Category: Criminal

Posted on

Child Exploitation, And Other Private Members’ Bills

Private Member’s Bill C-219, introduced by John Nater, would have raised the criminal penalties for child sexual exploitation, and sexual exploitation of a child with a disability. This is one of several interesting bills pending before Parliament.

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. Mandatory Minimums For Child Exploitation

Criminal Code
1 Paragraph 153(1.‍1)‍(b) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.
.
2 Paragraphs 153.‍1(1)‍(a) and (b) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.
.
3 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 286.‍1:
Aggravating circumstance — person with a disability
286.‍11 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence referred to in subsection 286.‍1(1) or (2), it shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the victim of the offence is a person with a mental or physical disability.

This bill, if passed, would have amended the criminal code, and made sexual exploitation an offence with a mandatory 1 year minimum jail sentence, even if it was tried summarily. Furthermore, it would have added a 1 year minimum to exploitation (summarily or by indictment), if the victim had a disability.

While 1 year is still very lenient, it would at least be a step in the right direction. Bills from Private Members often go nowhere, but this should be an issue everyone can agree on.

Interestingly, this bill was brought up in the last Parliament — Bill C-424 — but never got past first reading. Again, it should be something that everyone can agree is beneficial to society.

3. Property Rights From Expropriation

Expropriation Act
1 Section 10 of the Expropriation Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (11):
Exception
(11.‍1) Subsection (11) does not apply if the interest or right to which the notice of intention relates is intended to be expropriated by the Crown for the purpose of restoring historical natural habitats or addressing, directly or indirectly, climate variability, regardless of whether or not that purpose is referred to in the notice or described in the notice as the primary purpose of the intended expropriation.
.
2 Section 19 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
Exception
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the interest or right to which the notice of confirmation relates is intended to be expropriated by the Crown for the purpose of restoring historical natural habitats or addressing, directly or indirectly, climate variability, regardless of whether or not that purpose is referred to in the notice of intention or described in the notice of intention as the primary purpose of the intended expropriation.

Bill C-222 was introduced by Cheryl Gallant, and would prevent the Canadian Government from forcibly taking your land in order to turn it into a heritage site, or in some convoluted effort to fight climate change. It would amend the Expropriation Act to prevent exactly that.

Gallant was also the only MP to vote against the Liberal Motion to formally adopt the Paris Accord. She voted no, while “conservative” either voted for it, or abstained.

4. Quebec Multiculturalism Exemption

Bloc Quebecois MP Luc Theriault introduced Bill C-226, to exempt Quebec from the Multiculturalism Act. Now there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect your own heritage and culture. However, Quebec is rather hypocritical in simultaneously pushing theirs on other people.

5. Addressing Environmental Racism

Bill C-230 is to address environmental racism.
I have no words for this Bill by Lenore Zann.

6. Social Justice In Pension Plan

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act
1 Section 35 of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act is renumbered as subsection 35(1) and is amended by adding the following:
Considerations
(2) The investment policies, standards and procedures, taking into account environmental, social and governance factors, shall provide that no investment may be made or held in an entity if there are reasons to believe that the entity has performed acts or carried out work contrary to ethical business practices, including
(a) the commission of human, labour or environmental rights violations;
(b) the production of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war prohibited under international law; and
(c) the ordering, controlling or otherwise directing of acts of corruption under any of sections 119 to 121 of the Criminal Code or sections 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

Bill C-231, from Alistair MacGregor, would have cut off CPPIB (the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board), from investing in areas where any of the above are breached. This is a good idea in principle, even if the details are sparse.

7. Ban On Sex-Selective Abortion

cpc.policy.declaration

Bill C-233, from Cathay Wagantall, would make it illegal to abort children because of sex. In short, this means targeting female babies. However, it isn’t clear how this would work. Article 70 in the policy declaration says there will be no attempt to pass any abortion legislation, and Article 73 says that foreign aid shouldn’t be given to provide for abortion.

So killing children is okay, as long as it’s done in Canada, and the gender of the baby is not a factor. Makes sense to me.

8. Lowered Voting Age, Conversion Therapy

There are currently two bills: C-240, and S-219, which would lower the voting age to 16. Aside from being a bad idea, this seems a little redundant. There is also S-202, to ban conversion therapy. So, we want 16 year olds to be able to vote, and decide what gender they want to be.

9. National School Food Program

If you want the school to become more of a parent, there is Bill C-201 by Don Davies to do exactly that. It was previously Bill C-446. Now, let’s look at some non-Canadian content.

10. California Lowering Penalties For Anal

https://twitter.com/Scott_Wiener/status/1291406895878553600

San Francisco – Today, Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced Senate Bill 145 to end blatant discrimination against LGBT young people regarding California’s sex offender registry. Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age, “sexual intercourse” (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not require the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge decides based on the facts of the case whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.

This distinction in the law — which is irrational, at best — disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration, since LGBT people usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse. For example, if an 18 year old straight man has vaginal intercourse with his 17 year old girlfriend, he is guilty of a crime, but he is not automatically required to register as a sex offender; instead, the judge will decide based on the facts of the case whether registration is warranted. By contrast, if an 18 year old gay man has sex with his 17 year old boyfriend, the judge *must* place him on the sex offender registry, no matter what the circumstances.

Until recently, that sex offender registration was for life, even though the sex was consensual. Under 2017 legislation authored by Senator Wiener, registration. Is for a minimum of 10 years, still a harsh repercussion for consensual sex.

SB 145 does not change whether or not particular behavior is a crime and does not change the potential sentence for having sex with an underage person. Rather, the bill simply gives judges the ability to evaluate whether or not to require registration as a sex offender. To be clear, this judicial discretion for sex offender registration is *already* the law for vaginal intercourse between a 15-17 year old and someone up to 10 years older. SB 145 simply extends that discretion to other forms of intercourse. A judge will still be able to place someone on the registry if the behavior at issue was predatory or otherwise egregious. This change will treat straight and LGBT young people equally, end the discrimination against LGBT people, and ensure that California stops stigmatizing LGBT sexual relationships.

California State Senator Scott Wiener, in 2019 introduced Senate Bill SB 145, to stop men who have sex with 15, 16, and 17 year old boys from automatically becoming registered sex offenders. Here is the text of the bill.

The Bill has predictably received plenty of backlash. Criticism of it, however, has been dismissed as homophobia and anti-Semitism. Of course, a better alternative might be to RAISE the age of consent to 18 all around. That would do more to protect children.

If this seems familiar, it should. In 2016, Trudeau introduced Bill C-32, to lower the age of consent for anal sex. Eventually, it was slipped into Bill C-75, which not only reduced the penalties for many child sex crimes, but for terrorism offences as well.

11. New Zealand Loosens Abortion Laws

While New Zealand claimed to be in the middle of a pandemic, Parliament figured now is a good time to have easier access to abortion, even up to the moment of birth. Some really conflicting views on life. See Bill 310-1. Also, their “internet harm” bill seems like a threat to free speech.

Of course, that is not all that New Zealand has been up to lately. There is also taking people to quarantine camps, and denying them leave if they don’t consent to being tested. Yet, the PM thinks that critics are “conspiracy theorists”.

12. Know What Is Really Going On

Yes, this article was a bit scattered, but meant to bring awareness to some of the issues going on behind the scenes. The mainstream media (in most countries) will not cover important issues in any meaningful way. As such, people need to spend the time researching for themselves.

Bill introduced privately can actually be more interesting than what Governments typically put forward. Though they often don’t pass, they are still worth looking at.

Posted on

CV #41: Are The Sherman Killings Tied To Canada Financing Global Pharma Research? (Theory)

One of several articles (this from Capforcanada.com) suggesting that the killings of Barry and Honey Sherman were related to an ethics investigation of Trudeau.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

It is now August, and the coronavirus hoax is more than 6 months old. To fully understand what is going on, one needs to see the events that are happening behind the scenes. The media in Canada (and elsewhere), will never give you the complete picture.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the Elections Canada mainpage.
CLICK HERE, for Office of the Lobbying Commissioner.
CLICK HERE, for Rob Silver leaving Crestview Strategy.
CLICK HERE, for CapforCanada article on Sherman killings.
CLICK HERE, for 2019 Toronto Star followup.
CLICK HERE, for Democracy Watch’s main page.
CLICK HERE, for Apotex aiding Clinton Foundation missions.
CLICK HERE, for records, donations to foreign charities.
CLICK HERE, for Bloomberg on Apotex donating HCQ doses.

3. Context For This Article

This may be going a bit too far down the rabbit hole, but let’s address it anyway. While it is widely believed that the Shermans were killed because of an ethics investigation into illegal lobbying, there are other factors to consider.

First: the motive seems iffy, as there are no real consequences to being found guilty of violating these rules. Trudeau has proven that again and again.

Second: what if there were bigger financial issues at stake?

  • Mar 2016 – Members of Trudeau’s family take trip with Aga Khan
  • Dec 2016 – Trudeau takes infamous Christmas trip with Aga Khan
  • Nov 2017 – Raj Saini introduces M-132 in the House
  • Dec 2017 – Barry & Honey Sherman are murdered
  • Dec 2017 – Trudeau found guilty of ethics breach
  • Mar 2018 – GAVI lobbies Canadian Government, continues
  • Sep 2018 – Committee hearings on M-132 start up
  • Mar 2019 – House of Commons formally adopts M-132 findings
  • Jun 2020 – Saini/Gladue lobbied by GAVI
  • Mar 2020 – Apotex begins lobbying Federal Government again
  • Apr 2020 – WHO releases list of vaxx research underway

As a disclaimer: this is only a THEORY. The site doesn’t have any hard evidence that these killings are connected. There is just: odd factors, curious timing, and a potential financial motive. Take all of this with a grain of salt.

4. Donations & Lobbying By Shermans

The Shermans have engaged in a small number of donations at the Federal level, according to Elections Canada. Nothing overtly suspicious from this alone. But let’s look into the lobbying that has been going on.

77 communications reports have been filed with the lobbying registry. Interestingly, the bulk of them were PRIOR to the scandal that broke for the Shermans (allegedly) illegally lobbying then-Candidate Trudeau. However, on March 17 and 20, 2020, there were 3 more meetings, on the topic of producing generic pharmaceuticals.

Certainly it would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall at that meeting. One can only imagine how it proceeded.

5. M-132 Introduced, Killings A Month Later

For a speech on passing M-132.
The text is below

Motion Text
That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to undertake a study on ways of increasing benefits to the public resulting from federally funded health research, with the goals of lowering drugs costs and increasing access to medicines, both in Canada and globally; and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House no later than one year from the time this motion is adopted.

This could be the mother of all coincidences, but a month after M-132 was introduced, (see here, and see here, for background information), Barry Sherman of Apotex, and his wife Honey, were murdered.

Apotex was the major Canadian producer of hydroxychloroquine, which is touted as a cure for the coronavirus. With it being used, there would be little need for massive vaccine research.

6. GAVI Lobbying Very Profitable

From March 2018 until June 2019, GAVI received $200 million from Global Affairs Canada. From June 2019 to June 2020, GAVI received another $100 million.

This may be a coincidence as well, but after M-132 was formally adopted in March 2019, GAVI continued with their lobbying. They met with Raj Saini (who introduced M-132), and Marilyn Gladue (Vice-Chair of the M-132 Committee), in June 2019.

Also worth a reminder: GAVI’s lobbying firm, Crestview Strategy, was co-founded by Rob Silver, husband of Katie Telford, who is Justin Trudeau’s Chief of Staff.

7. Murder Staged As Murder/Suicide

Barry and Honey’s lifeless bodies were discovered by realtors and clients who were touring the house on Friday, Dec. 15, 2017. The couple was last seen alive on the evening of Wednesday, Dec. 13. Initially thought by police to be a murder-suicide, their deaths were later determined to be a “targeted” double homicide, according to Det. Sgt. Susan Gomes, who was then the lead detective on the case.

Their bodies were found in what Gomes told news conference was a “semi-seated position.” Belts around their necks were attached to a low railing at one end of their basement swimming pool, holding them upright. Brian Greenspan, one of the lawyers working for the Sherman family, has said publicly that the Shermans were found seated side by side, and that one of Barry’s legs was “crossed over the other.” People who saw the bodies in the pool room that Friday have confirmed this to the Star. One of those people said the bodies were not seated in a 90-degree position but tipped back slightly, with the belts around their necks holding them from falling backward into the pool.

While the police originally thought this to be a murder-suicide, they quickly changed their findings to that of a double homicide. This was just staged in order to throw investigators off the trail.

It seems that many people correctly suspected that the Sherman killings were staged, but didn’t figure out why. Of course, the coronavirus “pandemic” wouldn’t hit until 2020.

8. Apotex Documents Purged From Corp Canada

Typically, when searching Corporations Canada, one can instantly get major corporate documents, such as by-laws, directors, and articles of incorporation. However, Apotex Holdings & Apotex Pharmaceutical Holdings seem to have been removed from the site.

But, when these documents were issued a few months ago, this was the confirmation email.

Note: at one time these, the documents were available for download (and were). However, it seems the link and content has been disabled.

9. Democracy Watch In Federal Court

The Supreme Court of Canada will announce on Thursday whether it will hear an appeal from an ethics watchdog challenging the Trudeau government’s appointment of new ethics and lobbying commissioners.

Democracy Watch’s application for judicial review of cabinet’s appointment of Mario Dion as ethics and conflict of interest commissioner and Nancy Belanger as lobbying commissioner was dismissed by the Federal Court of Appeal earlier this year.

In that ruling, the presiding judges said they weren’t convinced by Democracy Watch’s arguments that the actions of the governor-in-council, or cabinet, in making the appointments were “unreasonable.”

The Supreme Court on Monday said it would it issue its judgment in Democracy Watch’s application for leave to appeal on July 30. The court usually releases judgments on leave to appeal applications on Thursday.

The Group called Democracy Watch has been trying for years to get a proper investigation into Trudeau and the Shermans, going as far as Federal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada. However, On July 30, the SCC declined to hear the case.

10. Apotex Offers Drug For Free

Apotex Inc. is donating about 240,000 doses of a drug normally used to treat malaria for a study aimed at preventing COVID-19 infection in front-line medical staff, the company said Friday.

The drug, commonly known as hydroxychloroquine, will be used in a clinical trial conducted by Toronto’s University Health Network. It will be given to front-line health care workers in a randomized, controlled trial that includes a placebo to determine whether it would be an effective treatment in preventing further spread of the novel coronavirus which had infected nearly 900 Canadians as of Friday afternoon, Apotex said in a statement.

Apotex was back in the news recently with announcements to donate large samples of hydroxychloroquine for research in determining its effects on CV-19. Keep in mind, this is a drug that has been out for a long time, so there is little money to be made from mass producing it.

11. Efforts To Stop Hydroxychloroquine

This is too long to go into here, but just search “BAN HYDROYXCHLOROQUINE”, and an almost endless amount of articles will come up regarding efforts to prevent this drug from being used.

12. Ties To Clinton Foundation

Of course, the “Clinton Body Count” is beyond a meme at this point. But it should be pointed out that Apotex donated to the Clinton Foundation missions in Haiti, Rwanda and Puerto Rico. And people connected to them have a nasty habit of committing suicide.

Worth noting: according to CRA records, the Clinton Foundation (along with the Aga Khan Foundation), have received gifts from the Canadian Government. It has happened under both the Harper and Trudeau Governments.

13. Why Were The Shermans Really Killed?

Considering how little information has been publicly released on the case, it’s impossible to know for sure.

However, this is a very strange set of coincidences, if that’s what it really is.

  • Pandemic “simulations” are run for years: Dark Water (2001); Atlantic Storm (2005); Clade X (2018); and Event 201 (2019)
  • M-132 is announced in November 2017, to fund global pharma research, and it comes just a month before the killings.
  • The M-132 committee gets lobbied by the pharma industry, including GAVI itself.
  • GAVI’s lobbying firm, Crestview Strategy, was founded by Rob Silver, Katie Telford’s husband.
  • Shermans worked with Clinton Foundation
  • Then this “pandemic” hits, with all the signs of premeditation.
  • Now efforts are underway to stop the use of hydroxychloroquine, a drug Apotex can mass produce and share.

True, it has been widely speculated that this was done to stop an ethics investigation into Justin Trudeau. However, that seems unlikely, given these laws have no teeth.

This article may be viewed as a wild conspiracy theory. But it is an attempt to explain a set of seemingly nonsensical events.

Posted on

CV #39: Forced Or Coerced Vaccination Violates Nuremberg Code

If the Nuremberg Code provides very reasonable guidelines on performing medical experiments, then what possible stretch of logic would prohibit people from refusing forced vaccines?

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For much more on the coronavirus “pandemic”, check out this series. Know the real story about the lies, inflated death tolls, rampant lobbying, financial conflicts of interest, and other deception that the mainstream media will not report on.

2. Text Of Nuremberg Code

  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
  2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
  3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
  4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
  5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
  6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
  7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
  8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
  9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
  10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

3. Does Forcing Vaccines Violate Code?


It stands to reason that if forcing people to participate in medical experiments is unethical, then forcing vaccines on people should be as well. Considering the lack of testing and safety mechanisms, it would be hard to argue that this is not still experimental.

Beyond actual force, making it unreasonably difficult to live one’s life without being vaccinated should also imply a lack of informed consent. Would a Government put a “boot on the neck” under the guise of public safety? Well, they are already.

What will happen should this be put in a court challenge? Guess only time will tell.

Posted on

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

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

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

The agenda can be summarized as such:

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

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

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

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

1. Bill C-32 Introduced In November 2016

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

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

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

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

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

2. Bill C-75 Brought In March 2018

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

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

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

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

3. Bill C-75 Used Partly To Divert Attention

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Hybridization Of Offences Continues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Submissions In Bill C-75 Hearings

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Liberals All Voted For This

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

7. More Then Just Terrorism At Stake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Have An Actual Entry/Exit Tracking System In Canada

(Global News tells “part” of the story on inadmissibles)

1. Previous Solutions Offered

A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.

2. Important Links

(A) “https://canucklaw.ca/students-and-temporary-workers-how-many-actually-stay/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/full-scale-of-inadmissibles-getting-residency-permits-what-global-news-leaves-out/
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/statscan-research-fake-students-using-visas-to-immigrate/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-parliament-discusses-work-permits-that-are-issued-for-illegals/
(E) https://canucklaw.ca/canada-pathway-to-permanent-residence-for-illegals-their-families/
(F) https://canucklaw.ca/sanctuary-cities-an-end-run-around-having-borders/

(1) https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-to-begin-collecting-exit-passport-data-1.2947418
(2) http://archive.is/feDOA
(3) https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/btb-pdf/ebsiip-asfipi-eng.html
(4) http://archive.is/krWR3
(5) https://globalnews.ca/news/6040749/canada-border-services-agency-arrest-warrants-cancelled/
(6) http://archive.is/4jQA9
(7) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/notices/permanent-residence-construction-workers-gta.html
(8) http://archive.is/e6OYZ
(9) https://canadianlabour.ca/permanentresidence/
(10) http://archive.is/s3pq6
(11) https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2008/05/07/41000_illegal_immigrants_gone_missing.html
(12) http://archive.is/bayYs
(13) https://torontosun.com/2017/03/14/the-high-cost-of-illegal-migrants/wcm/a2cdce17-4808-48df-9569-1247cba8bcf0
(14) http://archive.is/Xk9l4

Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament
(1) 2004 Annual Report to Parliament
(2) 2005 Annual Report to Parliament
(3) 2006 Annual Report to Parliament
(4) 2007 Annual Report to Parliament
(5) 2008 Annual Report to Parliament
(6) 2009 Annual Report to Parliament
(7) 2010 Annual Report to Parliament
(8) 2011 Annual Report to Parliament
(9) 2012 Annual Report to Parliament
(10) 2013 Annual Report to Parliament
(11) 2014 Annual Report to Parliament
(12) 2015 Annual Report to Parliament
(13) 2016 Annual Report to Parliament
(14) 2017 Annual Report to Parliament
(15) 2018 Annual Report to Parliament
(16) 2019 Annual Report to Parliament
(0) Archived listings of Reports

3. Context For This Article

For a nation to have meaningful borders, it must keep track of who is entering and exiting the country. It must do both, as merely recording the entrances is not enough.

Why is this? Because the nation will have no idea how many people actually remain in the country. A person entering on a tourist visa may leave Canada in a week, or may still be there a decade later.

Unfortunately for Canadians, all of the major parties at the Federal level (and many at the Provincial level) are not at all interested in providing meaningful border security to their people. It isn’t for a lack of knowledge of the subject, but instead it’s not on their agendas.

4. Trudeau: 4+ Years To Implement

In 2016, the Federal Government announced plans to start collecting exit information from people leaving the country. This really is common sense. While we (theoretically) know how many people, who, and when, are ENTERING Canada, until now they Government doesn’t track who is LEAVING. Perhaps we just take it on face that everyone leaves when they should.

And one of the major benefits stated is to help reduce immigration fraud. If a person is “counting time” towards living in Canada, but doesn’t actually live here, then the Immigration Ministry should know about it.

When this does get implemented, then a gaping hole in Canadian border security should be fixed, right? Maybe not.

Canada collects basic biographic information on travellers who enter and leave the country by land to ensure complete travel history information is available, thereby strengthening the management of our border.

Biographic entry information is routinely collected directly from all travellers entering Canada upon presentation to a CBSA officer at a port of entry as part of the primary inspection process. Canada also collects exit information in the land mode. Canada receives biographic entry information from the United States (U.S.) on all travellers who enter the U.S. through a land border crossing, thereby enabling the creation of a Canadian exit record.

Regulatory amendments for the air mode are expected to come into force in Summer 2020. Once fully implemented in the air mode, Canada will collect basic exit information directly from air carriers through passenger manifests. Exit information collected in the air mode will not be shared with the U.S.

The collection of exit information enhances the CBSA’s ability to manage border security by closing the loop on an individual’s travel history. This allows the CBSA to focus efforts and resources towards unknown or higher risk travellers.

This still isn’t fully implemented, and won’t be until at least 2020. That’s right, these changes were announced in 2016, and over three years later, are not fully implemented. Guess the potential fraud and security risks aren’t that great.

Right now, departures by air are not recorded by CBSA. Unless someone is travelling to the United States, (and even then not always) he/she is flying in a plane. Boating isn’t really a practical solution for international travel to and from Canada.

As for people wanted for criminal or other reasons, the CBSA (Canada Border Services Agency) has revealed that it deletes old arrest warrants.

Currently, there are more than 48,000 active arrest warrants in Canada for people wanted on immigration violations. According to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), the “vast majority” of these cases involve people wanted for deportation.
But these figures may not tell the whole story.

Global News has learned the CBSA cancels arrest warrants for failed refugee claimants and other people wanted for removal who it cannot find, even in cases where it is not clear whether a person has left Canada.

What’s more, the CBSA does not track how many warrants it cancels in cases where a person’s whereabouts are unknown.
.
Because the CBSA only recently started tracking people when they exit the country by land — and still doesn’t track people who leave by air — there’s no way for the government or CBSA to say for sure how many people have overstayed their welcome.

Back in the early 2000s, when he worked at the agency that would later become the CBSA, Sundberg says he was assigned to a team in Lethbridge, Alta., tasked with “culling” old warrants for people facing deportation whose cases had been in the system for at least five years.

The protocol for cancelling a warrant, Sundberg said, involved calling known associates of the wanted person, doing internet searches and checking criminal and entry records in other countries to see if someone wanted for arrest had left Canada voluntarily.

The Canada Border Services Agency apparently cancels warrants for people wanted for immigration violations, if the warrants are old.

Moreover, there appears to be no tracking of how many warrants get cancelled either. Just a hunch, but it probably looks bad in the CBSA’s eyes if they have a lot of outstanding warrants. Makes them look slow and unproductive. Alternatively, this could be a deliberate attempt to make sure that people in the country illegally and/or committing other crimes won’t be deported.

5. Previous Efforts At Entry/Exit

Phase I Joint Canada-United States Report
.
Executive Summary
.
As part of the Beyond the Border Declaration and Action Plan agreed to by President Obama and Prime Minister Harper in 2011, the United States and Canada are developing a coordinated Entry/Exit Information System at their shared land border. The Entry/Exit Information System will facilitate exchanges of entry information such that an entry into one country is considered an exit from the other. This exchange will help better manage immigration program and border management practices, as it is important for Canada and the United States to determine when individuals both enter and depart our respective countries. For example, an Entry/Exit Information System will help determine whether third country nationals and permanent residents are complying with domestic immigration laws. This project can help move us closer to meeting this need through mutual collaboration and without expensive new infrastructure or unnecessary processing that would slow down trade and travel between the two countries.

The Entry/Exit Information System will be implemented in three phases. During the first phase, which began in September 2012 and concluded in January 2013, the countries exchanged biographic entry data only on third country nationals and permanent residents (but not U.S. or Canadian citizens) who crossed the common land border at four locations. This report covers the activities of Phase I.

In 2011, Canada and the U.S. reached an agreement to start an entry/exit system between the two countries. Not much progress has been made since.

6. Tourists Coming Into Canada Annually

TRV = Temporary Resident Visa
eTA = Electronic Travel Authorization

YEAR TRV Issued eTA Issued Totals Cumulative
2016 1,347,898 2,605,077 3,952,975 –
2017 1,617,222 4,109,918 5,570,197 –
2018 1,898,324 4,125,909 6,024,233 –

Certainly, the overwhelming majority of these people are simply tourists who will leave. However, without an exit tracking system, we don’t really know how many. That is just the official data for the last few years.

7. “Inadmissibles” Let Into Canada Anyway


(Source: 2019 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration)

Broadly speaking, there are two provisions within IRPA, the Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act, that allow people who were previously deemed inadmissible to Canada to be given Temporary Resident Permits anyway. Here are the totals from the Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration. Note: the first one listed only started in 2010.

YEAR TRP Issued
2010 17
2011 53
2012 53
2013 280
2014 385
2015 1,063
2016 596
2017 555
2018 669

From 2010 to 2018, a total of 3671 people who were otherwise inadmissible to Canada were allowed in anyway under Rule 25.2(1) of IRPA. This is the category that Global News previously reported on. As for the other one, under Rule 24(1) of IRPA, Global News leaves that out:

Year Permits Cumulative
2002 12,630 12,630
2003 12,069 24,699
2004 13,598 38,297
2005 13,970 52,267
2006 13,412 65,679
2007 13,244 78,923
2008 12,821 91,744
2009 15,640 107,384
2010 12,452 107,384
2011 11,526 118,910
2012 13,564 132,474
2013 13,115 145,589
2014 10,624 156,213
2015 10,333 166,546
2016 10,568 177,114
2017 9,221 186,335
2018 7,132 193,467

From 2002 to 2018 (inclusive), a total of 193,467 people previously deemed inadmissible to Canada were given Temporary Resident Permits anyway. This has almost certainly been going on for a lot longer, but is as far back as the reports go. Now let’s consider the reasons these people are initially refused entry.

SEC = Security (espionage, subversion, terrorism)
HRV = Human or International Rights Violations
CRIM = Criminal
S.CRIM = Serious Criminal
NC = Non Compliance
MR = Misrepresentation

YEAR Total SEC HRV Crim S.Crim NC MR
2002 12,630 ? ? ? ? ? ?
2003 12,069 17 25 5,530 869 4,855 39
2004 13,598 12 12 7,096 953 4,981 20
2005 13,970 27 15 7,917 981 4,635 21
2006 13,412 29 20 7,421 982 4,387 18
2007 13,244 25 8 7,539 977 4,109 14
2008 12,821 73 18 7,108 898 4,170 17
2009 15,640 32 23 6,619 880 7,512 10
2010 12,452 86 24 6,451 907 4,423 36
2011 11,526 37 14 6,227 899 3,932 11
2012 13,564 20 15 7,014 888 5,206 18
2013 13,115 17 10 6,816 843 5,135 8
2014 10,624 12 2 5,807 716 3,895 14
2015 10,333 3 3 5,305 578 4,315 28
2016 10,568 8 4 4,509 534 2,788 20
2017 9,221 10 5 5,035 591 3,412 121
2018 7,132 5 3 4,132 559 2,299 131

The original work for this section was done back in December 2019, but the findings as just as valid today.

8. Ghost Students Coming On Visas

(StatsCan research on students, including fake student visas)

(Large numbers of student visa holders are not enrolled)

The IMDB contains information on all temporary and permanent residents since 1980. For the purposes of this study, only the information on temporary residents was used. Specifically, the number of valid postsecondary study permit holders was generated to compare it with the actual number of international students enrolled in postsecondary programs based on data from PSIS, which contains program information for all students enrolled in Canadian public postsecondary institutions. Immigration status is listed in PSIS because postsecondary institutions are allowed to charge international students higher tuition fees than Canadian students, and this information is collected annually. Three groups were analyzed separately in this study: Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and student visa or permit holders (international students). The T1FF is a census of all Canadian taxfilers and their spouses and children. It contains detailed income information as well as basic demographics. The information on T4 wages and salaries in the T1FF was of particular interest in this study.

The study found that approximately 69.5% of postsecondary study permit holders actually enrolled in a postsecondary program in 2015—up from 51.8% in 2009. Between 2009 and 2015, the number of international postsecondary students nearly doubled. This resulted in a significant increase in the proportion of postsecondary students who were international students (from 6.6% in 2009 to 11.3% in 2015). International students enrolled in university bachelor’s degree programs accounted for about half of this increase. Although a smaller proportion of international students enrolled in college diploma programs, this was the fastest-growing group—accounting for 19.8% of international students in 2015, compared with 12.0% in 2009. In general, international students were more likely to be enrolled in university graduate programs and in higher-paying fields than Canadian students.

The research concludes, that large numbers of people on student visas are not actually enrolled in a Canadian school. While it is true that some people could have stayed home or gone elsewhere, student visas are cancelled if the person changes their mind. So the obvious question: where are these people, and what are they doing?

One of the reasons why international students were less likely to be employed than Canadian students might be because of the rules governing international students’ right to work. Prior to June 1, 2014, international students had to obtain a permit to work off campus and had to study for a period of at least six months before doing so. As of June 1, 2014, these rules are no longer in place, which may result in higher international student employment rates in the future.

Yes, the rules have been relaxed, and that means more and more students are “students” will be working while in school. Sort of a no brainer.

In the future, linking the Longitudinal Immigration Database (IMDB) data with postsecondary and taxation data could open new opportunities for research on international students. First, the IMDB could be used to disaggregate the results of this study by country of citizenship. Second, the relationship between educational experience and the transition to permanent residency could be explored. Third, international students may transition to a post-graduation work permit after completing their studies—future research could examine whether this type of work permit is associated with superior labour market outcomes and an increased propensity to transition to permanent residency.

These last remarks are from the conclusion. It seems to around the obvious, that student visas are a pathway to permanent residence. There is the Provincial Nominee Program, Atlantic Pilot Project, and other such options Even if not right away, the Post Graduate Work Program is one possibility to get PR at a later date.

9. Scale Of Students/Temp Workers

Year Stu TFWP IMP Total
2003 61,293 82,151 – 143,444

2004 56,536 90,668 – 147,204

2005 57,476 99,146 – 156,622

2006 61,703 112,658 – 174,361

2007 64,636 165,198 – 229,834

2008 79,509 192,519 – 272,028

2009 85,140 178,478 – 263,618

2010 96,157 182,276 – 278,433

2011 98,383 190,842 – 289,225

2012 104,810 213,573 – 318,383

2013 111,865 221,310 – 333,175

2014 127,698 95,086 197,924 420,078

2015 219,143 73,016 175,967 468,126

2016 265,111 78,402 207,829 551,342

2017 317,328 78,788 224,033 620,149

2018 356,876 84,229 255,034 696,139

Data compiled from the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament. True, not everyone will stay illegally, or even stay at all. Still, with these numbers of people entering Canada, wouldn’t it be helpful to have some sort of exit tracking system to see who actually leaves?

Note: there is a small discrepancy between the 2018 and 2019 reports, as the temporary categories are adjusted slightly downwards. Now sure why, but could be a counting error.

10. Visa Overstayers In Canada

It’s a commonly repeated talking point that the overwhelming majority of people in Western nations (particularly Canada and the U.S.) are people who have entered on some sort of visa and overstayed. This means they come legally, and didn’t honour their promise to leave afterwards.

While this claim may be true, it points to an even stronger argument in favour of having a full entry/exit tracking system. Citizens need to know that people who enter (under whatever program) are in fact leaving afterwards.

11. Work Permits For Illegals

Yes, that has seriously discussed in the Federal Parliament: giving people entering the country illegally temporary work permits. The stated rational is that it would help cover the costs. Sure, not letting them into the country in the first place would lower costs, but that’s racist to point out.

(Sept 28, 2017 “Evidence”)

Here are some quotes from the meeting. The topic of open work permits will be mentioned many times in these 5 meetings.

[Translation]
.
Through these measures, we are working to reduce the wait times for eligibility interviews from a few months to a few weeks, after which eligible claims are referred to the IRB.
[English]
This timely scheduling of eligibility interviews is crucial because in order to apply for an open work permit, an asylum seeker must first have their initial eligibility interview, have their claim referred to the IRB, and undergo an immigration medical examination.
.
To also help ease pressures, IRCC has begun to fast-track all work permit applications across Canada from asylum claimants with a commitment to process these within 30 days. In most cases, asylum claimants become eligible for interim federal health program, IFHP, coverage only after an officer has determined that their claim is eligible to be heard before the IRB. IFHP coverage is now available to asylum seekers who enter Canada between ports of entry in Lacolle, and are being processed on or after June 1, for those who have not yet had an eligibility interview.
.
To date, more than 5,600 persons have been issued this interim federal health program coverage under this special provision.
In closing, Chairs, IRCC, with the CBSA and all other partners in the federal family, continue to address irregular migration in accordance with Canadian and international law and in keeping with our values of an open and welcoming country.

A/Commr Joanne Crampton:
In terms of someone crossing the border between the ports of entry, the RCMP would intercept the person or persons. We then advise them that they are breaking the law under the Customs Act by crossing the border between ports of entry. The persons are then detained. Their possessions are searched to ensure there is no contraband or other illegal items. Their person is searched, because they are under arrest under the Customs Act. We then verify their identification. We do background checks and local indices checks, as well as international indices checks. If there is no noted criminality or concerns for national security and, once we have interviewed them and had a lengthy discussion as to where they came from and what their intentions are, if nothing negative comes as a result of that, we pass the individual over to Canada Border Services for further processing.

Mr. Jacques Cloutier:
At this point, for the CBSA, we receive the individual from the RCMP, as well as the information collected by the RCMP. We proceed with fingerprinting, taking of biometric information, and a cursory interview to elicit additional information. We verify identity. In those cases where we are satisfied that there are no immigration-related issues from an admissibility perspective, these individuals would be released on the terms and conditions and given an appointment to complete their eligibility interview. In cases where issues are discovered, several actions are taken immediately, including completing the interview for eligibility in its entirety, or proceeding with detention if the person is deemed to pose a risk to the public.

To be clear, the police are not detaining people illegally crossing the border for any length of time. Once identity (or who they allege to be) is determined, then they are released into Canada on a promise to appear.

Ms. Jenny Kwan:
If I may interrupt, I’ll ask if you can share this information with the committee then. Has the federal government provided any additional resources to provinces with these asylum seekers, not just for the housing component but also to support the asylum seekers as they wait for their claims to be processed?
.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
The federal government does not provide direct support to provinces for asylum seekers awaiting their claims. The support comes at the permanent resident granting determination process, afterwards. That being said, we have taken various measures to help the provinces and to help asylum seekers by expediting across Canada all work permit applications and trying to—
.
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
If I may interrupt then, how many work permit applications have been processed and approved?
.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
About six or seven weeks ago, we had over 6,000 work permit applications for all asylum seekers across Canada in our inventory. That is now almost eliminated, and we are processing in under 30 days any new asylum seeker’s work permit that is coming in from across Canada. We are doing those in well under 30 days. The idea is to help people get into the work force quicker.

Exactly, Very few if them will ever be forced to leave Canada. This is about putting them to work as cheap labour. Funny how the “conservatives” seem less apprehensive about illegals in this context.

Mr. Michael MacDonald:
The key to this from our perspective is allowing all asylum claimants to get their work permit faster and be able to enter the workforce if they have to.
.
At the same time, we work with community organizations as part of our regular outreach, and we do that across Canada so partnerships and getting that work permit is the key.

The abovhttps://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/CIMM/meeting-71/evidencee is quotes from just one meeting held by the committee. Below are links for the others. Also, read the previous article done on the topic.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/CIMM/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=9661587
(2) http://archive.is/elDlW
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/CIMM/meeting-71/evidence
(4) http://archive.is/uxtIR
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/CIMM/meeting-72/evidence
(6) http://archive.is/cAsj9
(7) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/CIMM/meeting-73/evidence
(8) http://archive.is/H7uM7
(9) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/CIMM/meeting-108/evidence
(10) http://archive.is/GBRrl
(11) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/CIMM/meeting-112/evidence
(12) http://archive.is/zIFLn
(13) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-611-x/89-611-x2003001-eng.pdf

12. Amnesty For Illegals Started Up

(Program launched in July:, 2019 PR-Path for illegals)

(Canadian Labour Congress)

See this previous piece, for more context on the situation. This is a start up amnesty program for illegals in Canada. It could lead to them (and family members) becoming permanent residents.

Ottawa, July 5, 2019 – Canada has launched a new temporary initiative to create a pathway to permanent residency for up to 500 out-of-status workers in the construction industry in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). These construction workers have come to Canada and made contributions to its economy and currently have limited means to regularize their status.

And if this “temporary” initiative is deemed to be successful, then how much will it be extended by? Guaranteed it is not 500 people.

Over many years, even decades, some workers who have come to Canada with valid temporary resident status, and who have filled labour shortages in the construction industry, have fallen out of status. Previous changes, such as “four in, four out”, have resulted in some workers losing their status. These workers have continued to address significant labour shortages in the construction industry, while also contributing to the economy and their communities. Without valid immigration status, these workers and their families have lived in fear and been left feeling very vulnerable. The presence of out-of-status workers in a significant industry leads to depressed wages for Canadians and makes workers vulnerable to employer exploitation and abuse.

Over many years and decades? So the government admits that people have been overstaying visas or work permits for decades. Why hasn’t this been addressed long ago.

Illegals living in Canada leads to depressed wages? I would actually agree, but up to a point. Yes, the extra labour available does drive down wages. However, that would still be the case even if they were “legalized”. It would still be an abundance of cheap labour.

So how many illegals are there, particularly in major cities? Who knows, it’s not like we actually track who is leaving Canada.

13. Sanctuary Cities/Provinces

(Andrea Horwath ran to be Ontario Premier in June 2018. She offered the entire Province of Ontario to become a “sanctuary” Province)

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath dodged questions Tuesday about how much her campaign promise to declare Ontario a “sanctuary province” for illegal migrants and refugee claimants will cost taxpayers.

Instead, she said providing public services without asking questions about anyone’s legal status in Ontario, or co-operating with federal authorities to determine it, is the humane thing to do.

During the 2018 Provincial election campaign in Ontario, NDP Leader Andrea Horwath campaigned on (among other things), turning Ontario into a sanctuary province. She claimed providing social services to people with no legal right to be in the country was “humane”. Unsurprisingly, she refused to tell the public how much it would cost, fearing a backlash.

To be fair however, Conservative leader Doug Ford supported Toronto becoming a sanctuary city. So did his brother, Rob Ford. Both men claimed to be “populists” yet supported giving illegal aliens (with no right to be in the country), the right to remain in Toronto and receive taxpayer funded services. It also needs to be said that John Tory, the current mayor of Toronto, supports sanctuary cities as well. He used to be the leader of the Conservative Party of Ontario.

Not tracking the names and numbers of people leaving the country is bad enough. When corrupt politicians enact policies such as sanctuary cities/provinces it makes it a whole lot worse, as government officials are aiding and abetting in circumventing good policies.

While “Sanctuary Ontario” is not yet a reality, several sanctuary cities are, such as Toronto, Montreal, Hamilton and Edmonton. Also noteworthy is that “conservative” Ontario Premier Doug Ford supported Sanctuary Toronto when he was on the city council. Current Toronto Mayor John Tory (formerly the Ontario Conservative Leader) also supports sanctuary status for his city.

14. Impact Of Not Tracking Exits

These are some of the things that Canadians need to think about with regards to their borders. This list is not exhaustive.

  • Temporary resident visas
  • Electronic travel authorizations
  • Inadmissibles let in under 24(1) of IRPA
  • Inadmissibles let in under 25.2(1) of IRPA
  • Hordes of student and temporary work visas
  • Visa overstayers
  • Work permits for illegals
  • Amnesty for illegals
  • Sanctuary cities/provinces

With all of these issues to consider, why would any sane government not want to have a strong and accurate entry/exit system at the borders? The only reason I can think of is that it is intentionally designed to fail.

Any serious leader would have crafted new rules right away, and used their executive power immediately to at least stop the bleeding. But much like Donald Trump and his “wall” Canadian Federal politicians are not serious about border security.

Posted on

Gladue 2.0: Blacks Also Get Race-Based Discount In Sentencing, What The Media Missed

1. Important Links

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/race-based-discounts-in-criminal-courts/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/child-killer-gets-transfer-to-healing-lodge-because-of-her-race/
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/public-policy-7-abolish-gladue-fix-underlying-problems/
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html

Aboriginal Specific Cases
(A) R. v. Gladue, 1997 CanLII 3015 (BC CA)
http://archive.is/QKazg
(B) R. v. Gladue, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 688
http://archive.is/vSWlo
(C) R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 (CanLII), [2012] 1 SCR 433
http://archive.is/Ol7tw

2. Context For This Article

Much of the Canadian public knows about “Gladue Rights”, which is essentially a race-based discount given to Aboriginal defendants in criminal proceedings. In short, judges must consider systemic racism and other discrimination, and search for ways to reduce their sentences.

However, this does not extend only to Aboriginals. Blacks can also use many of the same excuses in pleading for reduced punishment for crimes they commit.

Everyone, regardless of their race, should be against this. The only way a society works is when everyone is treated the same way for their actions. One group should not benefit, or be hindered by unequal laws.

3. Court Cases For Blacks

Here are some recent court cases in which “racial discrimination” or “system racism” was taken into account by judges sentencing black felons. This is not the complete list.

(A) R. v. Borde, 2003 CanLII 4187 (ON CA)
http://archive.is/xfD1s
(B) R v Reid, 2016 ONSC 954 (CanLII)
http://archive.is/QgCtC
(C) R. v. Diabikulu, 2016 BCPC 390 (CanLII)
http://archive.is/PNiAG
(D) R. v. Deng, 2017 BCPC 225 (CanLII)
http://archive.is/MwPKY
(E) R. v. Jackson, 2018 ONSC 2527 (CanLII)
http://archive.is/GGEDy
(F) R. v. Shallow, 2019 ONSC 403 (CanLII)
http://archive.is/Koklf
(G) R. v. Faulkner, 2019 NSPC 36 (CanLII)
http://archive.is/fW8hj
(H) R. v. Kabanga-Muanza, 2019 ONSC 1161 (CanLII)
http://archive.is/m36ac

Again, this is not nearly all of them, but a snapshot into what the legal system (it’s not really a justice system) has become in Canada.

4. Looking At A Cultural Assessment

[17] Cultural Assessment – Completed by Mr. R. Wright, MSW, RSW. It is extensive, well-informed and well-researched.
The Nature of an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment
Though much has been written about the intersection of race and the criminal justice system, and in particular the experience of North Americans of African descent, until the development of IRCA’s (sic) there had been no recognized form for the presentation of such a report. That people of African descent have been overrepresented among incarcerated persons in Canada has been studied by academics, justice system leaders, and activist persons. The Office of the Correctional Investigator took special notice of the conditions of inmates of African descent in federal correctional institutions in its year end report in 2013. It concluded:

“Black inmates are one of the fastest growing sub-populations in federal corrections. Over the last 10 years, the number of federal incarcerated Black inmates has increased by 80% from 778 to 1,403. Black inmates now account for 9.5% of the total prison population (up from 6.3% in 2003/04) while representing just 2.9% of the general Canadian population.” (p.8)

Now, 4 years after the advent of these reports in the well publicized YCJA matter described as R v. X, IRCAs have been widely accepted in Nova Scotia courts and have also been conducted in Ontario. Though I fully respect that the experience of aboriginal Canadians is quite unique, and I have no wish to expropriate or exploit their struggle and leadership, I nevertheless need to acknowledge that my development of IRCAs has been influenced by my familiarity with Gladue reports. Like Gladue reports, the goal of IRCAs is to provide courts with more background information about an offender’s race and cultural background to assist the court at arriving at a just sentence: A sentence that considers the circumstances of the offender, alternatives to incarceration, and does not further contribute to the systemic problems of overrepresentation of persons within correctional populations. This principle is generally stated in the Criminal Code of Canada with particular attention given to Aboriginal offenders:

718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also taken into consideration the following principles:
(e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

In keeping with these principles, it is a founding premise of IRCAs that a person’s race and cultural heritage should be considered as a significant factor in considering their sentence n a criminal matter. Not just because of cultural responses to normal stressors, but also because of the forces of racism that person experience and our growing understanding of how this affects outcomes when one encounters the justice and other government systems. In Nova Scotia we have significant reason to understand these effects. We are the province of the Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution (1989), which opening paragraph is very telling:

The criminal justice system failed Donald Marshall, Jr. at virtually every turn from his arrest and wrongful conviction for murder in 1971 up to, and even beyond, his acquittal by the Court of Appeal in 1983. The tragedy of the failure is compounded by evidence that this miscarriage of justice could – and should – have been prevented, or at least corrected quickly, if those involved in the system had carried out their duties in a professional and/or competent manner. That they did not is due, in part at least, to the fact that Donald Marshall, Jr. is a Native. (p.1)

We are also the province of the Black Learners Advisory Committee Report on Education: Redressing Inequity – Empowering Black Learners (1994). This report was produced as part of a comprehensive study of the education inequities that exist for African Nova Scotians (ANS). It produced 3 volumes of materials and 30 recommendations for education reform. That systemic racism exists in the Nova Scotia education system was well described by this report:

“Black Nova Scotians, like other Black Canadians, are victimized by a racist ideology and a racist social structure. Racism permeates the entire social, economic, political and cultural environment of Nova Scotian and Canadian….

During the BLAC research, we encountered widespread condemnation of the education system as biased, insensitive and racist. Systemic racism was seen as manifested in student assessment and placement; in labelling of large numbers of Black students as slow learners or having behaviour problems; in steraming (sic); in low teacher expectation; in denigration by and exclusion of Blacks from the curriculum; and in the total lack of responsiveness to the needs of Black learners and concerns of the Black community.” (pp. 34, 35)

Similarly, the differential and disadvantageous experience of African Canadians in the federal corrections system has been documented by the Office of the Correctional Investigator in it year end report in 2013. Nova Scotia’s review of the Mental Health and Addictions system produced the Together We Can Strategy (2012) found that African Nova Scotians were among a number of diverse communities whose mental health and addictions treatment needs had not yet been served sufficiently. This Nova Scotian finding was identified earlier in a national study completed by a subcommittee of the Mental Health Commission of Canada. The document they produced: Improving Mental Health Services for Immigrant, Refugee, Ethno-Cultural and Racialized Groups: Issues and Options for Service Improvement (2009). It is interesting to note, that I served on the MHCC subcommittee and was a contributor to that report. Ms. Lana MacLean, my colleague and friend who is also a person who conducts IRCAs served on the committee that produced the Nova Scotia review document.

Knowing all of this, an IRCA then seeks to understand how an individual’s ANS heritage and interaction with formal and informal systems has affected their involvement in criminal behaviour, will be a factor in their treatment while incarcerated, and will be a factor in their rehabilitation and reintegration in the community. These issues are consistent with the expectations of the report described in Judge Curran’s order requesting: “preparation of a cultural assessment report regarding his African Nova Scotian background and any cultural factors and racial factors which are suggested to be systemic in nature, but may also have individual impacts on him,” Examination of “the role played by Derek Demitrius Faulkner’s cultural and racial background with respect to the criminal offence herein.”

Preparation of this Report
In preparing this report I have participated in the following activities:
• Interview in person of Mr. Faulkner at Northeast Nova Scotia Correctional Facility
• Review of JEIN report, Crown Brief and other Disclosure material
• Interview by phone of Mr. Michael Dull, counsel for Mr. Faulkner in the civil matter
• I attempted contact with other collaterals but were not able to reach them in time for the drafting of this report. I will continue to reach out to collaterals in the event that I am called to testify on this report.

According to the cultural report, Nova Scotians engage in system racism. This is the case of R. v. Faulkner, 2019 NSPC 36 (CanLII).

It had nothing to do with any of the AGGRAVATING FACTORS that were cited in Paragraph 5 of the sentencing report

II AGGRAVATING FACTORS
(1) Robbery is inherently violent and there were implied threats of violence to clerk #1 and specific to #2
(2) Lengthy record including two robberies, 2005/2009
(3) Accused released from custody; breached release
(4) Prolonged nature of the offence – accused was in store for over an hour
(5) Clerk asked member of public to call police

Nothing to do with committing a robbery and making threats.
Nothing to do with a robbery in 2005.
Nothing to do with a robbery in 2009.
Nothing to do with other criminal convictions.
Nothing to do with being in the store over an hour.
Nothing to do with breaching conditions of release.
The court needs to consider the “systemic racism” that blacks face.

Yeah, it’s all about those racist Nova Scotians. Turned him into a career criminal.

5. Section 15 Of Canadian Charter

Equality Rights
Marginal note:
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Marginal note:
Affirmative action programs
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Serious question: under the Canadian Charter, would this count as a law that ameliorates conditions of disadvantaged individuals? Guess we aren’t so equal after all.

6. Follow-up To Old Story

This topic was covered in a previous article in June last year. It was reported that this may become the law of the land. Admittedly I should have checked deeper into it at the time.

However, it seems that these cases have been going on for many years. The National Post just missed that detail. It just has not been codified into law — yet.

How exactly do we live in any sort of just society, when there are different rules and standards for people based on their skin colour? This completely flies in the face of equality under the law, which SHOULD apply to everyone.

7. 3 Levels Of Justice Now?

Under the Gladue ruling, judges are REQUIRED to take an Aboriginal person’s background into account when handing down sentencing. There is no discretion in the matter.

However, for blacks, judges MAY take race and circumstances into account, but this is not mandatory.

Everyone else, though, must take responsibility for their own actions. They don’t have the race card to play.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress