B’nai Brith Canada Is Anti-Free Speech, Ontario’s Bill 168

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for B’nai Brith’s 15 Federal communications reports.
CLICK HERE, for B’nai Brith Canada’s lobbying registration.
CLICK HERE, for B’nai Brith’s demands of PM Trudeau.
CLICK HERE, for November 2019 letter to the PM.
CLICK HERE, for Gov’t accepting IHRA definition of “anti-Semitism”.
CLICK HERE, for IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.
CLICK HERE, for ON antisemitism bill passes 2nd reading.

CLICK HERE, for Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy

CLICK HERE, for Ontario Bill 168, antisemitism.

2. Corporate Documents

B’nai Brith League For Human Rights

B’nai Brith National Organization

3. B’nai Brith & The Lobbying Commission

A very disturbing sight: broadcasting. Want to take a bet that B’nai Brith is (among other things) pushing for more speech restrictions?

B. Lobbyists Employed by the Organization
Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.

Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.

Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.

Position title: Executive Vice President
Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.

Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.

Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.

Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.

Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.

Public offices held: N/A. Disclosure of this information was not a requirement prior to June 20, 2005.

Although the lobbying reports found are from around 20 years ago, they show B’nai Brith had a persistent interest in lobbying Parliament on a variety of topics.

4. B’nai Brith’s Anti-Free Speech Agenda

Also included is the letter to the Prime Minister.

Quote: Among the main priorities also raised with the Prime Minister are:

  • Ensuring that Canada’s new Anti-Racism Strategy will address concerns of and threats to religious minorities, including the Jewish community.
  • Pursuing standardized and mandatory education curricula on antisemitism and the Holocaust, in collaboration with the provinces and territories.
  • Creating a federal position to coordinate domestic action on antisemitism, working with a special envoy to combat antisemitism globally.
  • Fully implementing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism, as adopted by the federal government in June, and launching a program to educate Canadians about it.
  • Adopting the recommendations made in November by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief and its landmark report on antisemitism.

“Antisemitism must be addressed through a national effort that strengthens our society and promotes unity,” said Michael Mostyn, Chief Executive Officer of B’nai Brith Canada. “Given the importance of federal leadership, and the beginning of a brand new Parliament, raising the concerns of our community at this time is essential. [End quote]

In a practical sense, how is this different than Iqra Khalid wanting to make “Islamophobia” illegal? The Islamists and the Zionists are using essentially the same tactics.

5. Gov’t Adopts IHRA Def’n Of Anitsemitism

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
Footnote 2

Of course, footnote #2 comes from:

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance “Working Definition of Antisemitism”. For further information, visit: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism.

But don’t worry kids, it’s not binding.

6. What Is IHRA Definition Of Anitsemitism?

Does it sound scary? Well, here is the definition of anti-Semitism IHRA provides:

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

-Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

-Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

-Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

-Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

-Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

-Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

-Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

-Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

-Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

-Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

What a lot of projection here. And what an attempt to criminalise things that are in fact true:
(a) A lot of Jews “are” more loyal to Israel than where they live
(b) Why can’t the Holocaust be questioned? Every other event in human history is allowed to be questioned, but not this apparently.
(c) Nothing wrong with Jews having their own place. The problem arises in the double standard hypocrisy, where Jews try to open borders of OTHER nations.
(d) Making dehumanizing or stereotypical comments? Sure that won’t ever be abused.

7. Other Media On A-S Definition Acceptance

From the Jerusalum Post:

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Pablo Rodríguez, announced on Tuesday that the Canadian government intends to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism as part of its anti-racism strategy.

From the Jewish News Syndicate

“Canada adopting IHRA’s definition of antisemitism is an important symbolic and declaratory move,” said NGO Monitor founder and president Gerald Steinberg. “We hope that the next steps will pertain to its implementation within Canadian policy, including regarding Canadian international aid and support of NGOs.”

B’nai Brith Canada labeled the IHRA standard “the most universally accepted and expertly driven definition of anti-Semitism available today,” and one that “enjoys unprecedented consensus.”

8. B’nai Brith’s 8-Pt Plan On Antisemitism


[1] INSTITUTE DEDICATED HATE CRIME UNITS IN EVERY MAJOR CITY The lack of investment in hate crime-specifi c units contributes to both a perceived sense of impunity for the purveyors of hate crimes and generates frustration on the part of affected communities. Dedicated hate crimes units could produce more substantive results in the field.

[2] PROVIDE ENHANCED TRAINING FOR HATE CRIMES OFFICERS What often appears to be a clear-cut case of a hate crime can be interpreted differently among police services. A standard understanding of what constitutes a hate crime is critical, as well as proper liaison functions between police services and civil society organizations representing affected communities, such as the League for Human Rights.

[3] PUBLISH THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S GUIDELINES FOR SECTIONS 318 AND 319 The Attorney-General’s decision-making process on hate propaganda prosecutions is not public and therefore open to charges of political bias. B’nai Brith believes revealing the internal guidelines elucidating this process will help the public know when to submit complaints to law enforcement, and clarify what is and is not legal.

[4] DECLARE A ZERO-TOLERANCE APPROACH TO GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF ANTISEMITISM Government funding has again found its way to organizations that have promoted antisemitism in the past. Government must be vigilant when dispensing public funds to such organizations, and take swift action when such instances come to its attention, including an immediate withdrawal of all publicly-provided funds.

[5] INTRODUCE ANTI-SLAPP LEGISLATION IN ALL PROVINCES AND TERRITORIES Only B.C., Ontario and Quebec have enacted legislation against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or “anti-SLAPP” legislation, which is meant to prevent frivolous libel lawsuits designed to dissuade groups engaging in issues of public interest by using lawsuits to intimidate and deter critique or inquiry. B’nai Brith encourages all provinces and territories to enact this legislation so this protection can be extended to the benefit of all Canadians

[6] HOLD UNIVERSITIES ACCOUNTABLE FOR CAMPUS ANTISEMITISM Universities recently surfaced as significant breeding grounds for antisemitism in Canada, including through an increase in far-left activism against Israel. Universities must do more to combat antisemitism, as do provincial ministries of education, including enforcing existing antidiscrimination policies and ensuring that appropriate disciplinary measures are employed.

[7] ADOPT A NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR ANTISEMITISM Canada must adopt a National Action Plan to Combat Antisemitism, as have France and Norway, in recognition that adequate resources must be offered to strategically combat anti-Jewish rhetoric. Such a plan would involve all levels of government, which could help law enforcement, communities, and schools prevent and respond to antisemitism.

[8] DEVELOP AN ACTION PLAN TO COUNTER ONLINE HATE B’nai Brith believes that the federal government, along with social media platforms and other stakeholders, can work in tandem to establish a viable strategic plan to counter online hate. Government must examine how to strengthen laws against perpetrators of online hate and improve law enforcement training in how to respond.

9. Ontario And Bill 186

The Bill requires the Government of Ontario to be guided by the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it, adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016, when it interprets Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism.

The Bill also amends the Legislation Act, 2006 to adopt that working definition.
Bill 168 2019
An Act to combat antisemitism
Antisemitism is a multi-faceted problem that requires a multi-faceted strategy, encompassing a range of ministries and agencies. For that reason, it is desirable to require the Government of Ontario to implement a whole-of-government approach in combating antisemitism. As part of that approach, it is desirable to apply a consistent interpretation of Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism.
Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:
1 In interpreting Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism, the Government of Ontario shall be guided by the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016.
Legislation Act, 2006 amendment
2 Section 87 of the Legislation Act, 2006 is amended by adding the following definition:
“antisemitism” has the meaning set out in the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016; (antisémitisme”)
3 This Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent.
Short title
4 The short title of this Act is the Combating Antisemitism Act, 2019.


Of course, the Ontario Government is a “Conservative” majority, headed by “populist” Doug Ford. Wasn’t aware that passing anti-free speech laws was a conservative value.

B’nai Brith was a main player in getting this legislation pushed.

10. B’nai Brith Is Anti-Free Speech

The above is just a sample of what the group is up to.

And yes, B’nai Brith is a huge supporter of aiding mass migration to the West, and using our countries as dumping grounds. Israel is off limits of course – More migrants for thee, but none for me.

However, that will be a post all on its own.

As for all of the players trying to undermine Canadian sovereignty, let’s name them.

11. Who Are These Open Borders NGOs?


Honourable mention: ex-Israeli Ambassador David Berger

This is by no means a complete list, but a starting point. One will immediately notice a common thread that runs between most of these groups. However, not everyone is willing to address that.

Anthony Furey (see above tweet) writes for the Toronto Sun, and has contributed to True North Canada, Candice Malcolm’s “charity”.

While Furey clearly knows that the efforts are coordinated to smuggle these people into Canada, Furey (and other outfits like Rebel Media) refrain from exposing WHO is behind these efforts. They focus on a symptom, and not the disease.

This is probably because these groups are mainly Jewish, and Furey has a self-preservation instinct. He doesn’t want to hit too close to home, and end his media career.

Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs #3: Information About This “Non-Profit”

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for CIJA lobbying all political parties.
CLICK HERE, for CIJA’s anti-free speech initiatives in Canada.

CLICK HERE, for CIJA information on Corporations Canada.
CLICK HERE, for 1248 communications reports with group.
CLICK HERE, for a more current CIJA agenda.

2. Context For This Article

In the first piece, we looked at the extended pattern of political lobbying by CIJA, including Senators, and MPs in the House of Commons from all parties. Over 1200 “communications reports” took place over the last 20 years, or about 1 every 6 days.

Period (2019-09-01 to 2020-01-14)

The second article covered the agenda that CIJA was pushing. Beyond generic business interests, CIJA is pushing an anti-free speech agenda. “Hate speech” according to this group, is essentially anything Jews don’t like and can claim to be offended by.

In fact, CIJA has, for many years, been lobbying the Federal Government to make licensing of media personalities mandatory. This is so the Israeli lobby can claim “hate speech” to shut down people and views that they disagree with. It can also be used to silence those who speak uncomfortable truths.

Now, let’s get into the nuts and bolts of this Federal “Non-Profit” Group which is waging war on free speech in Canada.

3. Corporate Documents & Filings


By no means is this an exhaustive list of the documents available, but it should provide a good indication of what CIJA is, how it operates, and what its goals are.

4. By-Laws: Voting Members

Member Number of Memberships
The Atlantic Jewish Council 3
Calgary Jewish Federation 1
Jewish Federation of Edmonton 1
Hamilton Jewish Federation 1
Jewish Federation of Ottawa 3
The Jewish Federation of Victoria and Vancouver Island Society 1
Jewish Federation of Winnipeg Inc. 3
London Jewish Federation 1
the Montreal Federation 13
the Toronto Federation 15
UIAC, in trust for the Jewish community of Regina* 1
UIAC, in trust for the Jewish community of Saskatoon* 1
UIAC, in trust for RJCO (excluding London and Windsor)* 1
the Vancouver Federation 4 Windsor Jewish Federation 1

Unsurprisingly, it is weighted so that larger areas like Toronto and Montreal get more voting power. This happens in many organizations.

Worth asking: do all of these branches support CIJA’s overall war on free speech? Do they all support the suppression of ideas they don’t like, and uncomfortable truths?

5. CIJA’s Agenda (Cert Of Continuance)


Now let’s take a look at the actual goals.

Straight from the source. CIJA’s goal (among others) is to influence political affairs in “its” version of what it views as hate speech and anti-Semitism. In other words, ban things that Jews don’t like.

From the first article, it was shown that CIJA had 1248 “communications reports” over the last 20 years. Could it be they have finally made some progress in clamping down on free speech in Canada?

6. Politicians In Bed With Israeli Lobby

Current candidate for leadership of the CPC, Erin O’Toole, openly shills for Israel. See here, and here for just a few examples.

When Maxime Bernier ran for the CPC leadership in 2016/2017, his main critique of the UN is that it was dysfunctional, and spends too much time condemning Israel. Really? For an ex-Foreign Affairs Minister, that is the best you can do?

Two non-voting Directors of CIJA are of a particular interest. One is John Baird, former CPC Cabinet Minister. The other is Dexter Darrell, former Premier of Nova Scotia.


Stockwell Day, ex-CPC Cabinet Minister was on CIJA BOD
Sheila Copps, ex-LPC Cabinet Minister was on CIJA BOD

Rafi Brass: Raphael (Rafi) Brass has been a government consultant at Bluesky Strategy Group since April 2015 and worked on Parliament Hill for two Liberal MPs. He will be joining the Board as a delegate from CIJA’s Young Leaders Circle.

Rafi Brass is an ex-staffer, for 2 Liberal MPs.
Now he’s a Director with CIJA.

Of course, these names here represent only a small portion of what actually goes on. More to come in a follow-up article.

7. Where Things Stand

CIJA is a lobbying organization that is extremely influential in Canada. It has political connections across party lines and spends an inordinate amount of time lobbying and promoting Jewish interests.

By itself, this may not be a problem. However, promoting the interests that this group does directly interferes with Canadian interests. A politician cannot be “CANADA FIRST” and be an Israeli shill at the same time. As the expression goes, a dog cannot have 2 masters.

This group is anti-Canada, and anti-free speech, to name just a few criticisms. Showing what it really does is important to educate the public.

Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs #2: An Assault On Free Speech And Democracy In Canada

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for previous article on the topic.

CLICK HERE, for CIJA main page.
CLICK HERE, for The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (current).
CLICK HERE, for 1248 communications reports with group.
CLICK HERE, for IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.
CLICK HEREfor Section 13 of Canada Human Rights Act (repealed).

2. Context For The Article

The last piece focused mainly on the extensive lobbying efforts that CIJA was involved in doing, namely who and when it was taking place.

Now we get to the “what”. What exactly is CIJA lobbying for, and what do they want? If an organization spends that kind of time and money, they must be serious about it.

3. CIJA’s Prolific Lobbying Efforts

As was covered in the previous article, CIJA, the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs has been heavily involved in lobbying the Federal Government for decades. Now, let’s take a deeper look into what they actually are lobbying for.

4. CIJA’s Stated Goals

What makes CIJA different from other Jewish organizations?
CIJA is the only registered lobbyist for the Jewish community. It is the sole advocacy agent of Canada’s Jewish Federations, focusing much of its work on communications with the non-Jewish community. Its approach to advocacy is strategic, based on research, polling, and analysis. CIJA is the only organization to bring – literally – hundreds of Canadian influencers and decision-makers to Israel on educational missions every year.

Based on information provided in the FAQ, CIJA openly states its goal is to influence policy, and states it brings hundreds of Canadians to Israel annually to help achieve that.

5. IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism

About the IHRA
The IHRA is the only intergovernmental organization mandated to focus solely on Holocaust-related issues, so with evidence that the scourge of antisemitism is once again on the rise, we resolved to take a leading role in combatting it. IHRA experts determined that in order to begin to address the problem of antisemitism, there must be clarity about what antisemitism is.

The IHRA’s Committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial worked to build international consensus around a working definition of antisemitism, which was subsequently adopted by the plenary. By doing so, the IHRA set an example of responsible conduct for other international fora and provided an important tool with practical applicability for its Member Countries. This is just one illustration of how the IHRA has equipped policymakers to address this rise in hate and discrimination at their national level.

The Working Definition of Antisemitism
In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism.

On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:

Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

And if this sounds too vague, don’t worry. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance will get much, MUCH more detailed in what fits this definition.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
-Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
-Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
-Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
-Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
-Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
-Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
-Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
-Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
-Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
-Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

Yes, this IHRA definition of anti-Semitism means any such behaviour listed above should be criminalized.

Also note: it has the wording “include, but not limited to”. This means that the extensive list of “anti-Semitic behaviour” may be expanded on as time passes.

Language that seems dehumanizing? That also is extremely vague, and seems ripe for abuse. And Jews are greatly overrepresented in government, academia, banking and the media. How is pointing out these facts considered bias?

Even questioning even the scale of the Holocaust is considered a hate crime according to these people?

And Israel DOES practice a double standard when it comes to managing its affairs. Israel has strong border walls, strict immigration, and is extremely ethno-centric when it comes to determining who it should allow to live there. But if you question the hypocrisy, you are an anti-Semite.

Is all of this an academic exercise? Hardly.

6. Pushing IHRA Definition on Others

CIJA has been successful in getting Westmount (Montreal), and Vaughn, and Toronto, to adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, which is basically anything Jews don’t like.

As a political tactic, this is proving to be very effective.

Looking at this in terms of silencing potential critics: how is this different from the Motion M-103 which Iqra Khalid previously got passed in the House of Commons? The effect is the same — using the claim of victimhood to silence free speech.

7. Changing Human Rights Code

Hate messages
13 (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Marginal note:

(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.
Marginal note:

(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.

CIJA wants to bring back Section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act, which was repealed in 2013. The idea is to make it easier to claim anti-Semitism by pointing to electronic communications.

8. (Internet) Hate Speech, Criminal Penalties

The previous section dealt with “online hate” via the Canada Human Rights Act, but here, CIJA wants to push for it to be “criminally punishable” as well. That’s right, not only would this be a human rights violation, but potentially a criminal offence as well.

Of course, CIJA supports the extremely broad and excessive definition of “anti-Semitism” as laid out by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Don’t worry, this won’t trample on your free speech or anything.

9. Deportations For “Hate Speech”

One of CIJA’s stated goals is to influence policy to make it easier to remove citizenship of Canadians for a variety of reasons, including what it calls: extreme promotion of hate.

Presumably — although it doesn’t specify — this would only apply to people who immigrate to Canada and later become citizens. One can also assume — but again, it doesn’t state — that after the citizenship is revoked the person would then be deported.

While removing people who commit terrorism and crimes against humanity is certainly a reasonable goal, it is disturbing to see “hate speech” included as well. This is especially true since CIJA doesn’t really believe in free speech to begin with.

It would be interesting (at least in some academic sense), to see how this plays out. Under Bill C-6, we no longer pull the citizenship of actual terrorists. Yet we are now supposed to do so for hate speech?

10. Holocaust Training Obligations

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance unites governments and experts to strengthen, advance and promote Holocaust education, research and remembrance and to uphold the commitments to the 2000 Stockholm Declaration.

The IHRA (formerly the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research, or ITF) was initiated in 1998 by former Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson. Today the IHRA’s membership consists of 34 member countries, each of whom recognizes that international political coordination is imperative to strengthen the moral commitment of societies and to combat growing Holocaust denial and antisemitism.

The IHRA’s network of trusted experts share their knowledge on early warning signs of present-day genocide and education on the Holocaust. This knowledge supports policymakers and educational multipliers in their efforts to develop effective curricula, and it informs government officials and NGOs active in global initiatives for genocide prevention.

Yes, this is very productive: constantly reminding Canadians that Jews are victims.

Interesting to note: IHRA wants to criminalize it (everywhere) to deny or even question the Holocaust, but it is only “this” one that is off limits. Every other alleged atrocity is fair game to dissect and analyse. Perhaps the cover story is falling apart after all these years, so the skeptics must be silenced.

11. CIJA And Durban II

From 20-24 April 2009, the Durban Review Conference took place in Geneva. It is also known as Durban II, a follow-up to the infamous “Durban I” World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in the late summer of 2001. At Durban I, an NGO Forum accepted what can be summed up as a declaration of war against Israel. Participating nongovernmental organizations adopted a strategy for the complete isolation of Israel through boycotts, divestment, and sanctions.

The Durban I is seen as waging war on Israel. So CIJA is trying to lobby Canada and other nations to act as a counter-weight against future proposals or movements.

12. CIJA Behind Media Licensing Req

Period (2012-05-10 to 2012-07-19)

Period (2015-02-02 to 2015-06-10)

Period (2016-03-01 to 2016-03-18)

Period (2017-06-15 to 2017-08-04)

Period (2019-09-01 to 2020-01-14)

Do you get the picture? For years, the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs has been lobbying the Federal Government about the issuances of broadcast licenses.

This is not a one time thing, but has been going on for several years, at least. Any wonder why we now have a government that openly calls for all media outlets (regardless of size), to be regulated? This is a deliberate attempt to give control to the government to deplatform anyone who is deemed to be anti-Semitic, or involved in hate speech.

That is correct. The ISRAELI group has spent years lobbying the CANADIAN Government over how media licenses should be issued. This is straight up foreign interference in our affairs.

The CRTC has recently made many recommendations, including forcing those in the media to get licenses. Understandably, the Minister, Steven Guilbeault, and the Federal Government are taking a lot of flak over this. People may have believed it to be the Islamic groups that led to this, and that certainly is a reasonable suspicion. However, the fact is that CIJA has lobbying specifically for this for many years.

13. More Than Just Free Speech

Of course, there are many other things CIJA advocates for.

One is increasing markets for kosher food, that is food killed in barbaric and inhumane ways (much like Islamic halal). Looks like animal rights don’t matter as long as it is cloaked in culture and diversity.

This group also pushes for increased trade and for changes to the tax code that presumably Jews would personally benefit from.

CIJA also wants to see more immigration with easier pathways. But of course, this only applies to people coming to Canada. Israel can remain an ethno-state. CIJA further wishes to entangle Canada in its military and political obligations.

So there is no denying that this group — which has filed 1248 “communications reports” has been busy trying to change Canada’s laws. But the worst one in the eyes of many is its continuous assault on free speech in Canada.

White Westerners are told that identity politics is evil and wrong. But CIJA, and groups like it, endlessly play JEWISH identity politics in order to get their way. Seems hypocritical.

Foreign Interference In Canada’s Democracy: Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for CIJA mainpage.
CLICK HERE, for The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (current).
CLICK HERE, for 2001 information.
CLICK HERE, for Public offices held: Richard Marceau.
CLICK HERE, for Public offices held: Jonathan Schneiderman.
CLICK HERE, for 1248 communications reports with group.
CLICK HERE, to see what CIJA is lobbying for. (2011)
CLICK HERE, for a more current CIJA agenda.
CLICK HERE, for the Durban II conference.
CLICK HERE, for Court rules DNA test to prove Judaism allowed.

CLICK HERE, for Bill S-201, amend the Borrowing Authority Act.

2. Context For This Piece

An awful lot of people criticize “ISLAMIC” influence in Canadian politics. And there is certainly reason to be worried. Creeping Sharia, prohibitions on criticizing Islam, and cultural practices that are incompatible with the West are being pushed. And there are of course, political movements to eventually take over.

However, what isn’t really discussed is the ZIONIST influence in Canadian politics. It’s there, and it’s just as bad as the push for Islam. Difference is, it’s more subtle, and the media is much more controlled on the subject.

3. Who Are The Lobbyists?

2001 Listings For Centre for I/J Affairs



Current Listings For Centre for I/J Affairs

  • Dan-Michael Abécassis, Director, Government Relations (Quebec)
  • David Cooper, Vice President, Government Relations
  • SHIMON FOGEL, Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
  • Sophie Helpard, Associate Director, Government Relations (Ontario)
  • Richard Marceau, Vice President, External Affairs and General Counsel
  • Martin Sampson, Vice President, Communications and Marketing
  • Jonathan Schneiderman, Vice President, Development and Public Affairs
  • Noah Shack, Vice President, GTA
  • Nico Slobinsky, Director, Pacific Region
  • Eta Yudin, Vice President, Quebec

4. Israeli Lobbyists In CDN Office

5. Cited: 1248 “Communications Reports”

Going through the communications reports, let’s take a look at who the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs has been meeting with. Here is the list alphabetically. Note: there are a lot of repeats in here.

The list is alphabetical, not chronological.

Eve Adams, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Mark Adler, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Leona Aglukkaq, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Harold Albrecht, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Omar Alghabra, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Stella Ambler, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
André Arthur, Member of Parliament | Members of the House of Commons
Michael Atallah, Analyst | Privy Council Office (PCO)
Paulina Ayala, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
John Baird, Minister | Transport Canada (TC)
Denis Bazinet, Director, Electoral Operations and Planning Administration | Elections Canada
Michael Beaton, Director of Policy and Stakeholder Relations | Transport Canada (TC)
Patricia Beh, Director of policy | Canadian Heritage (PCH)
Karl Belanger, OLO | House of Commons
Mauril Belanger, MP | House of Commons
Rachel Bendayan, Parliamentary Secretary | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Carolyn Bennett, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Tyrone Benskin, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Carolyn Bernier, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Nathan Bessner, Special Assistant | Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
Dennis Bevington, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Douglas Black, Senator | Senate of Canada
Kelly Block, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Peter Boehm, Senator | Senate of Canada
Randy Boissonnault, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Francois Boivin, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Mathieu Bouchard, Senior Advisor | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Ray Bougher, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Alexandre Boulerice, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Peter Braid, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Garry Breitkreuz, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Scott Brison, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Bert Brown, Senator | Senate of Canada
Gordon Brown, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Lois Brown, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Patrick Brown, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Daniel Burgoyne, national manager | Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
Eloge Butera, Office of the Minister of Public Safety Canada | Public Safety Canada (PS)
Brad Butt, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Jenni Byrne, Issues Managment | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Oren Cainer, Minister’s Exempt Staff – Deputy Chief | House of Commons
Mark Cameron, Director | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Mariann Canning, Assistant Director, Accessibility & Outreach | Elections Canada
Guy Caron, Member of parliament | House of Commons
Jim Carr, Minister | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Colin Carrie, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Robert Chisholm, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Richard Clark, Policy Assistant | Industry Canada
Rob Clarke, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Tony Clement, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Anne C. Cools, Senator | Senate of Canada
Michael Cooper, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Raymond Cote, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Irwin Cotler, Member of Parliament | Members of the House of Commons
Darren Cunningham, Chief of Staff | Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)
Izabel Czuzoj-Shulman, Parliamentary Affairs Advisor | Justice Canada (JC)
Julie Dabrusin, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Haritage | Canadian Heritage (PCH)
Joe Daniel, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Chris Day, Chief of Staff | House of Commons
Stockwell Day, Minister | Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (DFAITC)
Allison Dean, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Dean Del Mastro, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
John Delcourt, Advisor to the Leader of the Opposition | House of Commons
Paul Dewar, Member of Parliament | Members of the House of Commons
Luc Desnoyers, Member of Parliament | Members of the House of Commons
Peter Donolo, Chief of Staff to the Leader of the Opposition | House of Commons
Earl Dreeshen, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Lisa Drouillard, Director | Elections Canada
Gilles Duceppe, Member of Parliament, Leader of Bloc Québécois | House of Commons
Nicolas Dufour, Member of Parliament | Members of the House of Commons
John Duncan, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Rick Dykstra, MP | House of Commons
Wayne Easter, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Ali Ehsassi, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Jeff English, Director of Communications | Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
Ed Fast, Member of Parliament | Members of the House of Commons
Greg Fergus, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Andy Filmore, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities | House of Commons
Doug Finley, Senator | Senate of Canada
Jim Flaherty, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Ann Flanagan Whalen, EU/European Bilateral and institutional relations | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Kyle Fox, Western Desk, Office of the Minister of Middle Class, Prosperity and Associate Minister | Finance Canada (FIN)
Shawn Fried, Assistant | Members of the House of Commons
Linda Frum, senator | Senate of Canada
Katharine Funtek, Executive Director | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Marc Garneau, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Mehalan Garoonanedhi, Policy Advisor & Assistant to the Parliamentary Secretary | Canadian Heritage (PCH)
Randall Garrison, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Julie Gaudreau, Special Assistant Public Liaison | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Jonathan Gauvin, Staff | House of Commons
Garnet Genuis, member of parliament | House of Commons
Marc Gervais, Director of Parliamentary Affairs | Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
Robert Goguen, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Marc Gold, Senator | Senate of Canada
Karina Gould, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Claude Gravelle, Member of parliament | House of Commons
Martin Green, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Assessment | Privy Council Office (PCO)
Michel Guimond, Member of Parliament | Members of the House of Commons
Cheryl Hardcastle, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Stephen Harper, Prime Minister | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Laurie Hawn, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Randy Howback, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Candice Hoeppner, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Anthony Housefather, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minster of Labour | Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)
Graham Howell, Policy Advisor | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Carol Hughes, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Bruce Hyer, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Blair Hynes, Deputy Director | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Jamie Innes, Exempt Staff – Director of Parliamentary Affairs | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Sylvie Jacmain, Director, Alternative Voting Method and Operational Outreach | Elections Canada
Roxanne James, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Olivier Jarda, Policy Advisor | Justice Canada (JC)
Brian Jean, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Matt Jeneroux, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Eleanor Johnston, Senior Special Assistant | Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (DFAITC)
Jonathan Kalles, Quebec Regional Desk | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Vandana Kattar-Miller, Deputy Director – Outreach | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Jason Kenney, Minister | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Peter Kent, Member of parliament | House of Commons
Andrea Khanjin, Director, Issues Management | Finance Canada (FIN)
Jean-Yves Laforest, Member of Parliament | Members of the House of Commons
Sangeeta Lalli, British Columbia Regional Desk | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Jean-Francois Larose, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Alexandrine Latendresse, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
David Lametti, Minister | Justice Canada (JC)
Monique Lamoureux, Deputy Director – Democracy, Inclusion and Religious Freedom | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Melissa Lantsman, Policy Advisor | Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (DFAITC)
Brad Lavigne, Principal Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition | House of Commons
Dominic Leblanc, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Jordan Leichnitz, Parliamentary Affairs | House of Commons
Kellie Leitch, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Chungsen Leung, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Michael Levitt, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Rheal Lewis, Chief of Staff | House of Commons
John Light, Director of Regional Affairs | Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (DFAITC)
Ben Lobb, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Elliot Lockington, Special Advisor | Canadian Heritage (PCH)
James Lunney, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Dan Lussier, Exempt Staff – Policy Advisor | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Lawrence MacAulay, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
John MacKay, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Hoang Mai, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Fabian Manning, Senator | Senate of Canada
Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
John McCallum, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Michael McDonald, Senator | Senate of Canada
Dylan Marando, Director of Policy | Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)
Wayne Marston, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
John McCallum, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Marilla McCargar, Senior Policy Advisor | Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
Andrea McGuigan, Policy Advisor | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Anne McGrath, Chef of Staff, NDP Leader Jack Layton’s office | House of Commons
Marc Mendicino, Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Larry Miller, Member of Parliament | Members of the House of Commons
Maryam Monsef, Minister | House of Commons
Christine Moore, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Marty Morantz, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Isabelle Morin, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Tom Mulcair, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Joyce Murray, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Samantha Nadler, Exempt Staff – Policy Advisor | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Giuliana Natale, Director, Democracy, Inclusion and Religious Freedom | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Peggy Nash, Member of Parliament | Members of the House of Commons
Anita Neville, Member of Parliament | Members of the House of Commons
Jamie Nicholls, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Rick Norlock, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Jose Nunez-Melo, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Alexander Nuttall, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Ross O’Connor, Policy Advisor | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Tilly O’Neil Gordon, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Rob Oliphant, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources | House of Commons
Ted Opitz, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Annick Papillon, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Pierre Paquette, Member of Parliament | Members of the House of Commons
Zubair Patel, Chief of Staff | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Claude Patry, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Alexis Pavlich, Manager, Cultural Media & Vancouver Regional Comm Advisor | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Eve Peclet, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
France Pegeot, Executive Vice-President | Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
John Penner, Deputy Chief of Staff and Director of Parliamentary Affairs | House of Commons
Pat Perkins, MP | House of Commons
Pierre Poilievre, Member of Parliament | Members of the House of Commons
Manon Perreault, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Anne Minh-Thu Quach, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Zara Rabinovitch, Senior Policy Advisor | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Bob Rae, Member of Parliament | Members of the House of Commons
John Rafferty, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Lisa Raitt, Minister of Transport | Transport Canada (TC)
James Rajotte, Member of Parliament | Members of the House of Commons
Tracey Ramsey, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Murray Rankin, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Rachel Rappaport, Press Secretary | Indigenous Services Canada (ISC)
Yasmin Ratansi, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Brent Rathgeber, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Mohammed Ravalia, Senator | Senate of Canada
Mathieu Ravignat, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Darrell Reid, Deputy Chief of Staff | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Roy Rempel, Policy Advisor | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
David Richards, Senator | Senate of Canada
Greg Rickford, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Pablo Rodriguez, Minister | Canadian Heritage (PCH)
Giovanna Roma, Senior Desk Officer, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Europe Bilateral and EU Institutions | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Rick Roth, Director of Communications | Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada
Pierre-Paul Roy, Advisor to Gilles Duceppe, MP | House of Commons
Harjit Sajjan, Minister | National Defence (DND)
Andrew Saxton, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Andrew Scheer, Leader of the Official Opposition | House of Commons
Deb Schulte, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Anton Sestritsyn, Strategic Communications Advisor | House of Commons
Judy Sgro, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Bev Shipley, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Scott Simms, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Gail Sinclair, General Counsel | Justice Canada (JC)
Jill Sinclair, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet | Privy Council Office (PCO)
Jagmeet Singh, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Jagmeet Sra, Parliamentary Assistant & Policy Affairs Assistant | Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
Dahlia Stein, Senior Policy Advisor | Health Canada (HC)
Peter Stoffer, Member of Parliament | Members of the House of Commons
Chuck Strahl, Minister | Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada
Marci Surkes, Office of the Minister of Public Safety Canada | Public Safety Canada (PS)
David Sweet, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Caitlin Szymberski, Policy Advisor | Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)
Glenn Thibeault, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
David Tilson, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Vic Toews, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Susan Truppe, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Merv Tweed, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Tim Uppal, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Kevin Urbanic, Senior Director | Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
Dave Van Kesteren, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Peter Van Loan, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Adam Vaugham, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families and Social Development | House of Commons
Joseph Volpe, Member of Parliament | Members of the House of Commons
Jeremy Waiser, Advisor | House of Commons
Mark Warawa, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Chris Warkentin, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Jamieson Weetman, Analyst Foreign and Defense Policy Secretary | Privy Council Office (PCO)
David Wells, Senator | Senate of Canada
Paul Wilson, Director | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Jody Wilson-Raybould, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Lizan Wladyslaw, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Nigel Wright, Chief of Staff, | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Kate Young, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Terence Young, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Pierre-Hughes Boisvenu, Senator | Senate of Canada

A few things to point out.

This is a huge number of people being lobbied, and it doesn’t included repeat attempts.

Party leaders such as Justin Trudeau (Liberal), Andrew Scheer (Conservative), Jagmeet Singh (NDP), and Elizabeth May (Green) have all been lobbied as well. So was Gilles Duceppe, former BQ head. This cuts across party lines. Also, it includes — from the previous administration — Stephen Harper, Nigel Wright, Stockwell Day, Jason Kenney, Vic Toews, John Baird and Chuck Strahl.

Tom Mulcair was lobbied when the NDP was official opposition.

6. What CIJA Lobbies For

Grant, Contribution or Other Financial Benefit

  • Darfur Conflict: advocacy for more political and financial support from the Government of Canada to resolve the conflict.
  • Public Security threats to the safety and security of the Jewish community of Canada and the extension of funding of capital costs and staff training for security of communities at risk

Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution

  • CITIZENSHIP ACT (continued support for the power of the state under the current citizenship act to remove citizenship in cases involving war crimes, crimes against humanity, terrorism and extreme promotion of hate.)
    Criminal Code of Canada with respect to combating antisemitism.
  • Parliamentary consultations and reviews about antisemitism; the establishment of a parliamentary enquiry
    Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act with respect to combating antisemitism.
  • Support for Bill C-277 (Palliative Care)
  • Support for Bill C-305 (Hate Crimes)
  • Support for Bill S-201 (Genetic Discrimination)

Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution, Policies or Program
Hate speech and internet-based hate: For Canada to adopt policies – either/and through legislation or policies adjustments that will provide measurable standards for internet-based dissemination of hate speech, including explicit provisions within the Crimical Code

Policies or Program

  • Advocating for the development of a national anti-poverty strategy.
  • Agriculture Canada: Assist in securing termination of Israeli ban on Canadian beef imports as a result of BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) protocols.
  • Anti racism initiatives related to Durban II and expand support by Canadian government of different initiatives to promote tolerance and diversity
  • Assisted living and low income housing for developmentally challenged: To ensure that the developmentally challenged benefit from the recently announced government programs regarding affordable housing and that a specific portion of the funds allocated for housing be designated for the developmentally challenged.
  • Canada and Israel relationship with regard to expanding trade between Canada and Israel through the promotion, application and expansion of free trade agreement
  • Canada-Israel bilateral relations related to trade, investment and scientific and academic exchanges
  • Canadian diplomatic relations related to the trade agreements with Israel and other nations in the Middle East
  • Canadian participation in International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)
  • Continuing support of the Government of Canada’s policy in maintaining the office of the special advisor on antisemitism of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
  • Defence: Canadian participation in Operation Proteus; Discussions on Canada-Israel military cooperation, joint training exercises and military staff exchanges.
  • Government Procurement: Facilitation of Canada-Israel meetings at ministerial level on issues of budget and procurement “best practices”.
  • INTERNATIONAL TASK FORCE ON HOLOCAUST EDUCATION, COMMEMORATION AND RESEARCH; ensure that the Government of Canada fulfills its obligations as a full member.
  • Immigration: Discussions regarding the Immigration Refugee Board policies regarding refugee claimants from Israel; Discussions regarding overall Canadian immigration policy, integration of new Canadians and Israeli “best practices” regarding new immigrant absorption (e.g., certification of foreign trained medical professionals) and language training.
  • Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada: Assisting Aboriginal leaders and Aboriginal women’s groups is learning new models of community development through presentations on Israeli development models at MASHAV (Israel’s Agency for International Development Cooperation in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Israel’s equivalent of CIDA)
  • Infrastructure and community relations with regard to the expansion of current PSC (Public Safety Canada) security related funding proposals to include broader definitions of participation and extended funding qualification timetables as well as broader range of items to be funded
  • International Development: Advice on Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development of Canada (Global Affairs Canada) approach to aid directed at UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency); Advice on the renewal of the McGill Middle East Program in Civil Society and Peace Building
  • International Relations: Discussions on Canadian interventions at the UN regarding economic sanctions approved by the Security Council; Canadian positions on the NPT (Non-proliferation treaty) review conference; Canadian involvement in the Israel-Palestinians peace process.
  • Myanmar/Burma: Rohinga refugees and displaced persons: For Canada to augment humanitarian allocations to assist the Rohinga refugees in Burma and Bangladesh and implement elements of the recommendations submitted by The Hon. Bob Rae regarding the Rohinga refugee population.
  • National Holocaust Memorial: To ensure that the Government of Canada provide resources for year-round access to the memorial as well as educations supports for visitors to the Holocaust Memorial
  • Qualifications for refugee status claimants and citizenship and immigration requirements for new immigrants related to standards for qualification for entry
  • Raoul Wallenberg “Park of the Righteous”: For the Government to establish a national park in honour of Raoul Wallenberg paying tribute to individual Canadians who have made a significant contribution to humanitarian causes.
    South Sudan humanitarian relief: For Canada to increase humanitarian support for the South Sudanese, especially in the area of food security.
  • Taxation and Finance: Discussions regarding CRA tax policies with respect to charitable organizations, and general policies.
  • Transportation: Assisting in the development of briefings on airport security by Israeli officials for Transport Canada – including ministerial staff.
  • WAR CRIMES PROSECUTIONS (continuing advocacy to push the denaturalization and deportation of persons found in Canada who lied about their records in the Second World War or more recent conflicts and the prosecution of war criminals when sufficient evidence is adduced.)


  • Agriculture: Canadian Food Inspection Agency regulations regarding ritual slaughter (Chapter 12)
  • Broadcasting: Discussions regarding the award of new broadcast licenses by the CRTC
  • Conflict of Interests, Ethics, Lobbying, Canada Revenue Agency. Ensuring CIJA fully respects all its legal and regulatory obligations while advocating for the current framework to be more efficient and respectful of the needs, objectives and resources of cultural and religious communities.
  • Dairy Board: tariff exemptions for kosher cheese products: To ensure that kosher cheese products not produced domestically be designated as tariff-exempt dairy products.
  • Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, related to the application of and the issuance of visas.
  • PSC (Public Safety Canada) and Infrastructure Canada seeking program applicability to full range of Jewish communal institutions with respect to the timing of the program and the scope and determination of reimbursements
  • Tax credit for volunteerism: proposing that a process be added to provide tax credits for individuals who contribute time to charitable activities on a sustained basis.

Government Institutions

  • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
  • Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)
  • Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
  • Canadian Heritage (PCH)
  • Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC)
  • Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT)
  • Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)
  • Competition Tribunal (CT)
  • Correctional Service of Canada (CSC)
  • Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC)
  • Elections Canada
  • Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)
  • Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)
  • Finance Canada (FIN)
  • Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
  • Health Canada (HC)
  • House of Commons
  • Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
  • Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB)
  • Indigenous Services Canada (ISC)
  • Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
  • International Development Research Centre (IDRC)
  • Justice Canada (JC)
  • National Defence (DND)
  • National Research Council (NRC)
  • Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)
  • Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada (OIC)
  • Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC)
  • Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
  • Privy Council Office (PCO)
  • Public Safety Canada (PS)
  • Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC)
  • Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)
  • Senate of Canada
  • Shared Services Canada (SSC)
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)
  • Statistics Canada (StatCan)
  • Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB)
  • Transport Canada (TC)
  • Treasury Board Of Canada Secretariat (TBS)
  • Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC)

Can we drop any pretense that there is nothing wrong with this? This Jewish/Israeli group is lobbying huge numbers of politicians and their staff. They are trying to influence major parts of our government and society.

It’s all parties involved in this, and at all levels. No one’s hands are clean. It is an outright sell out of our country by Zionist shills.

While this is not exhaustive, let’s look at a few initiatives that the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs has been up to

7. CIJA Is Anti-Free Speech

Weren’t people up in arms when Iqra Khalid pushes M103 (the blasphemy motion) through Parliament? This is even worse. Instead of some “non-binding” motion, it would actually criminalize what is considered hate speech.

Of course with this group, criticism of their BEHAVIOUR is often tagged as hate speech. So good luck getting that exception through.

8. CIJA Wants Media Regulation

The CRTC has recently made many recommendations, including forcing those in the media to get licenses. Understandably, the Minister, Steven Guilbeault, and the Federal Government are taking a lot of flak over this.

But something is missing from the discussion. Who’s behind it? Who’s pushing to make it mandatory for people in the media to be licensed. From their own lobbying information, CIJA is advocating for exactly that.

9. CIJA Supports Animal Cruelty

Do you support animal rights, as in the humane treatment of animals? Do you want animals killed for food to be treated without being tortured? Well, stop being a bigot. Kosher is something that CIJA is pushing.

Is it any different than halal food? Not really, but it’s anti-Semitic to criticize it.

10. CIJA Wants Holocaust Memorial

Want to have something burned into your brain for you had absolutely no role in doing? Do you want to feel endless white guilt? Now you can. CIJA wants the Holocaust Memorial to be preserved and protected to constantly remind people that they are victims.

11. CIJA Pressuring Ottawa On Durban II

CIJA is pressuring Canada regarding the Durban II conference, which it views as an attack on Israel itself. That is more than a little hypocritical, considering Israel conducts DNA testing to prove Judaism, and it was upheld as legal by the courts.

12. CIJA Controls Our Government

There will certainly be followups to this article, but know this: CIJA is lobbying politicians in all parties on a variety of topics. Indeed, it is an attack on Canadian sovereignty.

But good luck getting conservatives, or “Conservative Inc.” to address this assault on our country. They have little to no interest in addressing such matters.

13. Double Standard For ADL

Worth a look, as the ADL has the same double standard as CIJA when it comes to diversity and tolerance.

Furthermore, bi-nationalism is unworkable given current realities and historic animosities. With historically high birth rates among the Palestinians, and a possible influx of Palestinian refugees and their descendants now living around the world, Jews would quickly be a minority within a bi-national state, thus likely ending any semblance of equal representation and protections. In this situation, the Jewish population would be increasingly politically – and potentially physically – vulnerable.

It is unrealistic and unacceptable to expect the State of Israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and nationalist identity and become a vulnerable minority within what was once its own territory.

But no objection to forcing OTHERS to become minorities in their lands.

Predatory Publications By Professor Pyne (Part 4: The Followup)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Part I, the paper and backstory.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Pyne interview.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, TRU responds in case.

CLICK HERE, for the Ad Hoc Investigatory Committee report.

2. Context Of Followup

In 2017, Professor Pyne released a research report on so-called “predatory publishing”. In it, he details how academics publish in journals that are not peer reviewed, and who make little if any effort to verify the findings.

Although the report did not drop specific names, it was not well received by Thompson Rivers University. In a sense this was understandable, as it is not a topic that most people wish to address. Professor Pyne claims that this led to the atmosphere at the school changing, and to his eventual suspension.

Regardless of how touchy the topic may be, this was the wrong way to handle it. Truth should never be censored just because it is inconvenient or embarrassing.

This topic was originally covered early this year. However, since then the Committee investigating the case has ruled that Professor Pyne’s rights were violated.

3. From Ad Hoc Investigative Comm Report

Our investigation has found the following:
1. Based on the evidence presented to the Committee, TRU appears to suffer a broad institutional weakness when it comes to understanding academic freedom beyond its narrow application to support faculty members’ freedom to pursue what they expect to be fruitful avenues of research and publish their results.

2. There were significant breaches of Dr. Pyne’s academic freedom with respect to the Administration’s responses to his intramural and extramural communications criticizing the School of Business and Economics, its programs, and its faculty. These breaches arose from the failure to properly consider Dr. Pyne’s academic freedom, which is encoded in the collective agreement governing his employment at TRU, in managing workplace complaints against Dr. Pyne.

3. The collective agreement between the University and its faculty association contains an article on academic freedom that creates a positive obligation on the parties to consider academic freedom in any case involving speech and other communications from faculty members. The failure to consider Dr. Pyne’s academic freedom in human resources processes has had the effect of denying Dr. Pyne access to procedural fairness, and hence the decision to suspend him was not made on a sound basis.

4. There is no evidence that any person at TRU attempted to interfere with Dr. Pyne as he carried out his study into publishing in predatory journals.

5. Dr. Pyne’s privacy was breached by both TRU and TRUFA on multiple occasions.

Point #3, the school was found to be lacking in having a strong understanding of its academic freedom obligations.

About point #4, that is true, though it doesn’t appear that the school knew what was happening as the research was being done. As no live subjects were used, no ethics approval was needed.

Point #5 concerned leaking of personal information which Professor Pyne believes was done deliberately.

There is a differentiation between open access publishing and so-called predatory publishing that is often over-looked. Open access publishing relies on the same processes as traditional publishing, including rigorous peer review, whereas predatory publishing does not and attempts to co-opt the open access model for financial gain. In an increasingly complex arena for publishing research, universities and academics grapple with assessing faculty members’ published research for tenure and promotion, and for various institutional benefits, including salary increases and research awards. Academic librarians have long provided their expertise in identifying scholarly resources and are now assisting researchers in identifying which constitute legitimate open access publishing and which do not. There is a clear need for universities to ensure the integrity of their academic decisions for tenure and promotion, in particular, by having policies that differentiate between legitimate and predatory publishing.

Dr. Pyne’s research on the rewards of publishing in predatory journals has raised questions about the way his own colleagues and institution are managing the complexity of publishing research at a time when there is a growing number of journals with questionable peer review practices. These questions go to the heart of the credibility of TRU, and one would expect them to be taken seriously by the university’s senior administration. Even if one wishes to critique Dr. Pyne’s published results – as would be expected as part of a robust scholarly discourse – it seems irresponsible for the Administration to ignore the issues his work raises for TRU, which include whether the fundamental academic judgments involved in tenure and promotion decisions are being made on a sound basis.

The only evidence the Committee has seen of any discussion of the issue of predatory journals is related to the TRU Senate discussion of a motion put forward by a faculty senator in April 2017 to refer the matter to the Senate Tenure and Promotion Committee, which is chaired by the Provost. The matter seems to be still with this Committee, which appears not to have made any reports to Senate since then.

It is the Committee’s opinion that the apparent failure of TRU’s Administration to consider seriously the issue of publishing in predatory journals and its potential impacts on TRU’s core academic decisions represents a profound failure of academic governance at the university

Again, read the whole report for a more thorough reply.

An interesting point is raised: even if one has issues with the topic being raised, the way it was handled was completely wrong.

Beyond that, the report on predatory publishing raises very valid concerns. Academics should be concerned about the quality of the screening that is done of their research. Predatory publishes may reward professors with money or more status for work that by all rights should have been rejected. Academia can be a vicious place. In fact, shedding light on this could be viewed as investigative journalism.

Finally, retaliation (no matter how subtle) creates a chilling effect for everyone. What topics are now off limits? Who will be next? Is this really where we want to go with free speech?

4. Comments From Professor Pyne

1/ What exactly did the ruling say?
-TRU and TRUFA violated academic freedom
-Committee tries not to attribute motives to people
-TRU lacks strong policies in academic freedom
-TRU violated privacy laws by leaking confidential information
-TRU should pay wages lost during suspension

2/ Can or will TRU appeal?
-TRU refused to participate in the process, so not likely
-There have been claims of defamation, even though people were not named in the paper

3/ What has changed since this case happened?
-I’ve had my office transferred elsewhere
-People were unhappy with some Facebook postings I made
-The issue still isn’t sitting well with people

4/ Do you think it will make a difference at TRU?
-No, it doesn’t seem to have
Committee has been hand picked by the President
-They say that they have not been provided with all the information, but won’t say what they don’t have

5/ What would you say to people concerned about academic freedom?
-It’s an important cause
-There are a lot of hoops to jump through
-Check out the Society for Academic Freedom

UN’s Neverending Quest To Ban Criticism Of Islam

(Quick search of UN index on “Islamophobia” gets 586 hits.)

(The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief)

(2004 UN Secretary General’s speech on Islamophobia)

(2005 Resolution on religious defamation)

(2010 Organization Of The Islamic Conference. Promotes “hijra”, conquest by immigration, and complains about predictable backlash against Muslims who won’t assimilate.)

(2012 Turkey speaks at UN General Assembly. Calls for UN to establish legal framework against religious defamation.)

(2014 Committee on International Terrorism)

(2015 Must stem bigotry, Islamophobia)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Proposed Global Ban On Islamophobia.
CLICK HERE, to search UN database on Islamophobia.

Religious Defamation/Islamophobia
CLICK HERE, for Confronting Islamophobia, Dec 2004.
CLICK HERE, for UN Res 7/19, Relig. Defamation, Mar 2008.
CLICK HERE, for free speech ==> intolerance, April 2009.
CLICK HERE, for UN on religious tolerance, Oct 2009.
CLICK HERE, for World Interfaith Harmony Week, Feb 2010.
CLICK HERE, for OIC calls For minority rights, Sept 2010.
CLICK HERE, for Afghan mission, religious defamation leads to violence, Afghanistan, Sept 2012.
CLICK HERE, UNGA: Islamophobia rampant, Sept 2012.
CLICK HERE, for wars caused by Islamophobia, Sept 2014.
CLICK HERE, for Islamophobia conflates terrorism, Islam.
CLICK HERE, for Islamophobia, intolerance rising, April 2015.
CLICK HERE, for Islamophobia Is Violence, June 2015.
CLICK HERE, for wrong To equate violence/Islam, Sept 2015.
CLICK HERE, for violence caused By bigotry, Oct 2015.
CLICK HERE, for Islamophobia poisoning society, Aug 2017.

CLICK HERE, for Iqra Khalid’s Islamophobia motion, M-103.

Internet Regulation/Censorship
CLICK HERE, for digital cooperation.
CLICK HERE, for Richard Lee on UN regulating the internet.
CLICK HERE, for proposed digital charter.

2. Context For This Piece

The topic of the UN wanting a global ban on criticising Islam has been addressed on this site before. However, after some reflection and a follow-up, there wasn’t nearly enough detail in that last piece.

While the UN search alone uncovered 586 articles, resolutions, drafts, or other documents under the search term “ISLAMOPHOBIA”, we will not be looking at them all.

Instead, several more will be added. Hopefully the bigger picture will become clear.

3. UN Secretary General’s Speech, Dec 2004

When a new word enters the language, it is often the result of a scientific advance or a diverting fad. But when the world is compelled to coin a new term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry, that is a sad and troubling development. Such is the case with Islamophobia.

The word seems to have emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But the phenomenon dates back centuries. Today, the weight of history and the fallout of recent developments have left many Muslims around the world feeling aggrieved and misunderstood, concerned about the erosion of their rights and even fearing for their physical safety. So the title of this series is very appropriate: there is much to unlearn.

Islam’s tenets are frequently distorted and taken out of context, with particular acts or practices being taken to represent or to symbolize a rich and complex faith. Some claim that Islam is incompatible with democracy, or irrevocably hostile to modernity and the rights of women. And in too many circles, disparaging remarks about Muslims are allowed to pass without censure, with the result that prejudice acquires a veneer of acceptability.

Stereotypes also depict Muslims as opposed to the West, despite a history not only of conflict but also of commerce and cooperation, and of influencing and enriching each other’s art and science. European civilization would not have advanced to the extent it did had Christian scholars not benefited from the learning and literature of Islam in the Middle Ages, and later.

Some points in the address to mention:

(a) European would not have advanced to the extent that it did without learning and literature of Islam? Okay, what exactly did it contribute?

(b) Disparaging remarks are allowed to pass without censure? Is this a warning that censorship is coming?

(c) The physical safety of Muslims? What about the physical safety of other people at the hands of Muslims?

4. UN Res 719, Religious Defamation, Oct 2005

2. Also expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations and emphasizes that equating any religion with terrorism should be rejected and combated by all at all levels;

3. Further expresses deep concern at the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;

6. Expresses concern at laws or administrative measures that have been specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination that they experience;

9. Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;

14. Deplores the use of printed, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and of any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any religion;

15. Invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to continue to report on all manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights to the Council at its ninth session;

Sound familiar? This “non-binding” resolution passed in 2005, and contains much of the same language that is in Iqra Khalid’s blasphemy motion, M-103. The goal to ban criticism of Islam is a very long running one.

Almost as if there were legitimate issues they wanted to suppress.

5. UN Press Briefing, April 2009

Asked for her views on the remarks made yesterday by the President of Iran through which he linked Zionism to racism, she said it was regrettable and said she aligned herself to the sentiments purporting that this was a disservice to the people of Iran, a country of cultural values. She said it was regretful the Conference started off of the wrong footing but said she was hopeful it would get back on track.   Personally, she said she firmly believed in freedom of expression regardless of how obnoxious it may be.  Whether it was intolerant or not, depended on who said it.  Statements from people in public positions which were intolerant should be frowned upon

Responding to a question on defamation of religion, she said in the context of international law there was no such thing as defamation of religion; however, there was incitement on the basis of religion.  If one took the notion of defamation of religion that meant all debates on religions had to be asphyxiated. The notion of the defamation of religion was not only detrimental to the mandate of freedom of religion but also to the whole concept of human rights. 

A few interesting points in the briefing. We don’t refer to it as defamation of religious, but there is incitement of religion. Not sure there is much of a difference as far as Islam is concerned. Also, it was nice to point out that intolerant is really a point of view.

6. Rapporteur On Freedom Of Religion Or Belief, Oct 2009

Governments have a central role to play in either preventing or contributing to religious friction, an independent United Nations expert said today, noting that a State’s commitments to non-discrimination, as well as its policies and messages, can promote tolerance.

Asma Jahangir, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, told a news conference in New York that there are preventive measures governments can take to avoid further polarization on the basis of religion before it erupts into violence.

She also noted that while governments are talking about issues such as defamation of religion, there is “less addressing of the issue of religious incitement to violence, discrimination and hatred.”

This should really be a warning sign. Legitimate concern and criticism of religion can become grounds committing violence on the basis of “incitement to violence”. It’s interesting how the conversation shifts from DEFAMATION towards INCITEMENT, as if it were to provide a stronger justification for committing violence.

7. Org. Of Islamic Conference, Sept 2010

I would, in this presentation, essentially approach this multifaceted issue in the light of my experience and role as the Secretary General of the OIC-which with its 57 member states has, over the last four decades, evolved as the second largest International Organization after the UN. We are currently in the process of implementing a Ten Year Programme of Action. Propelled by the vision of ‘moderation and modernization, the Programme has identified priority areas of action. It accords primacy to multilateralism, human rights and cultural diplomacy as key items on the OIC agenda. Each of these issues is relevant to our discussion today. I would, therefore, be sharing a few thoughts in both the spirit and interest of a lively debate that-I am confident -would follow in this prestigious setting.

He then goes on to talk about how many parts of Europe and Eurasia either are majority Muslim, or have large Muslim populations.

The term is “hijra”, which is conquest by immigration. Large parts of those areas have been conquered over time and are now subject to Islamic law. He now gets into the very predictable politics of grievances.

Unfortunately, the Muslims of Europe and other parts of the Western world have become suspect because of a campaign launched by a number of motivated individuals and groups who appear to bear an incomprehensible grudge against Muslims and Islam. The Muslim population of Europe that has for centuries lived in peace and harmony with other communities, are today being regarded as aliens. They are under some pressure to give up some of their cultural traits and practices on the ground that these are not compatible with local customs and practices. This has resulted in a growing divide.

The current tension in relations between Islam and the West is pregnant with risk of transforming the notion of clash of civilizations a self-fulfilling prophecy. Islamophobia and discrimination against Muslims in the West appears to emanate from different physical appearance of Muslims and also in intolerance toward their religion and cultural beliefs.

I don’t see, particularly with the aforementioned historical background, as to why migration of Muslims to Europe and elsewhere in the West should be seen and portrayed as a threat today. Why should they be construed as aliens? Why must the symbols of their identity be denigrated? Why should the expressions of their identity be banned? It is indeed an unfortunate situation that challenges the identity of Muslim migrants. It also defies the salient features of European identity including tolerance, non discrimination and respect for human rights. Most importantly, it poses a clear and present danger to peace, security and stability in the regional as well as the global context.

Of course, what is intentionally left out of this is that the vast majority of Muslims have no intention of ever assimilating. Islam is an ideology that is build on achieving dominance through deceit, political methods, and outright violence.

The taqiyya is strong with this group.

The part about the IOC being 57 members is true though. As such, it wields tremendous influence over the UN and its agenda.

8. UN Afghan Ass’t Mission, Sept 2012

Kabul, 13 September – The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) deplores the disrespectful, insulting and inflammatory material posted on the internet that seeks to denigrate the religious beliefs of Muslims and to incite violence and hate.

The United Nations rejects this despicable action and defamation of religion in all forms. Such intentional acts insulting the religious beliefs of others are unacceptable.

The United Nations itself is the symbol of religious tolerance and inclusive diversity representing as it does all the peoples of the world. We hold Islam and Muslims in the whole world in high esteem.

While the United Nations in Afghanistan joins the people and government of Afghanistan in strongly condemning this abhorrent action, nothing can justify violence or the further loss of life. Following the statement of the UN Secretary General of yesterday, UNAMA calls on all Afghans to exercise restraint in their indignation and to reject calls to violence or vicious behaviour.

The United Nations will continue to help the Afghan people lay the foundations for stability, security and lasting peace in Afghanistan.

While the Mission bent over backwards to kick ass and apologize for Islam, it was nice to at least hear that this violence is not justified. A good start.

9. Turkey At UNGA, Sept 2012

He underlined that the recent attacks against the Prophet Muhammad and against Islam were outright provocations that aimed to pit nations and peoples against each other. Turkey condemned all sorts of incitement to hatred and religious discrimination against Muslims and peoples of other faiths. Unfortunately, Islamophobia had become a new form of racism, like anti-Semitism, and it could no longer be tolerated “under the guise of freedom of expression”. Freedom did not mean anarchy, he stressed in that respect; instead, it meant responsibility. At the same time, he condemned the provocation and violence that followed, saying it “cannot be justified under any pretext”. Because of the alarming increase in the number of acts that defame religions, he believed the time had come to establish the denigration of all religions and their followers as a hate crime. He called for a universal policy and legal instrument that, while protecting free expression, should also ensure respect for religion and prevent intentional insults against faiths. “The solution should not be arbitrary,” he added, calling on the United Nations, in particular, to lead that effort and provide the international legal framework.

Turkey wants the UN to establish an international legal framework? As in what, a global ban on blasphemy? Perhaps it will shut down any speech remotely offensive to anyone.

Let’s be honest though. The real goal is preventing criticism of Islam. After all, you can criticize a political ideology freely, but a religious group is off limits.

10. Comm. On Int’l Terrorism, Oct 2014

AMR EL-HAMAMY (Egypt), speaking for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), denounced atrocities committed by terrorists around the world and stressed that they contradicted the practices and principles of Islam. No religion or religious doctrine encouraged or inspired acts of terrorism, and therefore, none should be portrayed as such. He strongly condemned some politicians’ attempts to link Islam with terrorism, noting that such attempts played in the hands of terrorists and constituted an advocacy of religious hatred, discrimination and hostility against Muslims.

Reaffirming the OIC’s commitment to strengthening mutual cooperation, he said that only a coordinated approach by the international community would yield effective results. Further, a comprehensive strategy must address the root causes of terrorism, such as the unlawful use of force, aggression and political and economic injustice, among others.

He reiterated the need to distinguish between terrorism and the exercise of the legitimate right of peoples to resist foreign occupation, noting that such distinction was duly observed in international law and international humanitarian law. He also called for cooperation in banning the payment of ransoms to terrorist groups. Underscoring the need to make progress on the draft comprehensive convention, he emphasized his determination to resolve outstanding issues, including those related to the legal definition of terrorism and voiced support for the convening of a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations.

It is much the same story here: Muslims and Islam are being discriminated against. However, the topic of resisting occupations is brought up. Of course, depending on what one views as an occupation, almost any violence “could” be justified on those grounds.

11. Must Stem Intolerance, Bigotry, April 2015

However, with “troubling frequency” violent attacks and despicable crimes are being carried out and claiming the lives of innocent men, women and children. From Paris to Tunis, and from Garissa to Yarmouk and Johannesburg to Peshawar, “no person, society of nation is immune” from intolerance or the threat of violent extremism, he added. In places like Iraq Afghanistan and Mali, irreplaceable artefacts are being destroyed.

“There is no justification for such attacks. We must condemn all manifestations of intolerance, including anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and racism,” and all other forms of prejudice, harassment or violence, the General Assembly President said.

As such stories become all too common the world must stand up toward the threat of intolerance and radicalism. “Violent extremism is a global test and our response must solve the problem,” Mr. Ban said.

D’aesh, Al Shabaab and Boko Haram are part of a new generation of terrorist groups threatening international peace and security but the problem goes beyond them and the regions in which they operate. Racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia exists worldwide and to protect the innocent “we must safeguard our moral compass,” he said.

This leaves out the inconvenient fact that most terrorism in the world is committed by Muslims, in the name of Islam. But why should that detail get in the way?

12. Remember Digital Cooperation?

Digital Cooperation was earlier discussed on this site as well. Despite the harmless and well sounding verbiage, it is internet censorship, with the UN at the helm. A recent invention was the proposed Digital Charter, which was along the same lines.

One other note to mention: in a 2019 by-election debate Liberal Candidate Richard Lee proposed having the UN create a body to oversee and regulate the internet.

Internet regulation and banning criticism of Islam go hand and hand. In today’s world, the latter cannot be achieved without the former.

13. UN Global Migration Compact

OBJECTIVE 17: Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration
33. We commit to eliminate all forms of discrimination, condemn and counter expressions, acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, violence, xenophobia and related intolerance against all migrants in conformity with international human rights law. We further commit to promote an open and evidence-based public discourse on migration and migrants in partnership with all parts of society, that generates a more realistic, humane and constructive perception in this regard. We also commit to protect freedom of expression in accordance with international law, recognizing that an open and free debate contributes to a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of migration.

c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media.

Remember this gem? If you wanted to shut down criticism of an ideology, just call it bigotry or Islamophobia and the problem is solved.

14. This Is Just A Small Sample

As stated at the beginning, a quick search of “Islamophobia” in the UN records will net 586 hits. This is not just a one off. A quick search through them comes up with much the same pattern: blame everything on Islamophobia and intolerance, then demand actions be taken.

It’s actually an eerily well organized scam. Once you are not allowed to criticize a group, then they have already won.

Let’s be clear what is going on: these efforts are done in the name of censoring and shutting down legitimate criticism and concern of Islam. Few could publicly justify shutting down POLITICAL ideologies without backlash. However, if those goals were framed as RELIGIOUS in nature, then they would be relatively safe.

TSCE #4: Islamic Sexual Violence Towards Women, Children

(Documentary on “Asian” sex gangs in UK)

(Documentary on child “brides” in Yemen)

(ISIS forcing women to be sex slaves)

(Shafia family murders, 4 dead in honour killings)

(First FGM case in America, yes, America)

(Nigerian Muslims committing genocide against Christians)

(Iqra Khalid’s blasphemy motion, M-103)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for TSCE #1: suing for right to illegally enter U.S.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #2: fake refugees gaming the system.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #3: various topics on issue.

Documents To View
CLICK HERE, for text of Cairo Declaration.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-6, citizenship for terrorists.
CLICK HERE, for repatriating terrorists to home countries.
CLICK HERE, for 2018 Report to Parliament on Terrorism.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-59, Changes to Young Offender Act.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-75, weakening terrorism penalties.
CLICK HERE, for Washington Post on ISIS sex slavery.
CLICK HERE, for a BBC article on child brides.
CLICK HERE, for Gatestone on grooming gangs being ignored in UK.
CLICK HERE, for CP article, Muslims slaughtering Christians in Nigeria.

Previous Articles
CLICK HERE, for Cairo Declaration on Human “Right”.
CLICK HERE, for World Hijab Day review.
CLICK HERE, for guidelines for returning terrorists.
CLICK HERE, for the efforts to ban criticism of Islam globally.
CLICK HERE, for purging “Shia” and “Sunni” from terrorism reports to avoid naming the actual perpetrators.
CLICK HERE, for Islam and domestic violence.
CLICK HERE, for ECHR upholding Austrian blasphemy conviction.

2. Context For This Article

Yes, Islam has been covered before on the site. Just look at the above articles.

This one focuses on the exploitation that Islam enables and encourages. Forced child marriages, no rights for women, slavery or killings of non-believers or apostates is common in Islamic culture. This isn’t something that can shrugged off as normal, but amounts to serious human rights violations.

Despite censorship, information is getting out about how people are being abused, sexually exploited, trafficked and killed. Certainly these crimes are not exclusively because of Islam, but it does play a role in much of it.

So why isn’t this much more public? Quite simply, because of a concentrated effort to shut down criticism and discussion about Islam. Individual campaigns have been launched, national legislations introduced, and even global bans have been attempted. Beyond that, attempts have been made to frame Islam (ex. the Cairo Declaration) as entrenching human rights.

It’s quite a clever strategy to disguise a political ideology as a religion. That way, any criticism — regardless of how valid — can be condemned as bigotry and hatred. If the enemy cannot criticize you, then you have already won.

It should also be noted that the endless demands of Muslims to accommodate have taken their toll.

3. Grooming Gangs In The UK

In allowing this criminality to fester for decades, the British authorities have effectively become criminal themselves as accessories after the fact. They could also be accused of breaking not only domestic law but international treaties regarding child protection, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography.

As the abuse is largely perpetrated by “(South) Asian” criminals, UK authorities now find themselves in a bind. To act with concerted government and police action may increase existing community tensions. Alternatively, by not acting, faith in the country’s institutions and laws — and minority communities themselves — will continue to deteriorate among large sections of the public. As that may not happen immediately on the watch of the current crop of feckless UK politicians, there is most likely the inclination among them to kick this human tragedy down the road.

The UK has abdicated its responsibilities to protect its citizens, and especially to protect children from exploitation.

Under the guise of wanting to be tolerant and not inflame ethnic tensions, UK law enforcement has effectively turned a blind eye to hundreds of sexual predators operating within its borders.

However, they are not being completely useless. In the rare time that charges are brought, police are ready to snag someone like Tommy Robinson for reporting on the proceedings of the grooming gangs.

4. Islamic Slave Trade

Younger Yazidi girls fetch higher prices in the Islamic State slave markets. According to some accounts, those higher up in the organization’s command structure get first choice. But it’s clear the trade comprises a real wing of the Islamic State’s internal economy.

“The girls get peddled like barrels of petrol,” Zainab Bangura, the United Nations’ special representative on sexual violence and conflict, said in an interview with Bloomberg. “One girl can be sold and bought by five or six different men. Sometimes these fighters sell the girls back to their families for thousands of dollars of ransom.”

The Washington Post details some of the barbaric practices that been going on be ISIS fighters. Women are bought and sold like property, and become slaves for men willing to do cruel things to them.

Of course, this practice long precedes ISIS. In fact Islam itself has a lengthy history of slavery, which is permitted for “infidels”. Funny how leftists in the West blame whites for limited slavery by some ancestors, yet are silent about the ongoing slavery that goes on under the name of Islam.

5. Forced Child Marriages

Almost one third ( 32% ) of refugee marriages in Jordan involve a girl under 18, according to the latest figures from Unicef. This refers to registered marriages, so the actual figure may be much higher. The rate of child marriage in Syria before the war was 13%.

Some families marry off their daughters because of tradition. Others see a husband as protection for their daughters, but the UN says most are driven by poverty.

City of the dispossessed
“The longer the crisis in Syria lasts, the more we will see refugee families using this as a coping mechanism,” said Michele Servadei, deputy Jordan representative for Unicef. “The vast majority of these cases are child abuse, even if the parents are giving their permission.”

It involves Syrian brokers and men – mainly from the Gulf States – who present themselves as donors, but are actually shopping for brides.

They prey on refugee families, living in rented accommodation, who are struggling to get by.

This piece is very heartbreaking. Many are abandoned by their family out of poverty, or married off due to tradition.

Circumstances also make these young girls easy targets for adult men who fully intend to exploit them. This isn’t “marriage” in any real sense of the word. It’s child sex slavery.

6. Polygamy, Multiple Marriages

If the idea of forcing a young child into marriage isn’t sick enough, consider the idea of forcing children (yes, multiple) children into marriages.

Considering the power imbalance in child marriages, and under Sharia law in general, how exactly is the well being of these “wives” supposed to be looked after?

7. Female Genital Mutilation

This is a move that should outrage feminists, but they are stunningly silent on it. Young girls, often against their will, and having their privates mutilated in order to prevent them from getting aroused in later years.

Obviously, if there is unwanted sexual contact, it is exclusively the girl/woman’s fault. The man is never responsible.

This practice is banned in dozens of countries, but is going on under the radar in the West. The U.S. recently had a very public case against 2 doctors performing such actions.

Dr. Jumana Nagarwala is the lead defendant in the case. While the charges of conspiring to commit and committing female genital mutilation, as well as aiding and abetting others in doing so, have been dropped, Nagarwala still faces charges of conspiring to travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct and conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding. She was charged alongside Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, his wife, Farida Attar, and five other residents of Michigan and Minnesota.

Congress had no authority to pass a law criminalizing female genital mutilation, judge says

Apparently, a law designed to protect girls and women from violence directed at them is unconstitutional. From the CNN article, it shows how the victims have been failed by the courts.

Make no mistake. FGM does happen elsewhere in the West. However, Islamic groups would much prefer that it not be discussed publicly.

8. Domestic Violence

This was addressed in another article. The example included research by a Calgary group for violence survivors, who found that up to 40% of their patrons were visible Muslims. Of course one may ask “why” there is such rampant abuse in Islamic families, but that would be bigoted.

9. Honour Killings Of Girls

Of course, it doesn’t always stop at just violence. It can, and does, often lead to murder.

Two cases that made national headlines were: (a) the Shafia family killing, where 3 daughters and an ex-wife were killed; and Asqa Parvez, killed by her brother and father.

While those are just 2, there are many more that are going on in the West. In the name of diversity, we import cultures who do not believe in equality between men and women.

10. Pro-Islam Campaigns Pushed By Media

Now that we’ve gotten into the horrendous, exploitative things done in the name of Islam, we have to ask the next question. Why aren’t these things repeatedly and thoroughly condemned by the media?

In short, great marketing. Islamic groups frequently push and promote their “religion”, using selective truthfulness. It happens very often.

Consider this example of a CBC article promoting World Hijab Day. 2 women are at the Windsor Regional Hospital to talk about and promote the event. They speak of it in absolute glowing terms.

Of course, neither these women (nor other Muslim women) mention the ugly truth: women in many regions are FORCED to wear the hijab. See here, see here, and see here. Certainly this should at least be mentioned. Otherwise, this is just propaganda.

11. Media Sweeps Islamic Terrorism Under Rug

The church leaders said that “over 6,000 persons, mostly children, women and the aged have been maimed and killed in night raids by armed Fulani herdsmen,” which is prompting their cry to the government of Nigeria “to stop this senseless and blood shedding in the land and avoid a state of complete anarchy where the people are forced to defend themselves.”

The press release also pleaded with the international community, as well as the United Nations, to intervene in the Fulani attacks, fearing they might spread to other countries as well.

“We are particularly worried at the widespread insecurity in the country where wanton attacks and killings by armed Fulani herdsmen, bandits and terrorists have been taking place on a daily basis in our communities unchallenged despite huge investments in the security agencies,” they added, saying President Muhammadu Buhari has failed to bring attackers to justice.

In Nigeria, as well as other places, Muslims openly wage war against infidels. This is nothing short of a genocide. People, often Christians, are slaughtered simply for believing in something different.

This has been going on for 1400 years in some form or another. However, Islamists using Taqiyya (deception) have been largely successful in persuading large parts of the public that it is only extremists who are engaged in this sort of thing.

Articles and stories like this are quite common, but you will never hear about it on the mainstream media.

12. Politicians Sweep Islamic Terrorism Under Rug

See this review from earlier.

April 29, 2019 Update
As per the Minister of Public Safety’s statement on the 2018 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada, a review of the language used to describe extremism has been undertaken and is ongoing. The Government’s communication of threats must be clear, concise, and cannot be perceived as maligning any groups. As we continue this review, it is apparent that in outlining a threat, it must be clearly linked to an ideology rather than a community. The Government will carefully select terminology that focuses on the intent or ideology. As a first step, the Government has updated terminology used in the 2018 report to eliminate terminology that unintentionally impugns an entire religion. Going forward, the Government of Canada is committed to applying a bias-free approach to the terminology used to describe any threats inspired by ideology or groups.

Ralph Goodale, who identifies as the “Public Safety Minister”, tries to sanitize the report by emphasizing that it is not the ideology itself (Sunnis and Shias) who are committing acts of terrorism, but rogue elements.

Never mind that Islam is an ideology which requires its followers to commit violence against non-believers. This is just whitewashing the truth. He can’t even call a spade a spade.

This is as absurd as when former U.S. President Barry Soretoro (a.k.a. Barack Obama) claimed that the Fort Hood shooter — an Islamist who killed 40 troops — was committing workplace violence instead of terrorism.

13. Legislation To Combat “Islamophobia”

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has upheld a conviction against an Austrian woman who publicly called Mohamed a “pedophile” for marrying a 6 year old girl. Also see the video.

In Canada, the Federal Government passed a motion to ban “Islamophobia” and other forms of discrimination. Not accidently, “Islamophobia” was never explicitly defined, making it easier to be interpreted broadly.

Those are just 2 examples of creeping Islam, and efforts to shut down any questions or criticism, regardless of merit.

14. Global Efforts Against “Islamophobia”

This was covered in a previous article. There are attempts to make criticism of Islam a crime everywhere in the world. While these movements are portrayed as stopping religious defamation and prejudice, the real goal is to shield Islam from people speaking the truth

CLICK HERE, for a March 2008 meeting.
CLICK HERE, for an April 2009 press briefing.
CLICK HERE, for a 2009 statement, States obliged to promote religious tolerance.
CLICK HERE, for World Interfaith Harmony Week, February 2010.
CLICK HERE, for a 2010 call for “minority rights”.
CLICK HERE for UN Assistance in Afghanistan meeting in 2012.
CLICK HERE, for a 2012 address from the Turkish Foreign Minister
CLICK HERE, for a 2014 Iranian statement to the UN.
CLICK HERE, for a whitewashing of Islam, October 2014.
CLICK HERE, for a gripe-fest about Islamophobia, August 2017.
CLICK HERE, for Iqra Khalid, Pakistani Muslim, and Liberal MP.

15. Islamists Infiltrating “Human Rights” Bodies

There are 57 members in the UN OIC, which is the Organization of Islamic Countries. This makes up the single biggest voting bloc in the UN. Their goal, predictably, is to work collectively to advance Sharia Law.

Several of these nations are also on the UN Human Rights Council. That’s right. Nations which commit human rights abuses are on the HRC.

16. Cairo Declaration Provides No Protection

ARTICLE 2: (a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to safeguard this right against any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a shari’ah prescribed reason.

ARTICLE 12: Every man shall have the right, within the framework of the Shari’ah, to free movement and to select his place of residence whether within or outside his country and if persecuted, is entitled to seek asylum in another country. The country of refuge shall be obliged to provide protection to the asylum-seeker until his safety has been attained, unless asylum is motivated by committing an act regarded by the Shari’ah as a crime.

ARTICLE 22: (a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.
1.. Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.

(b) Everyone shall have the right to participate, directly or indirectly in the administration of his country’s public affairs. He shall also have the right to assume public office in accordance with the provisions of Shari’ah.

ARTICLE 24: All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.

ARTICLE 25: The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

Nice bait-and-switch here. While the Cairo Declaration presents as an enshrinement of human rights, one thing must be pointed out. All of these “rights” are solely within the context of Shari’ah. This effectively means that there are no real rights, nor any true equality.

Certainly, the Cairo Declaration “appears” to enshrine many basic rights for everyone, and to ensure equality between men and women. It appears to support free speech, and fundamental freedoms for all. But again, only within the context of Sharia law.

17. Final Thoughts

So what is really going on here with Islam?

  • Media propaganda to promote Islam
  • Keep names out of government reports
  • Pass laws to ban “Islamophobia”
  • Work to ban criticism of Islam (globally)
  • Infiltrate human rights organizations
  • Enshrine meaningless declarations

Of course, this is only a partial list, but should illustrate the point. But why do all of this though?

It’s to cover up the exploitive and downright predatory nature of Islam. It’s to silence and discredit people who ask questions — regardless of how well founded they are. To keep people in the dark about how women and girls are really treated in Muslim majority areas.

The Case For Leaving The U.N.

(U.N. decided that replacing the populations of certain nations is more important than promoting higher birth rates.)

(Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples)

(Replacement migration schemes violate Convention On Genocide)

(The outlines of a variety of globalist wealth schemes)

(Agenda 2030, global socialism)

(Plans for the global regulation of the internet)

(Global Citizenship Education. Post nation-state?)

(The ultimate goal is a world government)

While there are an almost endless number of reasons to leave the United Nations, this essay focuses on some of the more obvious ones.

Any true patriot, or nationalist, should be alarmed at the increasing loss of our sovereignty to the U.N. It is done incrementally, which makes it even more dangerous. Previous articles, along with the corresponding links and citations are available on the website. In no particular order, here are the arguments in favour of exiting the UN permanently, and completely.

In December 2018, Canada signed the UN Global Migration Compact in Morocco. This “non-binding” agreement was to set new guidelines in managing mass migration, including some 258 million people now. The prelude to this was the New York Declaration, signed in 2016. These agreements were to confer new rights upon migrants, even those coming illegally. They were also to establish the UN as the global manager of migration.

Note: Canada signs many “non-binding” agreements. Many have been domestically implemented by Governments in Canada, meaning they are not so “non-binding” after all.

However, the Global Migration Compact is a soft target, and obscures the ongoing problem. the push by the UN for almost unending immigration from the 3rd world to the 1st predates that by far. As early back as the 1970s (and likely much longer), the UN has hosted conferences on “replacement migration” in the West. Their solution is never to boost the birth rates of the West. Rather, the solution is always more immigration, regardless of cultural compatibility.

This flies in the face of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People. That 2008 agreement “Recogniz[ed] the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources.” Few, if any, Indigenous groups have supported the mass importation of peoples and cultures which are very different from their own.

While the text of the agreement seems fine on the surface, there is a conflict with other UN goals. How exactly are these Indigenous Peoples going to have those rights preserved in the face of mass migration? Consider that many nations govern by majority. By importing large numbers of immigrants with different goals and interests than the Indigenous ones, how will that help? How will diluting their numbers, political and voting power (via mass migration), aid Indigenous Peoples?

UNDRIP raises 2 other questions: (I) Is it only those Indigenous Peoples who have the right to a unique culture and identity, or do others get one as well? (II) Will any industrial or developmental projects be subject to veto power under the agreement? Unfortunately, it answers neither.

While claiming to respect border security and national sovereignty, the actions of the UN speak differently. This includes efforts to facilitate efforts of illegal aliens to enter countries, such as financing and organizing. This is done KNOWING that the host countries do not want illegal entry. In short, the UN aids in invasions of sovereign nations. Furthermore, little to no efforts are made to prevent smuggling or trafficking of people.

3 examples of this include: (a) crossing into Canada via a loophole in the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement; (b) caravans trying to enter the US via the border with Mexico; and (c) entering Southern Europe, typically through Greece, Italy, France or Spain.

Interestingly, the UN violates its own Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article II prohibits acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. It specifically lists:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The UN encourages people in Western nations to have less children, and gives reasons such as preventing climate change. This leads to a lower birth rate. The UN also facilitates mass migration from the 3rd World to the 1st, effectively bringing about rapid demographic change. The UN directly and indirectly attempts to circumvent borders and valid immigration restrictions. Naturally, the UN promotes multiculturalism and tolerance, instead of respecting the host nations.

It can also be plausibly argued that UN efforts to censor criticism of Islam (and the dangers it poses) amount to aiding and abetting with the destruction of religious groups.

And no, this is not sarcasm. Mass migration and replacement migration efforts by the UN bring about the same demographic changes that its Convention on Genocide specifically prohibits. It isn’t necessary to go out and execute a group of people to partake in genocide.

Speaking of criticizing Islam, one alarming initiative is the push to ban so-called religious defamation. Officially, it is to prevent discrimination and harm based on religious affiliation. Despite its harmless sounding name, this is an initiative to ban criticism of Islam on a global scale. Non-binding motions have passed, but have never been implemented, primarily due to free speech concerns. The truth behind the facade is that Islam is an extremely political religion, if it even is a religion. Banning legitimate concerns from being addressed helps those political goals. Much easier to advance an agenda if critics are forcibly silenced.

Canada signed Paris Agreement (a.k.a Paris Accord), again touted as “non-binding”. This agreement would restrict the levels of so-called greenhouse gases a nation is allowed to emit. The developed and developing world would be held to different standards, making the agreement inherently unfair. Note: Carbon Dioxide is plant food, not pollution. Conservative Premiers in Canada have challenged the jurisdiction of the Carbon taxes, while going along with the scam in principle.

While touted as a way to prevent a global catastrophe, the Paris Agreement is really just a revenue generating tool for the UN. Article 9 goes into depth about the “financial mechanisms” and the “financial flow”. The money generated would then be funnelled to the UN, and used to generate trillions more in the commodities market, via Green Bonds. In short, these taxes are used to create a slush fund for the UN IPCC and their allies to generate more wealth.

Aside from the Paris Accord, the UN has many schemes in mind for raising revenue. From the 2012 guide on New Development Financing, here is an estimate of their plans. This chapter would go through these plans, as well as where the money is intended to be spent.

  • SDR (or special drawing rights), from IMF $150B-$270B
  • Carbon taxes, $240B
  • Leveraging SDR, $90B
  • Financial transaction tax, $10B-70B
  • Billionaire tax, $90B
  • Currency trading tax, $30B
  • EU emissions trading scheme, $5B
  • Air passenger levy, $10B
  • Certified emission reduction tax, $2B
  • Current ODA Flow, $120B

These are just some of the schemes which are being dreamed up, but the list is hardly exhaustive.

Of course, why should your pension be any different? The UN Principles for Responsible Investing were wholeheartedly adopted by the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board. This means that the ESG factors, (Environmental, Social, Governance) must be considered in every transaction, in every investment the Board makes. One would think that the Canadian Government would want to invest the funds into Canadian industries. Or at least most of them. After all, why not promote and encourage local development? Instead, 85% of the money CPPIB invests is done in foreign companies and projects. While this may lead to higher returns in some cases, it does little to boost Canadian development.

The Canadian Pension Plan is hardly the only one that is being used to finance UN agendas abroad. And it is done without the consent (and knowledge, in most cases) of the pension holders themselves. While this comes across as virtuous, the Government is risking the pensions of its people in those foreign ventures.

Canada signed Agenda 2030 in September 2015. It was basically an expanded version of Agenda 21, which had been ratified in June 1992. Agenda 2030 aimed to put the “Sustainable Development Agenda” into every aspect of modern life. Furthermore, it would not be restricted to being a UN project. Nations, and even cities are encouraged to draw up their UN-compliant plans. The 17 SDA goals are to be implemented in all aspects of life.

It would not be restricted to the environment either. Irrelevant issues like gender, youth, people with disabilities, racial justice and abortion were to considered in every project. There is much more of a social justice focus being pushed.

The UN has an odd position on the right to abortion. They have a philosophy about the right to life. There are many noble goals such as: humane treatment of prisoners, due process in court proceedings, trying to prevent suicide, and banning torture. Those are all fine. What is strange is that abortion is considered a human right. Article 6 of the “Right To Life” outlines many beliefs, but promotes the idea that abortion is a human right, not the child that is killed in the process.

Paragraph 9 of Article 6 goes through what steps should be taken to ensure that getting abortions are not too difficult, or too dangerous. Furthermore, States should take steps to ensure that abortion is readily available to prevent women from undertaking abortions in a dangerous manner. These guidelines also apply to adolescent girls.

Interestingly, there is no mention of trying to discourage abortions, or promoting adoption services. Nor does the UN call a spade a spade: abortion is killing a baby. However, it is cloaked as “reproductive care”. The mother has the right to abortions, but the unborn babies have no rights themselves.

Perhaps this attitude is a population control measure.

They say that whoever controls the education system controls the youth, and hence, the future. That is what UNESCO, the UN Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization seeks to do. It proclaims education to be a human right, as goal #4 of the Sustainable Development Agenda. The group wants to provide universal education to everyone. This encompasses pre-school, to higher education and beyond.

This sounds great, except that UNESCO wants to push “its” version of education on everyone else. It is a global citizenship focus, where people are part of a world community. The UN has its agenda for world domination (as outlined elsewhere in the essay). Much of the education focus will be promoting this narrative.

This is not to say there aren’t societal benefits to increasing the literacy rate, and providing basic education in math and science. There certainly are. It would be naïve, though, to think that this is entirely altruistic. A UN focused curriculum would certainly reinforce the dangers of climate change, the divisiveness of borders, and promote the benefits of mass migration, multiculturalism, sustainable development, speech and internet regulation.

The global citizen education agenda has already leaked into schools in Canada. Not only are the ideas creeping in, but some places, such as Manitoba, openly teach from UNESCO principles. The one-world vision is being promoted to our students.

Beyond formal education, the youth movement is becoming and increasingly important part of the UN agenda. Why? Because children are more impressionable. It is far easier to convince a young person of the dangers of climate change and the need for drastic action. Furthermore, few people would bluntly call them out openly on it. Most older people have been exposed to many hoaxes in their lives, and hence are wise to the scams.

It also explains (at least partly) the drive to drastically lower the voting age form 18 to 16, or 14, or even 8. Young children are viewed not as wise people, but as a voting block to be manipulated. If youth are convinced that the UN is the only hope humanity has, they can vote as a group to prevent this. Certainly, this can alter elections, or at least change the outcome in close ridings or districts.

Finally, there is a push for a UN Parliamentary Assembly. This is a movement to establish an actual world government, able to making binding legislation. In essence, it would be a scaled up version of the European Union, where member states would send representatives to the global body. This is still in the theoretical stages, as it is unclear how this would properly represent national rights. One need only look at the problems of the EU to be turned off to a UNPA.

Although informal talks have been ongoing for a long time, the UN Parliament campaign officially launched in June 2007. That year, Canada’s Foreign Affairs Committee approved the idea in principle. Canada’s current Federal Government claims it has the power to sign “this treaty”, if it ever came to pass.

These issues are hardly exhaustive, but should provide a good outline of what is wrong with being part of the UN. National sovereignty is compromised with every agreement that gets signed. It is not just Canadian autonomy that is eroded, but all nations.

The UN promotes mass migration, and gives little thought to borders or sovereignty. Forced migration leads to cultural tension, and breaks down social cohesion. The UN has many schemes to enrich itself, with the Paris Accord being just one of them. Our pensions are not safe either. Free speech is in danger if a global body were to regulate internet usage, and the ability to criticize ideas such as Islam. Sustainable Development Agendas, such as Agenda 2030 are designed to regulate nearly every type of activity in society. The right to life is enshrined, unless it means life of unborn children — in which case killing him/her is a human right. Children are being brainwashed by global citizen education, and ever worse, they become “useful idiots” for their causes. And the ultimate goal is a world government.

You think your interests aren’t being represented now? Will that improve if your nation became just one of 195 voices? Probably not.

Of course, there is one final insult to add: some of the great human rights abusers sit on the UN Human Rights Council. Some of the nations in which women have no rights are on the UN Women’s Council. This would be a parody if it wasn’t serious.

There is only one sensible solution: leave the UN completely.

(Not Quite) Infanticide #7: China’s Organ Harvesting Of Live People

1. Important Links

(Other articles on infanticide/abortion)

CLICK HERE, for China Tribunal.
CLICK HERE, for China Tribunal, forced harvesting of organs from China’s political prisoners.
CLICK HERE, from China Tribunal’s December 2018 findings.
CLICK HERE, for firstthings.com, and then US Vice President Joe Biden’s attitude to what went on in China.
CLICK HERE, for 2015 on China’s organ trafficking.
CLICK HERE, for Lifesite article on China.
CLICK HERE, for NBC article, China promises to phase out practice.
CLICK HERE, for an NBC article on China’s practice.

2. China Tribunal’s Findings

From the December 2018 interim report:

“The Tribunal’s members are certain – unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt – that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”

That was part of the interim report. But now the final report goes on even further:

The Tribunal has considered evidence, in its many forms, and dealt with individual issues according to the evidence relating to each issue and nothing else and thereby reached a series of conclusions that are free of any influence caused by the PRC’s reputation or other potential causes of prejudice.
These were as follows;
• That there were extraordinarily short waiting times (promised by PRC doctors and hospitals) for organs to be available for transplantation;
• That there was torture of Falun Gong and Uyghurs;
• That there was accumulated numerical evidence (excluding spurious PRC data) which indicated:
o the number of transplant operations performed, and
o the impossibility of there being anything like sufficient ‘eligible donors’ under the recently formed PRC voluntary donor scheme for that number of transplant operations;
• That there was a massive infrastructure development of facilities and medical personnel for organ transplant operations, often started before any voluntary donor system was even planned; That there was direct and indirect evidence of forced organ harvesting.

And this led to the conclusion that:

forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale and that Falun Gong practitioners have been one – and probably the main – source of organ supply. The concerted persecution and medical testing of the Uyghurs is more recent and it may be that evidence of forced organ harvesting of this group may emerge in due course. The Tribunal has had no evidence that the significant infrastructure associated with China’s transplantation industry has been dismantled and absent a satisfactory explanation as to the source of readily available organs concludes that forced organ harvesting continues till today.

However, on the topic of “genocide” China Tribunal pussyfoots around the issue and says they cannot conclude there is intent for genocide. This despite stating that the actions met the other elements.

The Tribunal considered whether this constituted a crime of Genocide; The Falun Gong and the Uyghurs in the PRC each qualify as a ‘group’ for purposes of the crime of Genocide. For the Falun Gong, the following elements of the crime of Genocide are clearly established:
• Killing members of the group;
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
Thus, bar one element of the crime, Genocide is, on the basis of legal advice received, clearly proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. The remaining element required to prove the crime is the very specific intent for Genocide. Accepting legal advice about proving this intent, the Tribunal cannot be certain that the requisite intent is proved and thus cannot be certain that Genocide itself is proved.

That’s right. Due to legal advice, China Tribunal cannot actually conclude there is intent to commit genocide, despite the prolonged actions that would justify the claims.

China Tribunal then “appears” to condemn what happens to Falun Gong and the Uyghurs, but waters down the language to “criminality”, despite the included detail. The tribunal claims the “elements have been met for crimes against humanity”.

Commission of Crimes Against Humanity against the Falun Gong and Uyghurs has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by proof of one or more of the following, legally required component acts:
• murder;
• extermination;
• imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
• torture;
• rape or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
• persecution on racial, national, ethnic, cultural or religious grounds that are universally recognised as impermissible under international law ;
• enforced disappearance
in the course of a widespread and systematic attack or attacks against the Falun Gong and Uyghurs.

This seems to be splitting hairs. It meets the criteria for crimes against humanity. Yet China Tribunal, on advice from their lawyers, refuse to state there is intent to qualify as “genocide”.

The report ends with a very interesting comment about the power of media and citizen journalists.

Governments and international bodies must do their duty not only in regard to the possible charge of Genocide but also in regard to Crimes against Humanity, which the Tribunal does not allow to be any less heinous. Assuming they do not do their duty, the usually powerless citizen is, in the internet age, more powerful than s/he may recognise. Criminality of this order may allow individuals from around the world to act jointly in pressurising governments so that those governments and other international bodies are unable not to act.

The China Tribunal has no power to actually do anything. However, it seems to believe that by spreading word online it can put pressure on governments to act.

3. Firstthings.com Article

Firstthings.com quotes former VP Joe Biden, on his take on China’s one-child policy.

But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable. So hopefully we can act in a way on a problem that’s much less severe than yours, and maybe we can learn together from how we can do that.

In order to maintain the 1-child policy, China has had to result to extreme and inhuman measures:

  • forced abortion
  • sex-selective abortions against girls
  • sterilizations
  • eugenics

Biden seemed critical that the declining birth rate would be able to sustain the retired population. However he seemed to have no concern over the mass aborting and sterilizations that went on.

4. NBC Coverage Of Issue

American news outlet NBC reported here, and also reported that:

In 2014, state media reported that China would phase out the practice of taking organs from executed prisoners and said it would rely instead on a national organ donation system.

The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday was not immediately available to comment on the tribunal’s findings.

In a statement released alongside the final judgment, the tribunal said many of those affected were practitioners of Falun Gong, a spiritual discipline that China banned in the 1990s and has called an “evil cult.” The tribunal added that it was possible that Uighur Muslims — an ethnic minority who are currently being detained in vast numbers in western China — were also being targeted.

China had been promising for years to end this practice, but it doesn’t seem to have happened.

5. Lifesite Take On The Situation

Still, there has been too much reporting for too long about this profound human-rights abuse to ethically continue to look the other way. The question thus becomes: Will the U.S. specifically outlaw traveling to China for the purpose of buying an organ — just as we do participating in pedophilia tourism overseas? (Spain, Israel, Italy, and Taiwan have passed such laws already.) I can’t think of one argument against pursuing such a course.

If we don’t at least do what we can, it seems to me that we make ourselves complicit in allowing the demand for black-market organs forcibly harvested from murdered prisoners to continue unimpeded — and the blood of the slaughtered victims will also be on us.

(Lifesite article here) This echoes what China Tribunal has been saying: that political pressure is needed to put a stop to this practice.

6. My Take On This Story

If the allegations are true, and they seem to be, then this is abhorrent.

At some level this is no different that what abortion industries like Planned Parenthood do: snuff out lives in order to obtain a commodity, their organs. If we subscribe to the idea that life is valuable, then this is little — though more heinous — than a common murder and robbery.

While donation of organs (for after death), should be encouraged, this is an entirely different matter. This is premeditated mass murder in order to steal those parts. The practice is barbaric.

Consider the flack Canada has taken over the Government’s genocide claims over Indigenous women and girls. Most of the deaths and disappearances (at least where it is known) were at the hands of Indigenous men they knew. That is apparently a “genocide”. Yet what is going on in China is not really worth the attention apparently.

But good luck getting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to openly condemn the practice.

Hypocrisy In Canada Summer Jobs Grants Between Religious Groups

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for screening link in 2019 Canada Summer Jobs Site.
CLICK HERE, for agreement link in 2019 Site.
CLICK HERE, for faith groups being excluded for personal beliefs.
CLICK HERE, for a Daily Caller article on Al Quds.
CLICK HERE, for group that condemns Israel gets grants for years.
CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
CLICK HERE, for Canadian Human Rights Code.

From Abortion/Infanticide Series
CLICK HERE, for Part 1, New York and Virginia.
CLICK HERE, for Part 2, Kill The Survivors.
CLICK HERE, for Part 3, UN Endorses Abortion As Human Right.
CLICK HERE, for Part 4, Fallout and Pushback.
CLICK HERE, for Part 5, Court Says Referrals Are Mandatory.

2. Employer Attestation

12.0 Employer attestation
12.1 The Employer attests that:
I have read, understood and will comply with the Canada Summer Jobs Articles of Agreement;
I have all the necessary authorities, permissions and approvals to submit this application on behalf of myself and my organization;
The job would not be created without the financial assistance provided under a potential contribution agreement;
Any funding under the Canada Summer Jobs program will not be used to undermine or restrict the exercise of rights legally protected in Canada.

3. Screening For Grants

Ineligible projects and job activities:
Projects consisting of activities that take place outside of Canada;
Activities that contribute to the provision of a personal service to the employer;
Partisan political activities;
Fundraising activities to cover salary costs for the youth participant; or
Projects or job activities that:
restrict access to programs, services, or employment, or otherwise discriminate, contrary to applicable laws, on the basis of prohibited grounds, including sex, genetic characteristics, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression;
advocate intolerance, discrimination and/or prejudice; or
actively work to undermine or restrict a woman’s access to sexual and reproductive health services.

Please note the following definitions:
As per section 2.1 of the Canada Summer Jobs Articles of Agreement, “project” means the hiring, administration of, job activities, and organization’s activities as described in the Application Agreement.
To “advocate” means to promote, foster, or actively support intolerance, discrimination, and/or prejudice.
To “undermine or restrict” means to weaken or limit a woman’s ability to access sexual and reproductive health services. The Government of Canada defines sexual and reproductive health services as including comprehensive sexuality education, family planning, prevention and response to sexual and gender-based violence, safe and legal abortion, and post-abortion care.

The way this is worded, it could be interpreted to mean that even expressing views which are pro-life or critical of SOGI agenda could be seen as threatening.

Of course, the overwhelming majority of charities, non-profits, and businesses have absolutely nothing to do with abortion of the gender agenda.

Nonetheless, since the Government of Canada has insisted on this, at least it will be uniformly enforced throughout all of the groups applying for summer grants, right?

Not really.

4. Double Standard For Christian & Islamic Groups

From the National Post article:

Youth for Christ’s chapters across Canada have used the grants for years to fund more than 100 student jobs annually. Toronto City Mission, which runs day camps in impoverished neighbourhoods, received $70,000 last year for 16 positions. Winnipeg’s Centerpoint Church has used the grants for 24 years to hire two summer students; Mill Bay Baptist Church on Vancouver Island used a grant last year to hire a First Nations student. All have seen their applications sent back this year over the attestation.

Your project may have nothing to do with gender or abortion, but if you won’t sign those forms, prepare to have your grant request denied. However, “values” seem to be pretty flexible, depending on the group.

From the Daily Caller article:

The Trudeau government won’t allow pro-life groups to access the Canada Summer Jobs program without violating their principles, but it is funding an Islamic group with a cleric who was a keynote speaker at the anti-Israel al-Quds day rally in Toronto.

As the Toronto Sun reports, the federal government gave the thumbs-up to the Islamic Humanitarian Service (IHS) based in Kitchener, Ont., to hire summer students with taxpayer money. (RELATED: Trudeau Government Cuts Off Pro-Life And Faith Groups From Jobs Funding)

Yes, you are reading that correctly. The Trudeau Government refused pro-life groups access to the Summer Jobs Program because of their beliefs, even if they were unrelated to the job. Yet it was okay to fund Al Quds, an Islamic, anti-Semitic group, which openly calls for violence against Israel.

It would take some serious mental gymnastics to not see moral inconsistency here. However, it appears to be about politics, not principles.

5. Canadian Charter & Human Rights Code

Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

These demands quite clearly violate both 2(a) and 2(b) of the Canadian Charter. The specific religion is irrelevant, but these groups were clearly targeted because of their views. The double standard with Islamic groups makes it more absurd, but is not necessary.

From the Canadian Human Rights Code:

Prohibited grounds of discrimination
3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Discriminatory policy or practice
10 It is a discriminatory practice for an employer, employee organization or employer organization
(a) to establish or pursue a policy or practice, or
(b) to enter into an agreement affecting recruitment, referral, hiring, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or any other matter relating to employment or prospective employment,
that deprives or tends to deprive an individual or class of individuals of any employment opportunities on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Section 3 very clearly lists religion as a protected group.

And consider this: if the Government is awarding contracts, is the Government not the employer in this case?

6. Some Interesting Cases

R. v. Lewis, 1996 CanLII 3559 (BC SC) ruled that protesting abortion within a certain “protected area” was an offence, not shielded by freedom of religion. Not really related to the above, but still an interesting read.

BCM International, asking the Federal Court for a review of the decision to turn down a grant. The Attestation is cited as the reason. (Case: T-917-19)

BCM International, asking for another review, on essentially the same grounds (Case: T-918-19)

An article on a pending challenge.

7. Other Double Standards In Free Speech

In Toronto a Christian Preacher is arrested for disturbing the peace in the Gay Village. However, Muslims condemning gays and Israel is apparently okay.

In the UK as well, a Christian Preacher can be arrested even for behaving peacefully. Yet, Muslims are allowed to preach intolerance openly.

8. Final Thoughts

The Canada Summer Jobs Program discriminates against those who object to being forced to sign onto a political agenda, when it has no relevance to their cause. It has overwhelmingly effected religious groups. While this may seem trivial, it is understandable to object to “bending the knee”.

If abortion and gender are not related to the work that a group is doing, then there is no reason to bring it up. This is just virtue signalling.

There is a double standard with how Christians are treated with how Muslims are treated. The former must cow-tow, while the latter’s views are “more understood”.