All personal court appearances are under “BLOG”
Challenge to UN Global Migration Compact dismissed in Calgary, however
Court rules that it is non intended as legally binding contract
A v. Her Majesty, the Queen
Court File No: T-2089-18
Calgary Branch, Federal Court
300-635 8th Ave SW, Calgary
Filed: November 6, 2018
Ruled: February 12, 2019
The Claim was filed in Calgary Federal Court on December 6, 2018. It asked (among other things), for an injunction against signing the UN Global Migration Compact.
The Defense filed a motion to strike, claiming that under Federal Courts Act, it should have been an “Application for Judicial Review”, not a claim. However, that doesn’t seem to be the only problem.
After some back and forth, the Statement of Claim was struck out (without permission to amend), and a $500 cost award was issued against me.
Here are some quotes from the ruling. The most interesting is possibly the one where the Judge confirms that the UN Global Migration Compact is not intended as a legally-binding agreement.
So, who won? The goal of the claim was to prevent Canada from joining the UN Compact, and the Judge says that it has no legal weight anyway.
 (Plaintiff) pleads, in the alternative, that if Canada has already signed the UN Compact when the Court rules on her claim, the Court should void the signature and any legal consequences
In this case, the issue of whether it should have been a 1/ Statement of Claim, or 2/ Application for Judicial Review, is sort of mute, since this alternative “does” fall within the scope of a Claim.
Court is also correct that seeking to nullify any legal consequences “is” primary function of this action. However, the Judge will go on to say that the UN Global Migration Compact “doesn’t” carry legal weight.
 However, this does not exempt a plaintiff from pleading material facts supporting the claim. Rule 174 states that a Statement of Claim “shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies.
Court finds that the facts plead were not specific enough to be suitable for an action.
 The Supreme Court has substantive content of each Charter right in the case law, and a Plaintiff who relies on the Charter must plead material facts to satisfy the criteria applicable to the provision in question. Charter cases can not be decided in a factual vacuum.
Interesting to know. General pleading are not enough in this case, and more definitive and substantive arguments must be made.
 As it is plain and obvious that (her) claims based on the Charter and other statutory provisions cannot succeed, the thrust of her claim is simply that Canada should be enjoined from joining the UN Compact, a non-legally binding, cooperative framework agreement because she is of the opinion that it attempts to normalise mass migration to any country, and that the public should have been consulted on this agreement.
Again, the Judge re-iterates that it is “non-legally binding”. Having rejected the specific constitutional arguments earlier, apparently the only argument left is that the public should have been consulted.
 It is well-established that the conduct of foreign affairs, and international relations, including the decision to conclude or withdraw from a treaty, is part of the Crown’s prerogative powers and falls exclusively under the executive branch of government. In the absence of a Charter challenge, a decision pertaining to such matters is not justifiable.
There “were” several Charter challenges listed, but the Calgary Court found them too broad to be acceptable.
 Based on my review of the Statement of Claim, it is plain and obvious that the Contract Claim discloses no cause of action and must be struck out. The Statement of Claim quotes lengthy exerps from the UN Compact, including the following statement at Paragraph 54 of the claim, which indicates the UN Compact is not intended as a legally binding contract:
44(7) “This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, co-operate framework that builds on the commitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. It fosters cooperation among all the relevant actors on migration, acknowledging that no one State can address migration alone, and upholds the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law.”
This is possibly the most interesting part of the entire ruling. The Judge states that the UN Global Migration Compact is not intended as a legally binding contract.
We now have a Federal Court Judge ruling that the UN Compact is “not intended as a legally-binding contract”. This is huge, as this may thwart any attempt by open-borders advocates to use the UN Compact as a “reference point” at a later date.
Even though the Court threw the case out, the reasons given may be what we need to prevent it from becoming “soft law”.
You’re welcome, Canada
$700 — costs of travel, court fees, other fees
$500 — costs award issued by Calgary Court
PRICELESS — protecting Canada’s sovereignty
All personal court appearances are under “BLOG”
Challenge to UN Global Migration Compact dismissed in Calgary.
CLICK HERE, for the Green New Deal FAQ. CLICK HERE, for House Resolution 109, Green New Deal. CLICK HERE, for the Forbes article referenced in the FAQ. CLICK HERE, for the Huffington Post article referenced in the FAQ.
Newly elected US Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has announced an extremely ambitious “Green New Deal”. It will not only save the world, help eco-systems, dramatically boost the US economy, phase out carbon industries, but it will provide economic security for everyone — even those not willing to work.
Of course, don’t bother asking how much this will cost. The only question that matters (apparently) is the cost if nothing is done. That will be the end of the world as we know it.
Many still question this economics graduate, just because she doesn’t know how economics work. But that is just being divisive.
Additionally, it will pander to every imaginable group who is oppressed. The world may be ending, but it doesn’t mean we have to put aside such issues as gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc….
Please don’t be selfish here. Wondering about (a) your job security; (b) your lifestyle; (c) your private property; (d) your civil rights, etc are inconsequential. All that matters is saving the world.
Some may wonder what will happen if they “refuse” to go along with this massive, sweeping, government program. Afterall, many are resistant to change. But we will have to see what the penalties will be later. Perhaps some amendments will be added. Daisy Cousens (in the above video), makes the valid point that in order to see this deal go through, government force will be required.
From The FAQ Section “What is the Green New Deal?
The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan to create a greenhouse gas neutral society that creates unprecedented levels of prosperity and wealth for all while ensuring economic and environmental justice and security.
The Green New Deal achieves this through a World War 2 scale mobilization that focuses the robust and creative economic engine of the United States on reversing climate change by fully rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, restoring our natural ecosystems, dramatically expanding renewable power generation, overhauling our entire transportation system, upgrading all our buildings, jumpstarting US clean manufacturing, transforming US agriculture, and putting our nation’s people to work doing what they do best: making the impossible possible.”
1/ The first part says that it is to create a greenhouse gas neutral society, yet also promises unprecedented levels of wealth and prosperity.
2/ Logistical question: how do you ensure economic justice when implementing such a drastic plan? It sounds expensive.
3/ So fighting climate change is like fighting Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? Okay.
4/ To dramatically expand renewable power, wouldn’t that involve developing on those lands you want to restore?
5/ Upgrade all buildings? Does that include all homes? How is such a thing possible, and will people be put up in hotels while their homes are being upgraded?
6/ Jumpstarting US clean manufacturing? Will private or public funds be poured into that? Also, won’t you also be putting a lot of other people out of work? Look at Ontario or BC to see how those “clean initiatives” have played out.
7/ If this enviro shift will lead to unprecedented levels of prosperity, why is it no private companies have attempted anything like this (even on a small scale)? Aren’t they all greedy capitalists?
8/ About this crumbling infrastructure, will it all be demolished and new ones built, or is it geared towards massive renovations?
9/ What will happen to people who refuse to go along with it?
Any large-scale transformation of society can create the risk of some people slipping through the cracks. That’s why the Green New Deal also calls for an upgrade to the basic economic securities enjoyed by all people in the US to ensure everybody benefits from the newly created wealth. It guarantees to everyone:
-A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
-High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
-High-quality health care
-Clean air and water
-Safe, affordable, adequate housing
-An economic environment free of monopolies
-Economic security to all who are unable or UNWILLING TO WORK
(my emphasis above). That’s right. It guarantees everyone “unwilling” to work economic security. Not those unable to work, but anyone “unwilling”. This is doomed to fail, since there will be absolutely no incentive to work.
People will figure out very quickly it makes no sense to work and pay taxes for non-workers, when they can just be one of those non-workers, and get money for free. It will kill any incentive to be productive.
“Why is such a large-scale mobilization necessary right now?
A recent IPCC report declared that global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate. This calls for global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions of 40 to 60 percent by 2030. The U.S. contributes 20% of global emissions. To hit these global targets, the US must not only get to a greenhouse gas emissions neutral society by 2030, but it must also lead this change abroad to avert climate catastrophe.”
1/ So it’s not that the world will end in 12 years, but that there “may” be a rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, (which was 1700s)
2/ IPCC has a very lengthy history of making wrong predictions. Does that matter to you?
3/ Also, if greenhouse emissions were such a critical factor, wouldn’t all this industrialization you’re calling for make the problem worse?
4/ Wouldn’t planting a lot more trees take a lot of this impact away? Just hire poor highly-indebted college students.
“How will you pay for the Green New Deal?
The Green New Deal is a massive investment program, not an expenditure. The question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what is the cost of inaction, and what will we do with our new shared prosperity created by the investments in the Green New Deal.
We will finance the investments for the Green New Deal the same way we paid for the original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the rich, and decades of war – with public money appropriated by Congress. Further, government can take an equity stake in Green New Deal projects so the public gets a return on its investment. We already know that investments in infrastructure create huge returns on investment. The interstate highway system returned more than $6 in economic productivity for every $1 it cost. Similarly, investments in upgrading and transforming industry are a chance to grow the wealth of our nation dramatically.”
This completely dodges the question. Leftists tend to refer to all spending as “investments” in order to deflect attention. No responsible government would simply commit to open-ended spending of this sort. The US is already $22 trillion (yes, trillion) in debt. Where would this money come from? And will people be “forced” to pay for and go along with this scheme?
The Huffington Post article echoes that mentality.
“We must give up our obsession with trying to ‘pay for’ everything with new revenue or spending cuts.”
“Will this hurt communities that rely on fossil fuels jobs?
The Green New Deal will prioritize creating high-quality, family wage-supporting union jobs in communities that rely on fossil fuel industries. It will ensure that all communities have a better alternative for high-wage work before they transition away from fossil fuel industry based work.”
This is wishful thinking. Pumping almost endless amounts of money into an open-ended, and largely unquantifiable “World War II” agenda “may” lead to a job boom. But once the borrowed money runs out (hint: it will), it would lead to a regional collapse as those new jobs disappear.
“Is this an environmental plan? Why do you have things like universal health care and other social safety net measures in here?
The Green New Deal is a plan to make a full-scale transition of our economy that puts jobs and justice first. This plan will require a strong social safety net so that every U.S. person can make this transition comfortably and nobody falls through the cracks in the process. If we want to be able to mobilize our economy fully, we can’t afford to have employees stuck in their current jobs because they are afraid to lose health care or workers unable to participate because they can’t afford the education and training programs. We also need to be sure that workers currently employed in fossil fuel industries have higher-wage and better jobs available to them to be able to make this transition, and a federal jobs guarantee ensures that no worker is left behind. We believe that the economic securities and programs for justice and equity laid out in this Green New Deal resolution are a bare minimum of what we need to do to successfully execute the Green New Deal.”
1/ So, this is to dismantle the US economy altogether and replace it with a new one?
2/ We can’t afford to have people stuck in those low paying jobs, yet you are going to shut down entire industries.
3/ Your plan for a new infrastructure involves pumping money in indefinitely. Until these systems are operational, they won’t be running, or able to produce anything else.
4/ This will involve creating a whole separate economy to build up all these new energy efficient systems, and overhauling existing buildings.
5/ Where will all this money come from? Wait, not supposed to ask.
6/ What will happen to transportation when all air travel is phased out?
7/ How does any of this “reduce” carbon emissions?
8/ Can we assume that “going along” with this plan will be voluntary? Or will it be forced?
Okay, now we get to the House Resolution itself, and the introduction of incessant identity politics.
First, here comes the fear mongering, and the costs of doing nothing. Take everything will a grain of salt.
“(3) global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause—
(A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change;
(B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100;
(C) wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019;
(D) a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth;
(E) more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050; and
(F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States; and
(4) global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require—
(A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030; and
(B) net-zero global emissions by 2050;”
3A/ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez supports open borders and mass migration. She openly calls to abolish immigration control entirely in the US. So how will mass migration to a high-consumption society “reduce” carbon emissions?
B/ $500B in lost economic output, yet we are not supposed to ask about money when funding this new deal?
C/ A source would be nice.
D/ These are the same scientists who say the north pole would disappear.
E/ 350M more people exposed to heat stress? I thought temperatures were only going to raise 1.5 degrees Celcius?!
F/ A risk to $1 trillion worth of public infrastructure by a temperature raise of 1.5 degrees Celcius? And I thought money was no issue.
4/ “Pre-industrialised periods” means before 1800s.
A/ 40-60% cut? Yet you want to phase out carbon entirely.
B/ Plant more trees. Problem solved.
“Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as “systemic injustices”) by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);”
The references to identity politics are rampant throughout the bill.
“(2) a 4-decade trend of wage stagnation, deindustrialization, and antilabor policies that has led to—
(A) hourly wages overall stagnating since the 1970s despite increased worker productivity;
(B) the third-worst level of socioeconomic mobility in the developed world before the Great Recession;
(C) the erosion of the earning and bargaining power of workers in the United States; and
(D) inadequate resources for public sector workers to confront the challenges of climate change at local, State, and Federal levels; and”
It’s an interesting double standard here. Ocasio-Cortez keeps bringing up wages, finances and economic situations when it comes to getting support for the bill. Yet she continuously avoids financial discussion when it comes for paying for this green new deal. Can’t have it both ways.
“(3) the greatest income inequality since the 1920s, with—
(A) the top 1 percent of earners accruing 91 percent of gains in the first few years of economic recovery after the Great Recession;
(B) a large racial wealth divide amounting to a difference of 20 times more wealth between the average white family and the average black family; and
(C) a gender earnings gap that results in women earning approximately 80 percent as much as men, at the median;”
A/ Having an economic disparity by itself is not evidence of injustice. People who are highly driven tend to far out earn their unproductive counterparts. But remember, you wanted to create a system which paid people a living wage for refusing to work.
B/ Is this an apples-to-oranges comparison? Would Ocasio-Cortez be comparing European living standards to African living standards? Or is she suggesting this gap is all within America?
Remember, the 1% is very small.
So, if an average black family earned $30,000/year, does it mean the average white family earned $600,00/year? That doesn’t add up
C/ The gender pay gap is simply the earnings difference between men and women overall. Women tend to earn less since they take more time off to raise children, and often choose lower paying jobs.
If you could get the same work from a woman as a man, and just pay her less, then wouldn’t there be an incentive to fire all the men and only hire women?
“(3) a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses; and”
Sorry to rain on the parade, but what happens if large segments of these groups DON’T want the deal, and the burdens it imposes on them? Will their will be ignored?
Now, let’s talk about how this will be implemented. Again, the Resolution doesn’t take into account what will happen if people say no.
“(4) to achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects—
(A) providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization;
(B) ensuring that the Federal Government takes into account the complete environmental and social costs and impacts of emissions through—
(i) existing laws;
(ii) new policies and programs; and
(iii) ensuring that frontline and vulnerable communities shall not be adversely affected;
(C) providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization;
(D) making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries;
(E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;
(F) ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level;
(G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;
(H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States;
(I) strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;
(J) strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors;
(K) enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections—
(i) to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and
(ii) to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States;
(L) ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused;
(M) obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples;
(N) ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies; and
(O) providing all people of the United States with—
(i) high-quality health care;
(ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;
(iii) economic security; and
(iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.”
While this may be well intentioned, it is clearly not realistic
A/ Financing is important, but you need to provide “way” more detail on this.
B/ Take the societal impacts into account? Okay. What happens if your own studies say that your program is impractical?
C/ High education to everyone? Government controlled, or free market?
D/ Making investment in research? Okay, but how long will the research take to complete? Remember, this is only a 10 year plan
E/ Directing investments? Great, though again, we need more detail.
F/ Ensuring the democratic process? That “sounds” great, but this can only be achieved by “taking away” people’s rights.
G/ Guaranteed jobs and training?
H/ More guaranteed jobs.
I/ Strengthening their rights, yet this deal can only be achieved by “removing” rights and imposing it.
J/ Strengthening H&S laws? Normally I would be totally on board with this, but it context of everything else, it is chilling what the details will look like.
K/ This may be poor wording, but how does one “transfer pollution”? Also, why would you worry about borders? Don’t you want to abolish ICE?
L/ Protecting public lands? Actually a good one.
M/ Consent from Indigenous Peoples? Okay, will you still go ahead if they say no?
N/ Prevent unfair competition? But don’t you “ensure” it, with this government monopoly?
O/ Guaranteed health care, housing, jobs, necessities
While this all sounds great, the details (and lack of) are scary. Not only that, the authors seem totally unaware of how self-contradictory the GND is.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly RELIES ON financial incentives to sell the program, yet AVOIDS any talk of how this will be paid for.
Further she talks about GIVING rights and discretions to groups and how they run their lives, yet implementing this will require TAKING rights away.
The deal mentions EQUALITY many times, but entire sections are devoted to divisive IDENTITY POLITICS and to pandering to specific groups.
The Green New Deal is to PROVIDE new opportunities and entitlements for everyone in America, yet involves SHUTTING DOWN entire sectors of the economy.
All of these promises are made that the social service needs of AMERICANS will be met. However, Ocasio-Cortez promotes OPEN BORDERS IMMIGRATION, which would see those services overrun.
For this deal to be implemented in any real form, any and all rights of citizens (to oppose) it would need to be taken away, and the deal imposed by force. Even then, it would bankrupt the USA long before it ever became reality.
* Wearing clothes from another ethnic group
* White with dreadlocks
* Men building pipelines
= cultural appropriation, racism, toxic masculinity
Men wearing female dress and makeup
People’s Party Founder Maxime Bernier wasn’t “condemning” drag performers for what they do. Rather, he was mocking the “cultural Marxist” left, for their often contradictory views on what is racism/appropriation, and what is diversity. Was the tone very mocking? Yes, but satire often is.
There was another quote about rejecting an offer from Finance Minister Bill Morneau to attend a drag show together. Bernier mocked him as well, suggesting that balancing the budget and ending crony capitalism would be better uses of his time. Here are some quotes from the article:
“People’s Party Leader Maxime Bernier sent a tweet Tuesday attacking what he called the “leftist logic” that praises female impersonators while branding white people who wear dreadlocks or blackface as racists or perpetrators of cultural appropriation.
Bernier said it was illogical for drag artists wearing makeup and women’s clothing to be celebrated as a source of diversity while the actions of others — notably whites who adopt some of the physical characteristics of racial minorities — are demonized as discriminatory.”
The author seems to be missing the point. Leftist hypocrisy towards various “oppressed” groups is worth pointing out. You can’t pick and choose with of your “marginalised” groups aren’t really marginalised. Learning to code may be a better use of your time.
“The source of Bernier’s angst is a tweet from the official Twitter account run by Global Affairs Canada that praised Toronto-based drag queen Brooke Lynn Hytes, who will be the first Canadian to appear on the Emmy-award winning reality program RuPaul’s Drag Race. That show sees drag queens compete for the title of America’s Next Drag Superstar.”
There doesn’t seem to be any freaking out. Rather, it is this person, J.P. Tasker, who identifies as a “journalist”, who seems to be losing his mind over nothing. Perhaps he should learn to code.
“Blackface has a long and complicated history in North America and is widely regarded as deeply offensive. Its origins date back to 19th century minstrel shows that saw white performers paint their faces a darker tone to mock black Americans.
The earliest of these shows ridiculed enslaved Africans on Southern plantations, depicting black people as lazy, ignorant, cowardly or hypersexual, according to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC).
‘Let’s provoke some head explosions’
The history of drag performance is murkier. Female impersonation has been a part of stage performances for generations.
Drag queens have been a fixture of gay bars in the West since at at least the post-Second World War era. Performers, typically gay men, dress in women’s clothing and sometimes impersonate famous ‘gay icons’ to entertain patrons.
After receiving backlash for his tweet, Bernier said: “Let’s provoke some head explosions among social justice warriors.” He also said blackface is a “non-existent phenomenon.””
Obviously coding isn’t his strong spot. Even if all this is true, so what? This was a joke. Leftists can’t take a joke, and should probably learn to code in case his day job doesn’t work out.
“Bernier condemned “agitated journalists” Tuesday for “freaking out” and making inquiries about a tweet he himself had sent only hours earlier, saying the media should instead focus on more important issues like his stance on pipeline development, equalization and corporate welfare.”
He has a point. CBC journalists have a tendency to freak out over minor things. Maybe they should learn to code. This author in particular seems really thin-skinned.
CLICK HERE, for previous article on Duke Pesta and Common Core education the US. CLICK HERE for UNESCO main page
UNESCO Stated Grounds, Bases, Pretexts CLICK HERE, for Education 2030 Agenda and Framework CLICK HERE, for SDA 4.7, Learning to Live Together Sustainably. CLICK HERE for World Programme for Human Rights Education. CLICK HERE, for Education to Prevent Violent Extremism. CLICK HERE, for Language in Education (creeping multilingualism). CLICK HERE, for Global Citizen Education, Rule of Law
CLICK HERE, for what UNESCO does on global citizenship education. CLICK HERE, for “priority” gender equality. CLICK HERE, for Section 91-93 of Canadian Constitution.
UNESCO Main Page Global citizenship education
While the world may be increasingly interconnected, human rights violations, inequality and poverty still threaten peace and sustainability.
Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is UNESCO’s response to these challenges. It works by empowering learners of all ages to understand that these are global, not local issues and to become active promoters of more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, secure and sustainable societies.
GCED is a strategic area of UNESCO’s Education Sector programme and builds on the work of Peace and Human Rights Education. It aims to instil in learners the values, attitudes and behaviours that support responsible global citizenship: creativity, innovation, and commitment to peace, human rights and sustainable development.
UNESCO’s work in this area is grounded in its own Constitution which aims to ‘build peace in the minds of men and women,’ the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Education 2030 Agenda and Framework for Action, notably Target 4.7 of the Sustainable Development Agenda, the Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1974), and the World Programme for Human Rights Education
(link is external)
Under the GCED umbrella, UNESCO has several special themes: Preventing violent extremism through education, Education about the Holocaust and genocide, Languages in education and the promotion of the rule of law through global citizenship education
UNESCO collaborates with an extensive global network to disseminate GCED including its own Category 1 institutes, other UN agencies and inter-governmental organizations, including regional organizations, most notably: the UNESCO Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable Development (MGIEP), the International Institute for Capacity Building in Africa (IICBA), the UNESCO Institute for Statistic (UIS), the Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding (APCIEU), the UNESCO Associated Schools Project Network (ASPNet) and UNITWIN/UNESCO Chairs.
UNESCO Tramples on Provincial/State Jurisdiction For Education Sections 91/92/93 of Canadian Constitution lay out areas of jurisdiction
Legislation respecting Education
93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:
(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union;
(2) All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen’s Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen’s Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec;
(3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen’s Subjects in relation to Education;
(4) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far only as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section.
10th Amendment stresses the States’ rights
– Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
UNESCO’s “Human Rights” Push Violates Prov/State Rules Section 91(13) Property and Civil Rights in the Province — clearly Provincial matter
Likewise in the US, human rights/civil rights are decided at the “State” level.
UN Obsession With Immigration Intrudes Prov/State Rights
(Note: This is somewhat off topic, but worth mentioning)
Section 95 of Canadian Constitution
Concurrent Powers of Legislation respecting Agriculture, etc.
95. In each Province the Legislature may make Laws in relation to Agriculture in the Province, and to Immigration into the Province; and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of Canada may from Time to Time make Laws in relation to Agriculture in all or any of the Provinces, and to Immigration into all or any of the Provinces; and any Law of the Legislature of a Province relative to Agriculture or to Immigration shall have effect in and for the Province as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada
CLICK HERE, for an immigration article State v Federal rights: Jurisdiction and the Supremacy Clause
The federal government’s jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.
However, many states have passed legislation that limits undocumented immigrants’ access to public benefits, directs state and local police to check the legal residence status of arrestees and other directives that affect immigrants. Lawmakers pressing for immigration-related state laws typically cite a lack of federal enforcement and the need to conserve limited state resources, while some cite security concerns.
But are such state laws constitutional? While state lawmakers have articulated a genuine interest in limiting illegal immigration, there is no clear line in the sand. See State Immigration Laws for a regularly updated, state-by-state directory.
Immigration Laws at the State Level
Perhaps the most notorious state attempt at regulating immigration is Arizona’s S.B. 1070, signed into law in 2010. The U.S. Dept. of Justice (DOJ) stated in a brief that Arizona lawmakers “crossed a constitutional line” with the new law. A federal judge blocked four of the most controversial elements, including the requirement that police check the immigration status of anyone they stop or suspect is in the state illegally.
Other states have passed laws with similar police directives, including Oklahoma and Utah. In addition to enforcement measures, many of the state laws addressing immigration mandate the use of E-Verify to check the employment eligibility of job applicants; require identification for voting purposes and impose restrictions on public benefits, such as food stamps and non-emergency medical care at state clinics.
Lawmakers in Arizona and Indiana directly challenged the 14th Amendment’s provision granting automatic citizenship to those born on U.S. soil, proposing legislation that would do just that. Proponents of such laws argue that the amendment’s interpretation should be narrowed to exclude children who are born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants, positioning their controversial bills for eventual review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Note: Both in Canada and the US, immigration is generally seen as a Federal matter, though Provinces/States do have some wiggle room.
Since the UN views itself as a “global citizen education” provider, it should come as no surprise that it is creeping towards having a common education curriculum.
Local and regional control is incrementally being phased out.
National pride is being replaced by global acceptance.
UN Leading To Death Of Nations Put all this in a bigger context:
Global citizens, with global values, a global education, and global “rights”;
Cultures, customs, traditions replaced by “tolerance”
Borders replaced by “integrated mechanisms”
Facilitated by global agreement for free migration;
A global ban on criticizing “religions” like Islam;
Global access to internet, but governed by the UN;
Endless EDA initiatives like Agenda 21, 2030, Paris Accord;
Governed by a world parliament
Please read this policy idea, first posted on Canucklaw over 3 months ago. You will very likely agree with the conclusion.
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
The scale, spread and speed of change brought about by digital technology is unprecedented, and the current means and levels of international cooperation are unequal to the challenge. Digital technologies make a significant contribution to the realisation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and cut uniquely across international boundaries, policy silos and professional domains. Cooperation across domains and across borders is therefore critical to realizing the full social and economic potential of digital technologies, mitigating the risks they pose, and curtailing any unintended consequences.
The High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation was convened by the UN Secretary-General to advance proposals to strengthen cooperation in the digital space among Governments, the private sector, civil society, international organizations, academia, the technical community and other relevant stakeholders.
The Panel is expected to raise awareness about the transformative impact of digital technologies across society and the economy, and contribute to the broader public debate on how to ensure a safe and inclusive digital future for all, taking into account relevant human rights norms.
A number of questions here:
1/ Is this “global cooperation” being used to advance Agenda 2030?
2/ Social potential as in what?
3/ Why strengthen cooperation? Is this a form of policing?
4/ Safe and inclusive digital future? Does this mean that opinions or ideas that don’t make people feel “safe and inclusive” will be banned?
5/ Human rights norms as in what? Censoring of ideas? Something like a global M103 (to ban criticism of Islam)?
6/ Seeing how Statistics Canada has no issue with privacy breaches, what kinds of safeguards can we expect here?
The Panel will hold two in-person meetings in September 2018 and January 2019, and will meet virtually as required.
The Panel will also seek to gather the views and proposals of Member States, relevant industries, civil society and academia worldwide through a careful consultation process. It will draw expertise from expert communities across the globe through engagement at existing events, conferences and forums as well as call for contributions from the general public through virtual hubs and online participation platforms. Two regional consultations will be organized in Asia and in Africa.
The Panel will complete its deliberations and submit its final report, including actionable recommendations, within a nine-month period. The report will map trends in digital technologies, identify gaps and opportunities, and outline proposals for strengthening international cooperation in the digital space.
FAQs Why was the Panel established?
Current means and levels of international cooperation are not commensurate with the scale and rapidity of changes brought about by digital technologies. Digital technologies cut uniquely across international boundaries. Cooperation across sectors and across borders is critical to realizing the full social and economic potential of digital technologies as well as mitigating the risks they could pose.
Why is it called High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation?
The term Digital Cooperation aims to frame discussions on digital issues in a cooperative framework; it also aims to break silos by encouraging thinking and action across domains, and build trust among various stakeholders.
What are the expected outcomes?
The Panel will submit a report that will provide a high-level independent contribution to the broader public debate on digital cooperation frameworks and support Member States in their consultations on these issues.
The report is expected to: 1) raise awareness about the transformative impact of digital technologies across society and the economy, 2) identify policy, research and information gaps as well as ways to improve interdisciplinary action on digital technologies, and 3) present concrete proposals to strengthen cooperation in the digital space in an effective and inclusive manner.
It is expected that the consultation process leading to the report will contribute to stimulating discussion among and between various stakeholder groups on how they can work together to maximize the potential of the digital transformation.
How is this different from other panels, commissions and international forums on similar topics?
The Secretary-General welcomes the increased focus on the implications of digital technologies for our society and our economy through commissions, conferences and other forums. This signifies that the timing is ripe for the digital policy ecosystem to evolve to the next level of maturity.
The work of all these initiatives can and should be mutually reinforcing. Wherever possible, this Panel will work with other initiatives and seek to identify synergies and complementarities.
How is the Panel supported?
The Panel is supported by a small Secretariat funded by donor resources, and based in New York and Geneva.
How were the Panel members selected?
The Secretary-General invited 20 independent experts with a range of professional and academic backgrounds in fields related to technology and policy. All members serve in their personal capacity, not as representatives of their affiliated institutions.
The Panel’s composition represents a broad mix of disciplines and sectors, geographic, gender and age diversity in an effort to reflect the cross-boundary nature of the digital sphere. Given that young people will be disproportionately affected by the future impact of a digital society, the Panel includes several individuals under the age of 35.
Contact and More Information
Visit the dedicated website for further information, engagement opportunities and news: www.digitalcooperation.org
For updates about the Panel, follow on Twitter at @UNSGdigicoop or sign up for the mailing list.
To provide suggestions or comments, contact the High Level Panel Secretariat at: digitalcooperation [at] unops.org
To be frank, the idea that the UN is actually getting together for “digital cooperation” is downright scary.
We already have the UN Global Migration Compact
We already have the Paris Accord
We already have a proposed UN Global Government
We already have Agenda 21
We already have Agenda 2030
We already have the Global Citizen Education Agenda
Liberal Candidate for the Burnaby by-election, Richard Lee says that he supports having the UN regulate internet activity. And the UN openly supports “digital cooperation”.
This hit-piece by the Toronto Star actually makes the Alt-Right seem very reasonable.
CLICK HERE, for the actual Toronto Star article. Here are some quotes with rebuttal
“Last Halloween, the hosts of a white nationalist podcast called The Ensign Hour discussed how to propel their ideology into the mainstream of Canadian politics. Although they pined for a “European homeland,” the co-hosts were all too aware of just how unappealing their movement remained to the political mainstream.”
As much as the multicultural crowd wants to rewrite history, Canada “was” founded and grown as a British colony, with strong French influence. As such, those powers had a very strong say in how the nation was formed. It is considered “unappealing” to point this out, since papers like the Toronto Star label truth “racist”. See the British North American Act of 1867. European roots is an actual party of Canadian identity.
“What the country’s tiny cadre of neo-Nazis and the broader alt-right movement needed was a politician who could bridge the gap between the mainstream and the far-right fringe — someone who was an unabashed supporter of “Western values,” who would clamp down on immigration and multiculturalism.
That person, they decided, was Maxime Bernier.
Last August, after the long-serving Conservative MP denounced Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s “extreme multiculturalism and cult of diversity,” the Ensign Hour hosts perked up. When Bernier declared “the death of political correctness in Canada” to his more than 65,000 Twitter followers, it was heard as a dog whistle. “
CLICK HERE, for a series of tweets Bernier made in August 2018. Calling for politicians to focus on what unites Canadians, rather than endlessly pandering to what makes us different is far right?
This is a bit confusing: Is Bernier a puppet of the far right? Or is Bernier an independent person who just happens to attract “far-right” views?
This is a dog whistle how exactly? And what is wrong with ending political correctness?
““This sets a precedent. This is a huge step forward. This opens the conversation for our people — the Europeans, the settler class — to give us permission to speak our minds,” said “Cracker Jack,” who later identified himself as Tyler Hall-Kuch on the show after the Star reached out to him for comment. “
So what’s the problem here? Legitimate discussion on Canadian identity and forced multiculturalism has long been silenced by the lunatic left. Cries of “racist, Nazism, white supremacy, etc…” are used whenever difficult topics such as this are brought up.
“In September, about a month after quitting the Conservative Party, Bernier founded the People’s Party of Canada. Pundits and rival politicians dismissed it as a vanity project, the product of Bernier’s bitterness after having lost the Conservative leadership to Andrew Scheer in 2017.”
I would actually agree, up to a point. There was a lot of resentment over the narrow 2017 loss, which saw allegations of phantom members casting ballots, and having those ballots destroyed before an audit could take place. Furthermore, many in the media “did” dismiss it as a vanity project.
Also worth noting is that Maxime Bernier quit over POLICY differences with Andrew Scheer and the CPC. Interestingly, Scheer himself avoids those issues and cites PERSONAL differences in the split. Watch both videos. They are night and day different.
“But in just four months, the PPC signed up more than 33,000 members and has become a thorn in the side of Scheer and the Conservative Party, which has been forced to protect its right flank on issues like immigration and identity. More importantly, the PPC now has electoral district associations in every one of the country’s 338 federal ridings. Considering the party was little more than an angry Twitter feed last fall, the speed of PPC’s rise is notable.”
This is actually true. The Conservative Party “has” had to protect its right flank. Seeing Bernier offer a conservative option while Scheer offered nothing has led to a big loss of support. Also true is the speed at which the People’s Party has actually been formed. Impressive considering how it was shrugged off as a lunatic fringe.
An angry Twitter feed? Am assuming this is a reference to Maclean’s writer Paul Wells commenting that Bernier’s followers “consisted of the stupidest people on Twitter”.
“But that public rejection seems to have done little to deter his alt-right supporters. The co-hosts of the Ensign Hour and others have called on members of the alt-right to infiltrate the PPC, whether the party is willing or not. As the extreme right has done elsewhere, they hope to move an adolescent political party, bit by bit, toward the political extreme, and thereby bring the political extreme toward the mainstream.”
The authors seem to conflate those wanting an all white ethno-state, with those concerned with the direction that mass migration and forced multiculturalism is leading towards. Promoting multiple identities eventually leads to parallel societies. Often, it leads to balkanization and eventual breakup of a country.
Quebec’s 1980 and 1995 sovereignty referendum were largely about protecting its own language and culture (which are forms of ethno-nationalism), but leftists don’t ever point that out. Furthermore, what 2 people choose to say on their own podcast is “their” choice.
Check out the list of 11 items in the box at the top of the article. These are the kinds of initiatives that crop up when globalism starts to creep in and nationalism is condemned. Globalism “has” creeped in at every level in Canada, but that rarely gets mentioned.
Nicola Hanson, who until recently served as the party’s Ontario organizer, disparaged Islam and Muslims in Twitter posts. “Islam is not Canadian. Canada was founded by Christianity. They do not assimilate because they don’t want to. They want to take Canada and every non Muslim country and kill non converters,” she tweeted in December 2017.
Seriously, what is untruthful here?
1/ Canada “was” founded as a Christian nation
2/ Muslims “don’t assimilate, and make endless demands. Here demanding crosses be removed. Here, demanding prayer rooms. Here, demanding segregated swim times. Here, demanding special rights to face coverings. Here, demanding segregated lunch times.
These are just a handful. A quick search will reveal thousands more
3/ Muslims “do” want to take over.
See here, see Belgium, see Spain, see Ontario.
“Some in the alt-right see an opportunity in Bernier’s statements about immigration and multiculturalism and hope he may one day be in a position to make anti-immigration policies a reality.”
So is having concerns about immigration and multiculturalism wrong?
“The alt-right is a loose movement of white nationalists, white supremacists and neo-Nazis, self-styled militias and anti-government extremists; anti-immigration, closed-border activists and anti-Muslim fanatics; conspiracists, culture warriors, men’s rights activists, anti-feminists and societal traditionalists.”
A lot to unpack here
1/ So which is it? Is this a loose fractious movement, or is it working towards common goals?
2/ What is wrong with having societal traditions? How does a nation exist without them?
3/ Related to #2, what is wrong with having and maintaining a national culture? Lefties crow about minorities getting cultural rights, but what about there being a dominant culture? You don’t have a nation without it, just balkanization.
4/ Men’s rights activists are sneered at, but don’t you support equality? What exactly is so repulsive about this group? What in their agenda is so bad?
5/ Anti-feminists? Interesting to bring them up, since modern feminism is anti-men. It also promotes free endless abortion, and rails about the non-existent pay gap.
6/ Culture warriors? Again, what is wrong with preserving your culture? Or should it be abandoned in favour of accommodation “every other” culture?
7/ Conspiracists? Read the list of 11 points above. Not really a conspiracy theory when the UN is openly pushing this globalist, anti-national agenda.
8/ Anti Muslim fanatics? So reporting anti-Islam hoaxes? Reporting Islamic violence? Media covering up coordinated Islamic violence?
9/ Anti-immigration? This often cited poll says 1/2 of Canadians want less immigration.
10/ Anti-government extremists? Wanting new options to vote for, or rejecting “traditional” parties is not anti-government. Anti-establishment, yes.
11/ Neo-nazi? I don’t suppose you could name any, or even give an approximate figure?
11/ White nationalist? Okay, to play devil’s advocate here: given how rampant ethnic and cultural pandering are among “minorities” is it any wonder that some white may now do the same? Reap what you sow.
“This restive and fractious bunch share the cause of self-preservation — namely, of Western (read: white) heritage, culture and demographics. They seek a return to “traditional” gender roles and the protection of this culture, which is invariably under attack by a host of alleged enemies: progressive politicians, leftist groups, successive waves of immigration, along with religious and sexual minorities.”
Let’s clear something up:
Those pushing for a greater unity, ETHNO-NATIONALIST, argue that who the people are matters, be it: heritage, culture, common language, traditions, way of life, and often ancestry/ethnicity, are the necessary elements for a cohesive society. EN is commonly thought to be a racial supremacist ideology, but that just isn’t the case.
Those pushing for greater freedom and individuality, CIVIC NATIONALIST, are much more likely to believe in the multicultural way of life. The cohesive unity that ethno-nationalists stress is not nearly as important as more abstract beliefs such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and acceptance rather than assimilation of newcomers.
1/ Ethno-nationalists push for a cohesive society, whereas civic nationalist want a freer society. They have very different goals.
2/ The article is surprisingly accurate about describing ethno-nationalism, but acts as if it is a bad thing.
3/ Progressive politicians “are” enemies. They let the culture go to hell in the name of appealing to everyone.
4/ Leftists groups (like the Toronto Star) lie and smear all the time.
5/ Mass immigration “does” change the fabric of society, especially when we are told to be “tolerant”, rather than newcomers to assimilate.
6/ Few people take issue with Buddhists or Pastafarians. The big problem is Islam, and having its ideology forced on other nations.
7/ Few people have a problem with LGBTQ people living their lives. It is pushing that agenda on young children and publicly forcing the issues on people that cause backlash.
“The alt-right found its stride with the election of Donald Trump, glomming onto the removal of Confederate statues in the southern United States as an example of widespread anti-white enmity. But although it had certain successes in broadening its appeal, the alt-right largely remained a street-level phenomenon, albeit one with a prolific online presence. “
Trump’s “America First” policy resonated with many Americans. However, you conflate putting your country first with open racism.
“The alt-right’s attempts to infiltrate mainstream politics is neither surprising nor particularly novel. The Ku Klux Klan did as much in the 1920s by soft-pedalling its violent past and eschewing the anti-Black rhetoric that had come to define the group. Instead, it blamed the “new” wave of immigration to the U.S. — Jews and Catholics from Europe, for the most part — for a host of perceived social ailments.
As with the Klan before them, today’s alt-right sees its future not on the street but within the corridors of power. “White supremacists had become savvy at outwardly masking their real beliefs and intentions while most wrote them off as political innocuous wackos. Having bided their time, they are re-emerging to try and capitalize on a racially recharged political climate,” wrote American sociologists Robert Futrell and Peter Simi in 2017 in the journal Contexts.”
What is left out of the article is that the KKK is a LEFT-WING organization. It started about 100 years ago as the military wing of the Democratic Party in the USA. The article also omits BLM (Black Lives Matter), another leftwing group which blames whites for all their problems.
““It’s going to be essential to the extreme right movement to continue to develop what they perceive as legitimate messaging so they can attract people into the movement that would otherwise be put off by violent force.””
Who is the extreme right? People who want their cultures, customs, language and traditions kept intact? As seen above, progressives rail against very reasonable interests of nationalists: protecting their nations.
“Yet the apparent PR push, not to mention Desveaux’s gentle reminder, has sometimes been undermined by Bernier himself. He regularly uses language favoured by the alt-right, calling Trudeau a “hypocritical virtue signaller” and denouncing feminism as “a radical left-wing ideology” like “cultural Marxism.”
Bernier’s shift to identity politics has left some of his former supporters aghast — including at least one of the advisers who worked on his Conservative leadership campaign in 2017. “For a long time a lot of us were sympathetic to Max … We went to work for the guy. We wanted him to win more than anything,” said a former member of Bernier’s leadership team, who didn’t want to be identified for fear of being targeted by Bernier’s supporters.”
Trudeau “does” go out of his way to virtue signal at every turn.
Feminism and cultural Marxism “are” radical ideologies.
““Bernier is essentially a libertarian, except that he knows that if you say you’re a libertarian you get about half a per cent of the votes, so he has to find legitimacy elsewhere,” said Quebec-based conservative pundit Jeff Plante. “It’s normal that the conservative movement would attract the anti-mass-immigration vote in the country. The problem is that Bernier isn’t legit in this. He has no past in it. It’s like he’s throwing ideas around to see what sticks.”
Logically, if you are a Libertarian, you would want little to no immigration. Your small-government ideology is threatened by importing large numbers of people who can eventually outvote you and demands bigger government.
So-called “conservatives” don’t actually conserve anything
A/ They are totally neutral on social issues
B/ They support mass immigration.
C/ They don’t see open borders as a big problem.
D/ They don’t see Canadian culture as worth protecting.
E/ They don’t see Canada’s European heritage as worth protecting.
F/ They don’t see Canada’s Christian roots as worth protecting.
G/ They don’t see the English language as worth protecting.
H/ They don’t see infant life as worth protecting.
I/ They don’t see greenspace or nature as worth protecting.
J/ They don’t see demographics as worth protecting.
K/ They don’t see the economic viability as worth protecting (huge debts).
L/ They don’t see free enterprise as worth protecting.
M/ They don’t see free speech as worth protecting.
N/ They don’t see true democracy as worth protecting.
O/ They don’t see our education as worth protecting.
But, hey, as long as Conservatives are “tolerant”, it’s okay.
“But if he is using identity politics to expand the constituency for the libertarian ideas he has long touted, he is playing a dangerous game, says Daniel Béland, director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada.
“[Bernier] would be aware that this kind of rhetoric could attract people who listen to some of the Hitler rhetoric [and] who are associated with the far right. It’s hard to imagine that he would be unaware of the ramifications of these comments,” Beland said. “Simply saying he’s against racism while at the same time attracting these people is … problematic and might turn against him over the next few months if it gets out of control.”
If you followed Bernier for any length of time, he “calls out” identity politics a lot. Important distinction that gets lost. And way to be taken seriously — just drop in the Hitler references.
“For their part, the Ensign Hour hosts have pleaded with Bernier to “drop the libertarian stuff,” as Hall-Kuch put it in a recent podcast, urging him instead to continue his criticism of immigration and multiculturalism.
“The reason why this party received any attention at all was because of its stance on immigration specifically. There was overtures to libertarian economic theory and models and ending supply management. But most people would agree that the reason why they care is because this new party’s alleged stance on immigration,” Garcia said on an Ensign Hour podcast in October.”
This is actually a valid criticism of Libertarianism: that they value “my freedom” over all else. The Nationalism point of view is that the society itself if what needs to be protected. See the above A-O list. It would be nice to see a leader address more of these issues.
This article is such nonsense that the first reaction is to write it off as a trolling piece. However, it seems the authors actually mean it.
There is a Federal by-election scheduled for February 25, 2019.
One of the ridings is Burnaby South, BC
The Liberal candidate, Richard Lee, when asked about internet regulation, openly suggested that the United Nations should regulate internet use. The crowd booed.
A Liberal MP (candidate) openly proposing regulating and controlling internet content
Interestingly, Lee is the second candidate for the Liberals in the byelection. Karen Wang was forced to step down after making a blatantly racial appeal. Wang is of Chinese descent, as is about 1/3 of the riding. She advocated only voting for her, rather than the NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, who is of East Indian descent. See this article.
Open racial identity politics, UN censorship and internet regulation.
CLICK HERE, for the January 20, 2019 article which will be reviewed. Note: This review will not be a direct debunking of Communism itself, that will come another day. Rather, just a rebuttal of a recently published article.
To any actual Commies reading this: if you are easily triggered, good. Perhaps this will knock some sense into you.
Also, in no way do I wish for the Commie party to be silenced. All parties have the right to be heard. That said, no parties are immune from having bad ideas challenged. Let’s begin:
“The third annual Women’s Marches across North America take place on January 19, and once again, millions will be in the streets. These marches are a powerful stand against gender inequality and misogyny, in direct response to the sharpening attacks against trade unions, women, Indigenous and racialized peoples, the LGBTQ2+ community and others targeted by Donald Trump’s regime and reaction in Canada. The Women’s marches are also an important day to unite against the divisive attempts by fundamentalists and transphobic bigots to derail the struggle for a truly inclusive women’s movement.”
First point: the marches themselves are divisive. It is a “women’s” march, and one of the founding principles was to unite women as a voting block? Gender based identity politics.
Third point: While complaining about “racism”, sentiments within the march are very anti-white. Hypocritical, to say the least.
Fourth point: There is a very large anti-LGBTQ attitude within the founders. Again, backing people like Farrakhan directly undermines any claim of being “inclusive”.
The Communist Party of Canada promotes this march, without realising how much hate and intolerance are ingrained within it.
“In nearly every capitalist country, the corporate attack on women’s equality gains has become a central piece of the assault against the working class and its allies. Across the globe, with a few exceptions, progress to narrow the gender pay gap, expand reproductive rights, and overcome poverty has hit major roadblocks. This trend has been ignored by mainstream media and politicians, who tend to focus mainly on revelations of sexist comments and assaults by individual politicians or executives, rather than exposing the underlying patriarchal, sexist, homophobic and transphobic ideologies which drive the wider anti-women agenda.”
The identity politics were addressed above, but here, three more claims are made: 1/ Gender pay gap; 2/ Reproductive rights; 3/ Poverty. Okay, let’s address all three.
1/ The gender pay gap (aka “Wage Gap”) is due largely to personal lifestyle choices between men and women. Men, on average, tend to: (a) work more overtime; (b) work more physical jobs; (c) work more dangerous jobs; (d) take less time off for child care; and (e) not take arts/humanities in universities.
Question for all feminists If there truly was a “wage gap”, and you could get the same production from hiring only women, why don’t companies do it? Why act “against” their own financial self interests.
2/ Reproductive rights basically means abortion. The Commies want abortion on demand, funded by taxpayers.
If you want to kill your kids, pay for it yourself
Abortion supporters (the Pro-Deathers) champion that abortion is a woman’s right, but the rights of the child are never brought up (unless the Mother wants tax-payer funded child care). Once able to breathe, have a heart beat, and move muscles, it “is” a human life. But this line of thinking shows a disturbing attitude, that a child is “disposable” if inconvenient to the mother.
3/ Poverty. This is mostly caused by poor decisions, and is related to the above (1) and (2). Women who choose to get jobs that don’t pay well, or not work at all, tend to be worse off than women who succeed. Single women having children also adds to poverty (despite male taxpayers subsidising the kids). Being poor due to bad choices is unfortunate, but hardly worthy of a national rally.
“The Women’s March protests which began in 2017 can play a vital role in building stronger popular resistance. But a narrow focus on one-day annual protests is not enough. The tendency for top-down organizing and planning of these Marches also limits the scope of the emerging fight against the entire right-wing agenda of governments that protect the status quo and the corporate profits generated by women’s inequality.”
1 Day protesting isn’t enough? Okay.
Corporate profits are generated by women’s inequality? I thought they were generated by having expanding well-run companies. And what reason would men have for being anti-women? It would just hurt mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, etc …
Anyway, what prevents women from joining these corporations and trying to get in on the riches? Due to hiring quotas, it would actually be easier than for men.
So you hate right wingers altogether? Thanks for admitting it.
“Here in Canada, a crucial federal election is just months away. The defeat of the bitterly anti-equality Harper Conservatives in 2015 gave the so-called “feminist” Justin Trudeau an easy way to avoid real action on women’s equality issues. Despite Liberal rhetoric, the gender wage gap has barely budged, the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls has bogged down, and progress on an affordable national child care program is painfully slow. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are using anti-immigrant tactics to mount a political comeback, and the openly racist, misogynist and transphobic “People’s Party” plans to nominate candidates in every federal riding. This is a moment of extreme political danger.”
1/ Not defending Harper, but what did he do that was anti-equality?
2/ Trudeau got a pass on real action? I would actually agree with you (a first), but up to a point. Again, the wage gap is caused by personal choices, the MMIWG found that most Aboriginal women were murdered by men they knew (like all women), and national child care is just an entitlement program
3/ The Conservatives — I assume you mean Scheer’s CPC — are making a political comeback using anti-immigrant tactics? Could you provide an example?
4/ People’s Party is racist, misogynistic, and transphobic? A party that routinely calls out identity politics? Again, could you provide an example?
Lots of smearing going on here, but very little in the way of specifics.
“The fight for gender equality – in Canada, and internationally – is not a side issue. Building a more powerful resistance against capitalist patriarchy is crucial to the strategy of uniting and mobilizing millions of people for social justice, full equality, Indigenous rights, and much more. In this situation, an annual day of marches makes a strong statement, but it’s no substitute for a broad, inclusive and powerful pan-Canadian coalition of equality-seeking groups, with the labour movement’s 2.5 million women members playing a crucial role. The sooner such a coalition is brought together, actively intervening to demand full equality rights, the better.”
Do you seek equality of opportunity? or
Do you seek equality of outcome?
It makes a difference. Equal opportunity for women has been the law throughout Western nations since the 1960s. Women cannot be denied anything on the basis of sex. But what you probably seek is equality of outcome, which can only be achieved through force.
“The women’s movement can count on the Communist Party to fight for women’s and gender equality rights before, during and after the 2019 federal election. The Communist Party of Canada will campaign for “Full Gender Equality NOW!”, including the following demands:”
Again, what rights don’t women have? Free handouts isn’t a right, at least not yet.
“* Restore funding for women’s equality programs.
* Close the wage gap; legislate full pay and employment equity.
* Fully implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendations, including justice for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
* Guarantee accessible and publicly funded abortion and reproductive rights services in every province and territory.
* Create a pan-Canadian childcare program – universal, public, quality, affordable childcare with Canada-wide standards and union wages for childcare workers.
* Protect women’s right to EI maternity coverage; expand parental benefits to 52 weeks.
* End all forms of violence against women and provide adequate funding for crisis centres and transition houses.
* Repeal Bill C-36 – stop criminalizing sex workers!
* No to Islamophobia! End the wars in the Middle East, zero tolerance for Islamophobic and gendered violence, and increase immigration and refugee quotas.
* Repeal the Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement, which disproportionately penalizes women fleeing poverty and violence.”
1/ The wage gap is a result of personal choices. Only way to change that is by forcing any and all jobs to be paid the same amount, regardless of type of work, skill, or hours. Basically, communism
2/ How many inquiries do we need? Especially given the RCMP findings that most of these women are killed by men they know
3/ Guarantee free abortion on demand? No. Just no.
4/ Free national childcare? Sounds lovely, but unrealistic. Take responsibility for having children.
5/ Women do have EI maternity coverage — if they have worked at a job enough hours. 52 weeks, a full year, for fathers? Nice, but unrealistic, as people will just keep having kids and never work
6/ Violence against women is illegal. And how many houses exactly do women need? Would you support shelters for men?
7/ Decriminalising sex workers? Assuming you only mean “adult” sex workers? That I agree with in part. As distasteful as it is, there are more important things for police to focus on.
8/ A lot to address in this one
(a) No to Islamphobia? Islam is a political ideology.
(b) End wars in the Middle East? Agree on that one.
(c) Zero tolerance for Islamophobic and gendered violence? Okay, but one clarification: what happens with all the “gendered violence” perpetrated in the name of Islam? They really don’t respect women.
(d) Increase immigration? No, get Canadians to have more children.
(e) Increase refugees? No, can’t screen them, and are a burden on society.
Note: with both (d) and (e) mass migration waters down Canadian culture.
9/ The safe 3rd country agreement is meant to prevent “refugees” from coming to either Canada or the US on visitor or tourist status, then crossing the border and pretending to be fleeing violence. Basically what happens at places like Roxham Road.
That should about do it. Go on their website, and everything is devoted to “social justice”, grievance politics, identity politics, and entitlement programs.
By the way: where has communism or socialism ever successfully been implemented?
(1) The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is HERE.
(2) The full text for Canada/US Safe 3rd Country is HERE, and see HERE.
(3) The proposed UN Parliament/World Government is HERE.
(4) The full text of the Paris Accord is HERE.
(5) The Multiculturalism Act is HERE.
(6) The Canadian Citizenship Act (birth tourism) is HERE.
(7) Bill C-6 (citizenship for terrorists) is HERE.
(8) M-103 (Iqra Khalid’s Blasphemy Motion) is HERE.
(9) Fed’s $595M bribery of journalists is outlined HERE.
(10) Agenda 21 (signed in June 1992) is HERE
(11) Agenda 2030 (signed in September 2015) is HERE.
Items in the above list are addressed HERE
This is the 10th piece in the open-ended series “CBC Propaganda”. For those who don’t know, CBC (a.k.a. the “Communist Broadcasting Corporation” or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”) is a state funded media outlet, which taxpayers are forced to pay. This costs in excess of $1 billion annually.
These are just a few examples of media coverage of punishment for women removing these headscarves. Any quick internet search will reveal thousands of such articles.
Of course, these strict dress codes only apply to women, not to men. Yet, Western feminists are deafeningly silent on this double standard. Perhaps by comparison, Western women have nothing to gripe about.
Rather than go into detail, I will leave it to the reader to do their own research. Why “promote” the hijab in the west, while it is clearly “oppression” under Islamic rule?
CBC, which again, gets over a billion dollars of Canadian taxpayer money every year “should” be broadcasting a far more balanced view on the subject. But objectivity seems non-existent.
Final note: CBC seems to have ignored a story it posted a year and a half ago, because it obviously doesn’t fit the narrative.
(1) The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is HERE.
(2) The full text for Canada/US Safe 3rd Country is HERE, and see HERE.
(3) The proposed UN Parliament/World Government is HERE.
(4) The full text of the Paris Accord is HERE.
(5) The Multiculturalism Act is HERE.
(6) The Canadian Citizenship Act (birth tourism) is HERE.
(7) Bill C-6 (citizenship for terrorists) is HERE.
(8) M-103 (Iqra Khalid’s Blasphemy Motion) is HERE.
(9) Fed’s $595M bribery of journalists is outlined HERE.
(10) Agenda 21 (signed in June 1992) is HERE
(11) Agenda 2030 (signed in September 2015) is HERE.
Items in the above list are addressed HERE
All personal court appearances are under “BLOG”
CBC, a.k.a The “Communist Broadbasting Corporation”, or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”, is a government funded “news” organization. It receives about $1.5 billion annually to spew out anti-Canadian stories. Taxpayers don’t get a say in the matter.
CLICK HERE, to reach the CBC Propaganda Masterlist. It is far from complete, but being added to regularly.
Spoiler alert: This article starts off by talking about University of Toronto Professor Jordan Peterson, and then meanders to entirely different topics. Seems that CBC couldn’t be bothered to ensure that there actually was a point to it. Even high school editors would perform better. Anyway….
“Ontario Premier Doug Ford held a one-on-one meeting with Jordan Peterson a week after the controversial university professor publicly urged Ford to abolish the province’s human rights commission, CBC News has learned. “
This actually is true. Peterson is a vocal advocate against Bill C-16, which not only added “gender identity or expression” to the Canadian Criminal Code and Human Rights Codes, but also resulted in “compelled speech”. However, not sure why this is controversial.
“The meeting was revealed in Ford’s appointment calendar for October and November, obtained through a freedom of information request. CBC News made the request because Ford is not providing the media with his daily public itinerary, breaking from the practice of previous premiers.”
Premier Ford doesn’t think too highly of the media, a trait shared by US President Donald Trump. Given this attitude, by Unifor, the union that represents media workers, who can blame Ford?
“CBC News cannot find any record of Ford or Peterson publicly mentioning that their Oct. 18 meeting took place.
Ford tweeted about several of his other private meetings around that date: with Dianne Martin, CEO of the Registered Practical Nurses Association, with Susan Le Jeune the British high commissioner to Canada, and with Tim Hudak, the former PC leader who is now CEO of the Ontario Real Estate Association.
Ford met with Peterson “to discuss free speech on Ontario’s university and college campuses,” the premier’s press secretary said Friday in an email to CBC News.
The meeting followed this Oct. 10 tweet by Peterson, calling for the Human Rights Commission to be abolished.”
Yes, Peterson has called for the Human Rights Commissions to be abolished. However, there is a valid reason for this: namely that these Tribunals do not uphold any human rights. They are a means to grandstand and impose absurd rulings and consequences. See this, an earlier article on the Human Rights Tribunals.
Still am not clear why it would be so controversial to at least have a meeting with a well known advocate for open inquiry and free speech.
“Peterson has garnered international attention for his critique of what he calls “politically correct” limits to free speech. The Ford government ordered Ontario’s universities and colleges last summer to put in place policies by the end of 2018 guaranteeing free speech, or they would face funding cuts.”
True, but so what? Universities are supposed to hold open inquiry dear. Sadly, a move like this was long overdue.
“”I know something about the way that totalitarian and authoritarian political states develop and I can’t help but think that I’m seeing a fair bit of that right now,” Peterson said in a lecture posted to his YouTube channel, which has 1.8 million subscribers.
Ford’s calendar for October and November shows no one-on-one meetings with any other Ontario university professors. Peterson and his publicity firm did not respond to a request for an interview or to emailed questions about the meeting.”
Seeing the language policing that goes on in schools, these comments are fitting.
The remaining 60% of the article has nothing to do with Peterson, nor is it tied back in any way. Seems that CBC never bothered to do any proofreading prior to publication.