexual exploitation of a minor.
(h) Child abuse as prescribed in section 13-3623, subsection A, paragraph 1.
(i) Kidnapping.
(j) Sexual abuse.
(k) Taking a child for the purpose of prostitution as prescribed in section 13-3206.
(l) Child sex trafficking as prescribed in section 13-3212.
(m) Involving or using minors in drug offenses.
(n) Continuous sexual abuse of a child.
(o) Attempted first degree murder.
(p) Sex trafficking.
(q) Manufacturing methamphetamine under circumstances that cause physical injury to a minor.
(r) Bestiality as prescribed in section 13-1411, subsection A, paragraph 2.
(s) Luring a minor for sexual exploitation.
(t) Aggravated luring a minor for sexual exploitation.
(u) Unlawful age misrepresentation.
(v) Unlawful mutilation.
(w) Sexual extortion as prescribed in section 13-1428.

If she is going to oppose this Bill, HB2889, let’s be honest about what’s in it. It applies to people PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF certain serious offences, who commit them again. This concerns repeat offenders.

Moreover, the list of “dangerous crimes against children” includes extremely serious charges. These are not something that can be brushed off as youthful immaturity.

But sure, let’s not impose life sentences on repeat, child sexual predators, because white people aren’t committing enough crimes.

Posted on

IBC #8(C): World Bank Gets Production Order Dismissed In 2013 SNC Lavalin Case

This is a case from several years ago. The World Bank Group (WBG) went to the Supreme Court to get an Order overturned, which compelled the organization to turn over documents in a criminal case. WBG itself was not being tried, but they had information that was potentially valuable to the accused defendants. They were charged under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, and some were employees of SNC Lavalin.

1. More On The International Banking Cartel

For more on the banking cartel, check this page. The Canadian Government, like so many others, has sold out the independence and sovereignty of its monetary system to foreign interests. BIS, like its central banks, exceed their agenda and try to influence other social agendas. See who is really controlling things, and the common lies that politicians and media figures tell. The bankers work with the climate mafia and pandemic pushers to promote mutual goals of control and debt slavery.

2. Court Rulings On World Bank

Kevin Wallace v. H.M.Q., 2014 ONSC 7449 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2014/2014onsc7449/2014onsc7449.html

World Bank Group v. Kevin Wallace, et al., 2015 CanLII 38342 (SCC)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2015/2015canlii38342/2015canlii38342.html

World Bank Group v. Wallace, 2016 SCC 15 (CanLII), [2016] 1 SCR 207
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2016/2016scc15/2016scc15.html

3. Ontario Superior Court Ruling

NORDHEIMER J.:
.
[1] The applicants are all charged with an offence under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, S.C. 1998, c. 34. They bring this application for an order requiring a third party, the World Bank Group, to produce various documents. In furtherance of that application, the applicants had subpoenas issued to two employees of the World Bank Group requiring them to appear before this court and bring with them various documents that were detailed in an appendix to the subpoenas. Neither of those individuals appeared in response to the subpoenas. I will address certain issues regarding these subpoenas later.

Background
.
[2] Some degree of factual background is necessary to understand the reason for this application. The applicants are jointly charged with one count of bribing foreign public officials, namely, officials within the government of The People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Three of the accused persons are former employees of SNC-Lavalin. Mohammad Ismail was Director, International Projects. Mr. Ismail reported to Ramesh Shah who was Vice-President of the International Division. Mr. Shah reported to Kevin Wallace who was Vice-President, Energy and Infrastructure, and was the senior SNC-Lavalin executive assigned to the Padma Project. Zulfiquar Ali Bhuiyan is a Bangladeshi and Canadian Citizen. It is alleged that Mr. Bhuiyan was the representative of Abul Chowdhury, a senior Bangladeshi official, who was alleged to also be involved in this matter.

[3] The background to this matter dates back to 2010 when the World Bank began receiving information suggesting that there might be corruption involving foreign public officials and company representatives in respect of a bid by SNC-Lavalin for a construction supervision contract related to the planned construction of the Padma Bridge in Bangladesh. The World Bank Group was a primary lender in relation to the Padma Bridge project.

[4] The Word Bank Group has a unit that is charged with the investigation of allegations of fraud, corruption, collusion and other improper activities in relation to World Bank financed projects. It is called the Vice Presidency for Integrity (“the INT”). In March, 2011, an officer with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was approached by an INT investigator concerning allegations that had come to the INT’s attention regarding possible corruption involving SNC-Lavalin and the Padma Bridge project.

Conclusion
.
[67] In summary, I conclude that:
(i) the subpoenas for Christopher Kim and Paul Haynes were validly served;
.
(ii) the World Bank Group has, on the particular facts of this case, waived their immunity such that this court has jurisdiction to order production of documents in their possession;
.
(iii) the applicants have satisfied the first stage for the production of records in the hands of a third party as set out in R. v. O’Connor;
.
(iv) the World Bank Group must produce to this court the documents set out in paragraphs a, b, c and e of the Appendix to the subpoenas so that the review contemplated in the second stage of the R. v. O’Connor procedure can take place;
.
(v) if the applicants still wish to pursue the documents referred to in paragaraphs d and f of the Appendix to the subpoenas, a further hearing should be arranged to address the relevance of those documents.

The details of the criminal fraud itself isn’t what’s so interesting here. It’s the fact that the Defendants attempted to force the WBG to produce documents which they claimed was relevant to their defense. Was this really about privacy, and exerting their immunities privilege? Or, was there some other, more basic reason WBG wouldn’t want this information to be public record?

4. Supreme Court Motion For Leave

The motion to expedite the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Number CR-13-90000727, 2014 ONSC 7449, dated December 23, 2014, is granted.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted the application to appeal and expedite the challenge from the Ontario Superior Court. Rather than comply, WBG decided to get the Order thrown out instead.

5. Supreme Court Overturns ONSC Ruling

Two issues were raised on the application: (1) whether the World Bank Group could be subject to a production order issued by a Canadian court given the immunities accorded to the IBRD and the IDA, and (2) if so, whether in the context of a challenge to the wiretap authorizations pursuant to Garofoli, the documents sought met the test for relevance.

With respect to the first issue, the trial judge found that the immunities and privileges claimed were prima facie applicable to the archives and personnel of the INT. However, he determined that the World Bank Group had waived these immunities by participating in the RCMP investigation. In any event, he was not persuaded that the documents at issue were “archives”. Moreover, in his view, the term “inviolable” in the Articles of Agreement connoted protection from search and seizure or confiscation, but not from production for inspection. On the second issue, the trial judge concluded that the documents were likely relevant to issues that would arise on a Garofoli application. Accordingly, he ordered that the documents be produced for review by the court.
.
Held: The appeal should be allowed and the production order set aside.

The trial judge erred in assessing the accused’s arguments. Although he correctly placed the burden on the accused, he did not properly assess the relevance of the documents being sought. In particular, he blurred the distinction in a Garofoli application between the affiant’s knowledge and the knowledge of others involved in the investigation. In this case, that distinction is crucial. While the documents sought may be relevant to the ultimate truth of the allegations in the affidavits, they are not reasonably likely to be of probative value to what Sgt. D knew or ought to have known since he did not consult them. The accused have not shown that it was unreasonable for him to rely on the information he received from the INT and other officers. Furthermore, accepting the argument that the INT’s records should be presumed relevant because first party documents were lost or not created would require a significant change to the O’Connor framework. Such a change is not necessary. Any loss of information must be addressed through the remedial framework set forth in R. v. La, 1997 CanLII 309 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 680, which may well be the appropriate framework for addressing any prejudice resulting from the World Bank Group’s assertion of its immunities. The accused did not argue these issues on this appeal, and they are best left to the trial judge.

[6] First, the World Bank Group submits that the Schedules of the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-7 (“Bretton Woods Act”), grant immunity to the archives and personnel of certain constituent organizations of the World Bank Group, including the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (“IBRD”) and the International Development Association (“IDA”). Under Schedules II and III of the Bretton Woods Act, the IBRD’s and the IDA’s “archives . . . shall be inviolable” (“archival immunity”), and “[a]ll [g]overnors, [e]xecutive [d]irectors, [a]lternates, officers and employees . . . (i) shall be immune from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when the [IBRD or IDA] waives this immunity” (“personnel immunity”) (Sch. II, art. VII, ss. 5 and 8; Sch. III, art. VIII, ss. 5 and 8).

[7] Accordingly, the World Bank Group submits that the documents ordered produced by the trial judge are immune from production.

[12] SNC-Lavalin was one of several companies bidding for a contract to supervise the construction of the bridge (the “Supervision Contract”). A committee of Bangladeshi officials evaluated the bids. The respondents allegedly conspired to bribe the committee to award the contract to SNC-Lavalin. Three of the respondents are former employees of SNC-Lavalin: Kevin Wallace, Ramesh Shah and Mohammad Ismail. The fourth, Zulfiquar Bhuiyan, was allegedly a representative of Abul Chowdhury, a Bangladeshi official alleged to be involved in this matter. They are all charged with an offence under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

[13] The INT is responsible for investigating allegations of fraud, corruption and collusion in relation to projects financed by the World Bank Group. The INT is an independent unit within the World Bank Group, reporting directly to its President. Mr. Haynes and Mr. Kim were senior investigators with the INT. Mr. Haynes was the primary investigator in this matter.

V. Conclusion
.
[148] The World Bank Group’s immunities cover the records sought and its personnel, and they have not been waived. Moreover, the INT’s records were not disclosable under Canadian law. In the result, we would dismiss the respondents’ motion to strike, allow the appeal and set aside the production order.

[149] In the circumstances, given the issues raised, we would make no order as to costs. In doing so, we wish to make it clear that we do not accept Mr. Bhuiyan’s submission as to the World Bank Group’s conduct in this case.

The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately found that the World Bank Group hadn’t waived its immunities, and was within its rights to refuse a request for production in a criminal case. The claim was that Canada’s membership with WBG came with certain conditions, and that this was still intact.

6. Relevance To What’s Happening Today

Considering that the World Bank Group is heavily involved in promoting the “pandemic” narrative, getting them to turn over material in any potential litigation will be very tricky. There are many, MANY things that real journalists and the public as a whole would want to see. This organization has power over Canadians, yet, we are not allowed to see the inner workings of how it operates.

This unfortunately is a very bad precedent, in terms of getting some transparency. And given the political connections Lavalin has, one has to wonder if there was interference in these proceedings.

Posted on

Bill C-21: Firearms Bill Adding “Transborder Criminality” To IRPA

This Bill redefines replica firearms, and brings Red Flag and Yellow Flag Laws onto Canadian gun owners, regardless of how law abiding these people may be. It also makes changes to IRPA, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Immigration & Refugee Protection Act
Canada Criminal Code
Text Of Bill C-21

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

The freedoms of a society can be gauged by the laws and attitudes they have towards firearms. Governments, and other groups can push around an unarmed population much easier than those who can defend themselves. It’s not conspiratorial to wonder about those pushing for gun control. In fact, healthy skepticism is needed for a society to function.

2. Canada Immigration & Refugee Protection Act

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
.
(2) The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is responsible for the administration of this Act as it relates to
(a) examinations at ports of entry;
(b) the enforcement of this Act, including arrest, detention and removal;
(c) the establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of this Act and inadmissibility on grounds of security, organized criminality or violating human or international rights; or
(d) declarations referred to in section 42.1.

Criminality
.
36(2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for
.
(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment, or of two offences under any Act of Parliament not arising out of a single occurrence;
.
(b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament;
.
(c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament; or
.
(d) committing, on entering Canada, an offence under an Act of Parliament prescribed by regulations.

Bill C-21 would add Section 36(2.1) or “transborder criminality” onto this section. Presumably this refers to things like weapons smuggling, but a more precise definition would be appreciation

[SERIOUS CRIMINALITY]
36(3) The following provisions govern subsections (1) and (2):
.
(a) an offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment is deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily;
.
(b) inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on a conviction in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered and has not been revoked or ceased to have effect under the Criminal Records Act, or in respect of which there has been a final determination of an acquittal;
.
(c) the matters referred to in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) and (2)(b) and (c) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of a permanent resident or foreign national who, after the prescribed period, satisfies the Minister that they have been rehabilitated or who is a member of a prescribed class that is deemed to have been rehabilitated;
.
(d) a determination of whether a permanent resident has committed an act described in paragraph (1)(c) must be based on a balance of probabilities; and
.
(e) inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on an offence
.
(i) designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act,
.
(ii) for which the permanent resident or foreign national is found guilty under the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, or
.
(iii) for which the permanent resident or foreign national received a youth sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

36(3)(b) is changed to include transborder criminality in grounds, if a person has been pardoned, or acquitted finally. Similarly, 36(3)(e) brings transborder criminality into consideration for young offenders. These are just a few quotes from IRPA, the Immigration & Refugee Protection Act.

3. Changes Bill C-21 Would Make To IRPA

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
44 Paragraph 4(2)‍(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is replaced by the following:

(c) the establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of this Act and inadmissibility on grounds of security, organized criminality, violating human or international rights or transborder criminality; or

45 (1) Paragraphs 36(1)‍(a) to (c) of the French version of the Act are replaced by the following:

a) être déclaré coupable au Canada d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans ou d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale pour laquelle un emprisonnement de plus de six mois est infligé;
.
b) être déclaré coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;
.
c) commettre, à l’extérieur du Canada, une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

(2) Paragraphs 36(2)‍(a) to (c) of the French version of the Act are replaced by the following:

a) être déclaré coupable au Canada d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de deux infractions prévues sous le régime de toute loi fédérale qui ne découlent pas des mêmes faits;
.
b) être déclaré coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de deux infractions qui ne découlent pas des mêmes faits et qui, commises au Canada, constitueraient des infractions sous le régime de toute loi fédérale;
.
c) commettre, à l’extérieur du Canada, une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation;

(3) Subsection 36(2) of the Act is amended by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (b), by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (c) and by repealing paragraph (d).

(4) Section 36 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

Transborder criminality
(2.‍1) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of transborder criminality for committing, on entering Canada, a prescribed offence under an Act of Parliament.

(5) The portion of subsection 36(3) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
Application

(3) The following provisions govern subsections (1) to (2.‍1):

(6) Paragraph 36(3)‍(b) of the English version of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) inadmissibility under subsections (1) to (2.‍1) may not be based on a conviction in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered and has not been revoked or ceased to have effect under the Criminal Records Act, or in respect of which there has been a final determination of an acquittal;

(7) The portion of paragraph 36(3)‍(e) of the English version of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

(e) inadmissibility under subsections (1) to (2.‍1) may not be based on an offence

46 Paragraph 37(1)‍(a) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

a) être membre d’une organisation dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu’elle se livre ou s’est livrée à des activités faisant partie d’un plan d’activités criminelles organisées par plusieurs personnes agissant de concert en vue de la perpétration d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de la perpétration, hors du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une telle infraction, ou se livrer à des activités faisant partie d’un tel plan;

47 Paragraph 55(3)‍(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) has reasonable grounds to suspect that the permanent resident or the foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality, criminality, transborder criminality or organized criminality.

48 Paragraph 58(1)‍(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(c) the Minister is taking necessary steps to inquire into a reasonable suspicion that they are inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality, criminality, transborder criminality or organized criminality;

49 Subsection 68(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Termination and cancellation
(4) If the Immigration Appeal Division has stayed a removal order against a permanent resident or a foreign national who was found inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality, criminality or transborder criminality, and they are convicted of another offence referred to in subsection 36(1), the stay is cancelled by operation of law and the appeal is terminated.

50 Paragraph 100(2)‍(b) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

b) il l’estime nécessaire, afin qu’il soit statué sur une accusation pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

51 Paragraphs 101(2)‍(a) and (b) of the French version of the Act are replaced by the following:

a) une déclaration de culpabilité au Canada pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;
b) une déclaration de culpabilité à l’extérieur du Canada pour une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

52 Paragraph 103(1)‍(b) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

b) il l’estime nécessaire, afin qu’il soit statué sur une accusation pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

53 Subsection 105(1) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

Sursis
105 (1) La Section de la protection des réfugiés ou la Section d’appel des réfugiés sursoit à l’étude de l’affaire si la personne est visée par un arrêté introductif d’instance pris au titre de l’article 15 de la Loi sur l’extradition pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement d’une durée maximale égale ou supérieure à dix ans tant qu’il n’a pas été statué en dernier ressort sur la demande d’extradition.

54 Paragraph 112(3)‍(b) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

b) il est interdit de territoire pour grande criminalité pour déclaration de culpabilité au Canada pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans ou pour toute déclaration de culpabilité à l’extérieur du Canada pour une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;

55 (1) Subparagraph 113(e)‍(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(i) an applicant who is determined to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality with respect to a conviction in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years for which a term of imprisonment of less than two years — or no term of imprisonment — was imposed, and

(2) Subparagraph 113(e)‍(ii) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

(ii) celui qui est interdit de territoire pour grande criminalité pour déclaration de culpabilité à l’extérieur du Canada pour une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans, sauf s’il a été conclu qu’il est visé à la section F de l’article premier de la Convention sur les réfugiés.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations
58 The portion of section 19 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Transborder crime
19 For the purposes of subsection 36(2.‍1) of the Act, indictable offences under the following Acts of Parliament are prescribed:

It says that certain indictable offences under the following Acts are prescribed, but then it doesn’t list them. Is there an oversight here?

59 Paragraph 229(1)‍(d) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
(d) a deportation order, if they are inadmissible under paragraph 36(2)‍(b) or (c) of the Act on grounds of criminality or under subsection 36(2.‍1) of the Act on grounds of transborder criminality;
60 Paragraph 230(3)‍(c) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
(c) is inadmissible under subsection 36(1) of the Act on grounds of serious criminality, under subsection 36(2) of the Act on grounds of criminality or under subsection 36(2.‍1) of the Act on grounds of transborder criminality;

This Bill would add “transborder criminality” as a reason to prevent someone from entering Canada, to imprison, or to deport. While this sounds fine, some clarity would be appreciated.

4. IRPA Also Lets Inadmissibles In Legally

Temporary resident permit
.
24 (1) A foreign national who, in the opinion of an officer, is inadmissible or does not meet the requirements of this Act becomes a temporary resident if an officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the circumstances and issues a temporary resident permit, which may be cancelled at any time.

Public policy considerations
.
25.2 (1) The Minister may, in examining the circumstances concerning a foreign national who is inadmissible or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, grant that person permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligations of this Act if the foreign national complies with any conditions imposed by the Minister and the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations.

As addressed here, here, here and here, there are at least 2 provisions in IRPA that allow people who are otherwise inadmissible to be LEGALLY let it. This happens daily.

5. Confusion Around Sentencing Range

Bill C-21 includes increasing the range of sentences for several gun crimes from a 10 year maximum, to a 14 year maximum. This is one of the truly reasonable sections of the legislation.

Replacement of “10” and “ten” with “14”
14 The Act is amended by replacing “10” and “ten” with “14” in the following provisions:
(a) paragraph 95(2)‍(a);
(b) paragraph 96(2)‍(a);
(c) the portion of subsection 99(2) before paragraph (a) and subsection 99(3);
(d) the portion of subsection 100(2) before paragraph (a) and subsection 100(3); and
(e) the portion of subsection 103(2) before paragraph (a) and subsection 103(2.‍1).

That being said, Bill C-22 (another piece before Parliament), seeks to eliminate the mandatory minimum sentences on many serious gun crimes. Overall, these are very strange, and somewhat conflicting portions.

Posted on

Bill C-21: Redefining Replica Firearms, Turning Them Into Prohibited Weapons

This Bill brings Red Flag and Yellow Flag Laws onto Canadian gun owners, regardless of how law abiding they may be. It also redefines what a “replica” is, and potentially causes more problems.

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

The freedoms of a society can be gauged by the laws and attitudes they have towards firearms. Governments, and other groups can push around an unarmed population much easier than those who can defend themselves. It’s not conspiratorial to wonder about those pushing for gun control. In fact, healthy skepticism is needed for a society to function.

2. What Criminal Code Currently Says

replica firearm means any device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, a firearm, and that itself is not a firearm, but does not include any such device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, an antique firearm; (réplique)

The Criminal Code, under Section 84(1), already has a definition for a replica firearm, and it’s a pretty clear one. However, this would make changes to it regarding energy of the discharge, and speed.

3. Changes Bill C-21 Would Make To Code

1 (1) The definition replica firearm in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

replica firearm means any device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, a firearm that is designed or adapted to discharge a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.‍4 m per second and at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.‍7 Joules, and that itself is not a firearm, but does not include any such device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, an antique firearm; (réplique)

(2) Section 84 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3.‍1):

Certain firearms deemed to be prohibited devices
(3.‍2) For the purposes of sections 99 to 101, 103 to 107 and 117.‍03, a firearm is deemed to be a prohibited device if
(a) it is proved that the firearm is not designed or adapted to discharge a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.‍4 m per second or at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.‍7 Joules; and
(b) the firearm is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, a firearm, other than an antique firearm, that is designed or adapted to discharge a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.‍4 m per second and at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.‍7 Joules.

From this new definition, could air guns, airsoft guns, paintball guns and pellet guns now be considered prohibited weapons? After all, many do “resemble” regular firearms.

By this new definition, many of those guns available for purchase by the general public might qualify. They aren’t designed for the same capacity as real ones. But “exactly resembling, or resembling with near precision” could be very subjective. It also raises the question of what kind of due diligence a person should do to ensure that their gun is not resembling (exactly, or with near precision), a prohibited weapon.

Since these aren’t standard firearms there’s no way to get a license to own them, unless that’s coming next. Is this a way to ban other types of “guns”, or is this just poor wording?