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 In it, he details how academics publish in journals that are not peer reviewed, and who make little if any effort to verify the findings.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
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
(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.
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.
(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.
(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.
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.
(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.
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:
• imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
• 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.
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:
sex-selective abortions against girls
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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)
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”.
How do you take over the world without war, guns, and bombs? You do it incrementally, and strategically. This guide will outline some of the major steps.
1. Important Links
This section will be empty. Instead, links are interwoven in the article. Also, Part II, will address who is behind these global takeover efforts.
2. Convention On Preventing & Punishing Genocide To Be Used As “Guideline”
No two ways about it. If you are serious about world domination, then you can’t have strong groups and populations standing in your path. The population needs to go. Either it needs to be killed off, or it needs to be “phased out”. This idea was addressed in a previous article.
He are sections of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishing Genocide:
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The following acts shall be punishable:
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
This applies if there are certain groups, such as racial or ethnic, that are obstacles to the plan. Yes, we can kill them, or we can just reduce their populations, by preventing births or causing mental harm to the group.
Ironically, this convention outlines some effective “non-violent” ways to erase a group, or groups.
We will get back to this later.
3. Financing The Global Domination Mission
No doubt about it: a scheme to control the world is expensive and complex. The right people have to be in place, and the organization needed is substantial. So let’s discuss a few methods to finance our agenda.
(Option A:) Get wealthy nations to borrow extensively from private banks. Most countries have their own internal banking, which means that they effectively borrow from themselves. A much better alternative is to get nations to start borrowing from private banks, but never completely pay it back. This ensures permanent interest payments. However, we must be careful to fight any and all attempts by concerned citizens to take back control of their finances.
(Option B:) Convince wealthy nations to participate in bogus scheme such as the “climate change scam”, which is based entirely on junk science. Rather than endlessly appealing to give foreign aid (which we then steal), we should be appealing to the mutual survival instinct. Doing this can raise hundreds of billions in revenue each year. Sure there will be resistance, but we can establish some controlled opposition “Conservatives” to give the illusion of fighting for the average people. These initiatives, once established, will be profitable.
(Option C:) While using the money raised from (A) and (B) immediately seems like a good idea, we must be more strategic about it. A serious option is to loan out to developing nations, huge sums of money they cannot possibly pay back. As such, once nations begin defaulting, we can either seize assets, or “forgive debt” in return for favours. Sure this is predatory lending, and the middle class will suffer, but their leaders will be put in an impossible position.
Note: the debts that we “lend” to developing nations are not actually losses we accrued. Rather they will be from the perpetual “debt repayments”, which developed nations pay us after they started taking out private loans.
(Option D:) Make globalism more profitable and have our partners contribute to the efforts. Making mass migration more profitable leads to an almost endless supply of new customers. A wide variety of groups, can get involved, ensuring a diversified portfolio for us. By linking their business interests with our ideological interests, it will ensure these organizations are vested in our survival.
(Option E:) It doesn’t just have to be foreign aid that gets transferred outside of host nations. Many national pension funds are screaming to be invested in our global development. Sure, there are criticisms that they are underfunded and unsustainable, but the potential growth will offset any risks to the funds. If seniors object, we can always subsidize their efforts to start smoking.
(Option F:) For the purposes of trade, it is antiquated to think of it as “nations” trading. Rather, if we think of them as economic zones, trade can be liberalized much more effectively. Sure there will be job losses here and there. But it’s all for the good of the “global economy”.
4. Mass Migration Is Critical To Our Success
In order to achieve the “One World Order”, individual nations must be destroyed. Sure they may keep their flags and names, but for all practical purposes, they cannot exist. There must be no true sovereignty allowed.
This aspect has unique challenges. There are plenty of nationalists and ethno-nationalists who want to keep their race, culture, language, heritage, customs, traditions, and way of life intact. There are those who reject conservatism and libertarianism, (which favour individuality over group survival), in favour of the long term stability of their nation. We need to completely replace the host populations. Being direct and honest will not work in this case. As such other approaches are required:
(Option I:) We can buy off media outlets. The rise in internet use and citizen journalists had led to an utter devastation of traditional media outlets. This presents an opportunity never thought possible: to keep certain media solvent in return for favourable coverage of our practices.
(Option II:) We can install puppet candidates and fund parties whose populist agendas are very similar to ours. With the right rhetoric, the sheeple won’t care that we lie about the true size of annual mass migration. Nor will they care that a “right-wing populist” is only proposing a 7% reduction in current rates. With the right messaging, the patriots will overlook that forced multiculturalism and diversity has never actually been successful, and only leads to balkanization. Members of the Government and Opposition should both have their campaigns contributed to. While common in the US, campaign contribution laws shall be used fully to ensure a cooperative Congress or Parliament.
(Option III:) Straight up gaslighting can and does still work, but the citizenry is getting tired of it. This technique should be used less frequently. Not saying stop entirely, but it shouldn’t be the first tool anymore.
(Option V:) In order to facilitate mass migration and population replacement, we should introduce “throw-away” ideas such as repatriating terrorists to home countries. If successful, we further destabilize the nation states. If unsuccessful, we at least divert their attention away from our real goals.
(Option VI:) One subset of mass migration is promoting high levels of Islamic immigration. Given their desire to take over the world, and propensity for “playing the victim”, this will be useful. Further, the drain on resources of the host nations will make it harder for them to put up resistance. Given Muslims’ very high birthrate, and violent intolerance towards others, they can help replace the populations for us.
Note: we won’t allow the Muslims to actually take over. Rather, they will do much of the leg work for us.
Naturally, the elites will need to meet annually, to ensure a smooth post-national transition takes place.
Once mass migration is sufficiently underway, we can focus on controlling the new masses, and that leads to the next topic: education.
5. Taking Control Of Education
If the agenda is to succeed, we need to take control of the next generation, and the one after that. As noted, children are to become dependent on the schools for everything from meals, to health care, to actual parenting. Yes, the financial costs will be high, but we will pay for it out of the interest payments from the loans we grant to governments. So really, it costs us nothing.
Academia has an important role to play, which is obvious. Scholarly articles, such as those written by Frank Geels and Kirsten Jenkins will add legitimacy to what we are doing.
Another important aspect is to redefine what cultural norms are. This in turn will also help reduce the host populations, which will make it easier to replace them. One such technique is encouraging people, especially young children, to have sex changes. A further technique is to keep pushing for abortion as a “human right”. Less births will of course reduce the host nation’s population. An extra benefit is that baby parts sell for huge amounts to organizations which are sympathetic to our globalist methods.
6. Making It All Come Together
Okay, this is definitely a lot to absorb. But knowing and implementing all of these steps, what have we actually accomplished? Let’s list them:
We have identified ways to commit genocide against nations and their host populations without the obvious evidence of guns, bombs and war
We have raised money by getting nations to borrow heavily from private banks, and never fully pay it back, leading to permanent interest payments
We raised money via bogus environmental scams
We loaned out to nations who cannot pay
We have enlisted corporate partners in our goals
We have invested national pensions and other assets
We have eliminated borders, ensuring efficient trade
We have bought off an obedient media
We have propped up puppet politicians
We reduced the overt gaslighting
We changed the narrative to mass migration being normal
We normalized repatriating terrorists
We weaponized Islamic immigration
We coordinated global leadership meetings
We have made children dependent on schools
We controlled the academic output
We replaced traditional cultural norms
We centralized globalization via UN
This list is by no means exhaustive. However, it should serve as an introduction to global domination.
The moral problem is that dodgeball encourages students to aggressively single others out for dominance, and to enjoy that dominance as a victory
The problem is actually much worse. In white majority countries, it should be noted that the majority of successful teams include mostly white players. Research has indicated that there is a correlation between whiteness and white supremacy.
The games children play in schoolyards are famously horrible, if you stop and think about them.
Tag, for example, singles out one poor participant, often the slowest child, as the dehumanized “It,” who runs vainly in pursuit of the quicker ones. Capture the Flag is nakedly militaristic. British Bulldog has obvious jingoistic colonial themes. Red Ass, known in America as Butts Up, involves deliberate imposition of corporal punishment on losers.
This is absolutely true. Every children’s game in the Western World is about preparing our youth for war, and for ways to oppress marginalized people. These are specific examples that need to be exposed and stamped out.
Contrast with the above photos #2 and #3. This shows tolerant Muslims and the richness that diversity brings us.
But none rouse the passions of reform-minded educational progressives quite like dodgeball, the team sport in which players throw balls at each other, trying to hit their competitors and banish them to the sidelines of shame.
Not only is this traumatizing for the children, but rarely, if ever, do dodgeball competitions hand out “participation trophies”. How will the children cope with that?
When the Canadian Society for the Study of Education meets in Vancouver at the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, a trio of education theorists will argue that dodgeball is not only problematic, in the modern sense of displaying hierarchies of privilege based on athletic skill, but that it is outright “miseducative.”
Naïve parents will argue that kids are just kids, and they are just releasing their excess energy. But this completely misses the point. Most serial killers and rapists have played dodgeball at some point in their lives. Are we breeding the next generation?
Experts agree, that we need to replace the Canadian population as an immediate measure to mitigate the effects anti-social behaviour as caused by dodgeball.
Dodgeball is not just unhelpful to the development of kind and gentle children who will become decent citizens of a liberal democracy. It is actively harmful to this process, they say.
These citizens also need to be aware that playing dodgeball is physical activity. Physical activity leads to heavy breathing, which leads to increased CO2 output. HELLO! We signed the Paris Accord for a reason. Do you want the Earth to heat up just so Little Johnny can get first place?
As Butler’s abstract describes it, those “faces” are “marginalization, powerlessness, and helplessness of those perceived as weaker individuals through the exercise of violence and dominance by those who are considered more powerful.” Young’s list of these fundamental types of oppression also includes exploitation and cultural domination.
Nations like Canada have demonstrated themselves to be an extremely welcoming place. And we shouldn’t jeopardize that just so some 11 year old can go “goose-stepping” and throw balls at other children.
For teachers trying to foster the virtues of caring and inclusion, on this view, dodgeball is counterproductive. Sport can teach ethical behaviour and give students the chance to practise it and, in this sense, it is important training for citizens in a democracy.
Of course this is true. Being part of the global democracy, is vital for all citizens of the planet.
Fun for fun’s sake is good, Burns said, but when a teacher is formally telling students rules for a game, fun can also reinforce behavioural patterns, for good or ill. The moral problem with dodgeball, he said, is that it encourages students to aggressively single others out for dominance, and to enjoy that exclusion and dominance as a victory.
One day they are throwing rubber balls at each other. The next they are perpetuating the next Holocaust. The connection is plain and obvious.
(New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern at “Christchurch Call”)
Yes, the Christchurch Call and the UN “digital cooperation” are 2 separate initiatives, but the result is the same: stamping out free speech online.
(The UN High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation)
(Liberal ex-Candidate Richard Lee supports UN regulating internet)
1. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for text of Christchurch Call. Death to free speech. CLICK HERE, for the announcement of the new “Charter”. CLICK HERE, for review of Gov’t bribing media outlets. CLICK HERE, for the $595M bribery (see pages 40-44) CLICK HERE, for Ottawa purging references to Islam in terrorism report. CLICK HERE, for an article on “approved media”. CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Charter.
Interesting UN Links from prior article. CLICK HERE, for the UN Panel for Digital Cooperation CLICK HERE, for their press release. CLICK HERE, for Digital Cooperation. CLICK HERE, for a 2012 Internet Governance Forum held in Bogota, Colombia. CLICK HERE, for the 2014 Arab Internet Governance Forum. CLICK HERE, for Arab Dialogue on Internet Governance CLICK HERE, for internet governance in Western Asia CLICK HERE, for a review of UN wanting to ban criticism of Islam on a global scale.
2. Text Of Christchurch Call
To that end, we, the Governments, commit to:
-Counter the drivers of terrorism and violent extremism by strengthening the resilience and inclusiveness of our societies to enable them to resist terrorist and violent extremist ideologies, including through education, building media literacy to help counter distorted terrorist and violent extremist narratives, and the fight against inequality.
-Ensure effective enforcement of applicable laws that prohibit the production or dissemination of terrorist and violent extremist content, in a manner consistent with the rule of law and international human rights law, including freedom of expression.
-Encourage media outlets to apply ethical standards when depicting terrorist events online, to avoid amplifying terrorist and violent extremist content.
–Support frameworks, such as industry standards, to ensure that reporting on terrorist attacks does not amplify terrorist and violent extremist content, without prejudice to responsible coverage of terrorism and violent extremism. Consider appropriate action to prevent the use of online services to disseminate terrorist and violent extremist content, including through collaborative actions, such as:
-Awareness-raising and capacity-building activities aimed at smaller online service providers;
-Development of industry standards or voluntary frameworks;
-Regulatory or policy measures consistent with a free, open and secure internet and international human rights law.
To that end, we, the online service providers, commit to:
-Take transparent, specific measures seeking to prevent the upload of terrorist and violent extremist content and to prevent its dissemination on social media and similar content-sharing services, including its immediate and permanent removal, without prejudice to law enforcement and user appeals requirements, in a manner consistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms. Cooperative measures to achieve these outcomes may include technology development, the expansion and use of shared databases of hashes and URLs, and effective notice and takedown procedures.
-Provide greater transparency in the setting of community standards or terms of service, including by:
Outlining and publishing the consequences of sharing terrorist and violent extremist content;
-Describing policies and putting in place procedures for detecting and removing terrorist and violent extremist content. Enforce those community standards or terms of service in a manner consistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms, including by:
-Prioritising moderation of terrorist and violent extremist content, however identified; Closing accounts where appropriate;
-Providing an efficient complaints and appeals process for those wishing to contest the removal of their content or a decision to decline the upload of their content.
-Implement immediate, effective measures to mitigate the specific risk that terrorist and violent extremist content is disseminated through livestreaming, including identification of content for real-time review.
-Implement regular and transparent public reporting, in a way that is measurable and supported by clear methodology, on the quantity and nature of terrorist and violent extremist content being detected and removed.
-Review the operation of algorithms and other processes that may drive users towards and/or amplify terrorist and violent extremist content to better understand possible intervention points and to implement changes where this occurs. This may include using algorithms and other processes to redirect users from such content or the promotion of credible, positive alternatives or counter-narratives. This may include building appropriate mechanisms for reporting, designed in a multi-stakeholder process and without compromising trade secrets or the effectiveness of service providers’ practices through unnecessary disclosure.
-Work together to ensure cross-industry efforts are coordinated and robust, for instance by investing in and expanding the GIFCT, and by sharing knowledge and expertise.
-To that end, we, Governments and online service providers, commit to work collectively to:
-Work with civil society to promote community-led efforts to counter violent extremism in all its forms, including through the development and promotion of positive alternatives and counter-messaging.
-Develop effective interventions, based on trusted information sharing about the effects of algorithmic and other processes, to redirect users from terrorist and violent extremist content. Accelerate research into and development of technical solutions to prevent the upload of and to detect and immediately remove terrorist and violent extremist content online, and share these solutions through open channels, drawing on expertise from academia, researchers, and civil society.
-Support research and academic efforts to better understand, prevent and counter terrorist and violent extremist content online, including both the offline and online impacts of this activity.
-Ensure appropriate cooperation with and among law enforcement agencies for the purposes of investigating and prosecuting illegal online activity in regard to detected and/or removed terrorist and violent extremist content, in a manner consistent with rule of law and human rights protections.
–Support smaller platforms as they build capacity to remove terrorist and violent extremist content, including through sharing technical solutions and relevant databases of hashes or other relevant material, such as the GIFCT shared database.
–Collaborate, and support partner countries, in the development and implementation of best practice in preventing the dissemination of terrorist and violent extremist content online, including through operational coordination and trusted information exchanges in accordance with relevant data protection and privacy rules.
-Develop processes allowing governments and online service providers to respond rapidly, effectively and in a coordinated manner to the dissemination of terrorist or violent extremist content following a terrorist event. This may require the development of a shared crisis protocol and information-sharing processes, in a manner consistent with human rights protections.
–Respect, and for Governments protect, human rights, including by avoiding directly or indirectly contributing to adverse human rights impacts through business activities and addressing such impacts where they occur.
Recognise the important role of civil society in supporting work on the issues and commitments in the Call, including through:
-Offering expert advice on implementing the commitments in this Call in a manner consistent with a free, open and secure internet and with international human rights law;
–Working, including with governments and online service providers, to increase transparency;
-Where necessary, working to support users through company appeals and complaints processes.
-Affirm our willingness to continue to work together, in existing fora and relevant organizations, institutions, mechanisms and processes to assist one another and to build momentum and widen support for the Call.
-Develop and support a range of practical, non-duplicative initiatives to ensure that this pledge is delivered.
Acknowledge that governments, online service providers, and civil society may wish to take further cooperative action to address a broader range of harmful online content, such as the actions that will be discussed further during the G7 Biarritz Summit, in the G20, the Aqaba Process, the Five Country Ministerial, and a range of other fora.
3. Some Observations
Combatting extremist ideologies and fighting inequality are lumped together.
This will apparently be done “respecting free speech and human rights”, but aren’t those things already supposed to be protected?
Parties want to “promot[e] positive alternatives and counter-messaging”. Doesn’t that sound like Onjective 17(c) of the UN Global Migration Compact, promote propaganda positive to migration?
Encouraging media to use ethical practices when covering violence? And what, shut them down if they refuse?
Widen support for the call? Collective suicide pact for free speech?
Looking for expert advice in how to implement “the Call” without violating those pesky free speech and human rights laws. Perhaps you need another Jordan Peterson to make it sound nice and fluffy.
Research to spot “ROOT CAUSES” of terrorism.
Look for technical methods to remove terroristic or violent material, (or anything we deem to be violent or terroristic), and share the methods with others.
Collaborate with partner countries, no real concern of whether they support terrorism themselves, as do many Islamic countries.
Mess with algorithms to ensure users not directed to “inappropriate content”.
Regular public reporting, sounds great, except when Governments censor necessary information in the name of not offending anyone, as seen here.
Support INDUSTRY STANDARDS? So the internet “will” be regulated globally.
And all of this misses a VERY IMPORTANT point: what happens when content is shared in Country A, but rules in Country B would render it illegal? Does the content get pulled down because it is offensive to some other nation in the world?
All in all, this is pretty chilling.
4. From Global(ist) News Article
“The platforms are failing their users. And they’re failing our citizens. They have to step up in a major way to counter disinformation, and if they don’t, we will hold them to account and there will be meaningful financial consequences,” he said Thursday.
“It’s up to the platforms and governments to take their responsibility seriously and ensure that people are protected online. You don’t have to put the blame on people like Mark Zuckerberg or dismiss the benefits of social platforms to know that we can’t rely exclusively on companies to protect the public interest,” Trudeau continued.
He announced that Canada would be launching a digital charter, touching on principles including universal access and transparency and serving as a guide to craft new digital policy.
Speaking about Canada’s upcoming federal election, he said the government was taking steps to eliminate fake news and that a new task force had been created in order to identify threats to the election and prevent foreign interference.
5. Remember? $595M Bribe
A New Non-Refundable Tax Credit for Subscriptions to Canadian Digital News Media
To support Canadian digital news media organizations in achieving a more financially sustainable business model, the Government intends to introduce a new temporary, non-refundable 15-per-cent tax credit for qualifying subscribers of eligible digital news media.
In total, the proposed access to tax incentives for charitable giving, refundable tax credit for labour costs and non-refundable tax credit for subscriptions will cost the federal government an estimated $595 million over the next five years. Additional details on these measures will be provided in Budget 2019.
Not only will the Trudeau Government be cracking down on what it views as “fake news”, it will be subsidizing “friendly” or cooperative media. This is nothing short of propaganda. This is a government propping up dying media outlets financially. Of course, what will be expected in return? favourable coverage?
6. Section 2: Fundamental Freedoms
To summarize so far, our government:
(1) Is a member of the UN, which wants to globally regulate the internet. This is referred to as “DIGITAL COOPERATION”. The same UN wants to globally ban criticism of Islam.
(2) Passes a “non-binding” motion, M-103, to ban Islamophobia.
(3) Passes Bill C-16, to ban criticism of their gender agenda, calling certain language to be hate speech.
(4) Signs the Global Migration Compact, which contains provisions (Objective 17(c)) to sensitise and regulate media.
(5) Announces plans to subsidize “certain” media, the 2018 economic update.
(6) Attends a convention, the Christchurch call, and signs the above resolution.
(7) Announces plans for a “digital charter”
Can Section 2 of the Charter — fundamental freedoms — protect us from this assault on free speech? Let’s hope so:
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.
Most court cases have come down on the side of fundamental freedoms. If this digital charter comes to be, then certainly the 2 charters will collide.
7. Doing What UN Never Could?
The UN has for a long time tried to regulate our freedoms for the “global collective” or some other such nonsense.
But now, will we do this to ourselves? Will Western nations engage in their own freedom-suicide pact in order to provide the illusion of security from violent terrorists and extremists?
Western Liberals embrace global rule and regulation. So do “Conservatives”, and fake populists, who are basically globalists in disguise. It will be interesting to see how many will actually stand up for freedom instead of caving to pressure.
CLICK HERE, for a prior review on Jordan Peterson. CLICK HERE, for a prior review on Bill C-16 (gender identity) CLICK HERE, for Louder With Crowder interview.
(See 49:00 and 50:20 for Peterson comments on OHRC policies) CLICK HERE, for Peterson & Cathy Newman (cringe) CLICK HERE, and HERE, for Peterson’s cognitive dissonance deplatforming Faith Goldy at free speech event. CLICK HERE, for Shepherd’s site: identitygrifting.ca. CLICK HERE, for Peterson announcing $1.5M lawsuit and Wilfrid Laurier University and 3 employees. CLICK HERE, for Peterson interview on lawsuit (2:55) CLICK HERE, for National Post article on WLU 3rd party defence. CLICK HERE, for the Ontario Human Rights Code. CLICK HERE, for Ontario Court forms index. CLICK HERE, for Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure. CLICK HERE, for Ontario Libel and Slander Act. CLICK HERE, for Hill v. Church of Scientology, 1995. CLICK HERE, for Ontario Bill 52, protecting expression in matters of public interest.
The details of the Wilfrid Laurier University scandal (Lindsay Shepherd, the 3 staff members, and Jordan Peterson), is old news at this point. The article just focuses on the lawsuits brought against WLU and its staff by Peterson and Shepherd.
It is the opinion here that although the facts alleged are basically true, the claims are fraudulent. They are combined seeking 5 million dollars (Shepherd $3.6, Peterson $1.5M). This is an abuse of the court system, and a way to unjustly enrich themselves.
Keep in mind, Peterson’s only claim to damages was that the tape defamed him (comparing him to Hitler, and other comments). His critics were vilified by the media. He suffered no actual damage, other than being named in a tape that Shepherd released.
Shepherd claims that not only was this 42 minute meeting difficult (surely it was), but that she was never treated the same way again. She cites a few examples, but nothing that would lead a reasonable person to think this would be worth millions in damages. Shepherd claims to be unemployable in academia, but her new love for media probably helped that.
Did WLU staff act like d*****bags? YES
Were inappropriate things said? YES
Was a tape of this leaked to the media? YES
Does any of this amount to millions in damages? NO
During the Louder With Crowder interview, Peterson (at 50:20) criticizes the Ontario Human Rights Code for automatically making employers vicariously liable for things employees say. However, he has no issue with USING vicarious liability in order to name the University in his lawsuit.
Peterson claimed that it was libel for Rambukkana to compare him to Hitler, yet Peterson compares trans activists to Communists, who have caused the deaths of millions of people.
Peterson has come to fame claiming to be a free speech champion, but has no issue deplatforming speakers he doesn’t agree with. Faith Goldy is a particularly bad example.
Shepherd and Peterson both claim to be free speech champions, but then sue over words they don’t like.
KARMA IS A B****
In 2018, Shepherd launched a $3.6 million lawsuit against Wilfrid Laurier University and 3 of its staff (Nathan Rambukkana, Herbert Pimlott, and Adria Joel). Although the infamous meeting was cited, there were other problems occurring later which were cited in the statement of defense.
Jordan Peterson filed a $1.5 million lawsuit of his own, claiming that Laurier hadn’t learned its lesson. Peterson claimed that the infamous tape had damaged his reputation.
Regarding Peterson’s claim, the WLU filed a 3rd party claim (Form 29A). It stated that if Peterson actually had suffered damages, he should be suing Lindsay Shepherd, as she made the tape secretly and released it.
Shepherd was outraged. After filing a lawsuit against her university, she is shocked that they would use her as a defence in a related lawsuit. She brought this on herself.
WLU should consider Rule 2.1.01
Rule 2.1 General Powers to Stay or Dismiss if Vexatious, etc.
Stay, Dismissal of frivolous, vexatious, abusive Proceeding
Order to Stay, Dismiss Proceeding
2.1.01 (1) The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1
Although litigation tends to drag on a long time, something like this should be used. The litigation (particularly Peterson’s) is an abuse of process.
From the Ontario Libel & Slander Act:
1 (1) In this Act,
“broadcasting” means the dissemination of writing, signs, signals, pictures and sounds of all kinds, intended to be received by the public either directly or through the medium of relay stations, by means of,
(a) any form of wireless radioelectric communication utilizing Hertzian waves, including radiotelegraph and radiotelephone, or
(b) cables, wires, fibre-optic linkages or laser beams,
and “broadcast” has a corresponding meaning; (“radiodiffusion ou télédiffusion”, “radiodiffuser ou télédiffuser”)
“newspaper” means a paper containing public news, intelligence, or occurrences, or remarks or observations thereon, or containing only, or principally, advertisements, printed for distribution to the public and published periodically, or in parts or numbers, at least twelve times a year. (“journal”) R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, s. 1 (1).
Wilfrid Laurier and its 3 staff members did not do this. Shepherd did. She released the recording to the media, with the intent of making it widely distributed. So Rambukkana and Pimlott have a valid point. If Peterson did suffer damages, it was caused by Lindsay Shepherd.
Yes, Rambukkana and Pimlott were unprofessional for making the comments in the first place. However, it is clear they never meant to be recorded.
There is also some ambiguity as to the Statute of Limitations, whether it would be 3 months, or 2 years. If it is 3 months, then it has already lapsed.
SOME CANADIAN CASES
Here is Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995), which dropped “actual malice” as a requirement.
Here is Grant v Torstar (2009), which created an exception for responsible journalism.
Here is Crookes v Newton (2011), which ruled that linking, or hyperlinking stories does not count as publishing.
However, all of this may be irrelevant, since it was Shepherd who SECRETLY recorded the meeting, and then chose to publish it WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT of the other parties.
ONTARIO’S BILL 52 (2015)
Not sure if this would be relied on in the proceedings, but in 2015, the Ontario Government passed Bill 52 on this subject. Interesting is section 137.1
Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate
Rejet d’une instance limitant les débats
137.1 (1) The purposes of this section and sections 137.2 to 137.5 are,
(a) to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest;
(b) to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest;
(c) to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and
(d) to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action.
The topic of tort reform is a popular one in recent years, particularly in the United States. Putting a cap on maximum damages, or making it harder to collect on bogus claims is a goal worth pursuing.
Any google or online search of “tort reform” will lead to an almost endless number of matches.
This is not at all to say that a person should “never” go to civil court. If an employer doesn’t pay your wages, or your property is damaged, or bills are not paid, then litigation can be a very valid path. Admittedly, “reasonable” is very subjective. However, most people can agree that one must suffer actual damages to go to court.
However, Shepherd and Peterson have both laid million dollar lawsuits because people said mean things to them. (Shepherd’s claim cites more detail). And hypocritically, both think nothing of mocking their detractors.
These 2 are not the free speech champions they pretend to be. Rather, they support free speech when it is convenient to do so. They are “free-speech grifters”.