Central Banking, Part 3: End The Fed (US)

(30 minute documentary on US Federal Reserve and deficit spending)

(60 minute video “Fiat Empire”)

Central banking, and private government loans were addressed a previous case for Canada. Also, the COMER Case 2011-2018, (Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform) was outlined.

This article covers a similar topic, but the American experience, with their Federal Reserve. We will detail an organization called “End The Fed”, which is dedicated to ending this practice.

This is what happens when you:

  • Stop backing your currency by gold
  • Allow a private bank to generate currency
  • Surrender your debt to outside interests

But hey, it regulates interest and inflation. It is good for consumers, so we are told.

1. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for Part I, To Restore 1934 Bank of Canada Act
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the COMER Case.

CLICK HERE, for endthefed.org.
CLICK HERE, for endthefed.org recommended websites.
CLICK HERE, for Federal Reserve Act.
CLICK HERE, for fractional banking.
CLICK HERE, for fractional reserves.
CLICK HERE, for a disclosure lawsuit against the Federal Reserve. Spoiler: It’s a private entity.
CLICK HERE, for verdict forcing Federal Reserve to disclose who it has been financially bailing out.
CLICK HERE, for US Federal debt by year.
CLICK HERE, for an article on Fed background.
CLICK HERE, for who owns the Federal Reserve.

2. What Is “End The Fed”?


This is a website posted to make people aware of the Federal Reserve. It contains links to books, videos, documentaries, websites, and other information.

The Federal Reserve, “the Fed”, is the central bank of the United States of America that was created in 1913 by Congress. It is a banking cartel that has a government-granted monopoly on the creation of money and credit. The Fed literally loans “money” (Federal Reserve Notes) into existence. Federal Reserve Notes are paper promises backed by nothing of intrinsic value and they are only functioning as money because the government forces them on the public through legal tender laws. Federal Reserve Notes are referred to as dollars but are not. The definition of a dollar is a weight of silver (371 grains). To put it simply, the Fed is a group of banks running a national counterfeiting operation with the protection of the government.

Why Should I Care?
Because you’re being systematically robbed and enslaved. The Fed’s counterfeiting causes the price of goods and services to rise which requires you to work harder in order to purchase them. Even with all the technological advances over the last century, you have to work just as hard or even harder to survive. The Fed is siphoning off the productivity that should have come from those technological advances. The reality is that you are working overtime solely for the benefit of some bankers who the government gave the power to conjure money out of nothing. In addition, the Fed’s counterfeiting finances the tools of the government’s oppression over you: the militarization of the police, the surveillance apparatus, and the endless wars.

If you cherish truth, freedom, justice, and want to leave behind a better world for your loved ones then you must…END THE FED! A free market, where each individual has the freedom to choose what form of money to use rather than one being forced on them, must be allowed to function in its place.

End The Fed is basically a reference site, which connects you to many great tools and resources. It is well worth spending time here. Even those who are Canadian can benefit from it, as many of the same issues the US faces also impact Canada.

3. Quotes From Federal Reserve Act


(From page 15 of 112)

DIVISION OF EARNINGS. SEC. 7. (a) DIVIDENDS AND SURPLUS FUNDS OF RESERVE BANKS.— (1) STOCKHOLDER DIVIDENDS.—
(A) DIVIDEND AMOUNT.—After all necessary expenses of a Federal reserve bank have been paid or provided for, the stockholders of the bank shall be entitled to receive an annual dividend on paid-in capital stock of—
(i) in the case of a stockholder with total consolidated assets of more than $10,000,000,000, the smaller of—
(I) the rate equal to the high yield of the 10 year Treasury note auctioned at the last auction held prior to the payment of such dividend; and
(II) 6 percent; and
(ii) in the case of a stockholder with total consolidated assets of $10,000,000,000 or less, 6 percent.
(B) DIVIDEND CUMULATIVE.—The entitlement to dividends under subparagraph (A) shall be cumulative.
(C) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall annually adjust the dollar amounts of total consolidated assets specified under subparagraph (A) to reflect the change in the Gross Domestic Product Price Index, published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis

So, if you are a stockholder in the Federal Reserve, you are guaranteed at least 6% interest on your “investment”. Talk about predatory lending.

Now, if you think that participating in this system is voluntary for banks, think again. This is from Section 2, Part 5 of the Act:

5. Failure of national bank to accept terms of Act¿ Any national bank failing to signify its acceptance of the terms of this Act within the sixty days aforesaid, shall cease to act as a reserve agent, upon thirty days’ notice, to be given within the discretion of the said organization committee or of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

6. Penalty for violation of Act by national banks¿ Should any national banking association in the United States now organized fail within one year after the passage of this Act to become a member bank or fail to comply with any of the provisions of this Act applicable thereto, all of the rights, privileges, and franchises of such association granted to it under the national-bank Act, or under the provisions of this Act, shall be thereby forfeited. Any noncompliance with or violation of this Act shall, however, be determined and adjudged by any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction in a suit brought for that purpose in the district or territory in which such bank is located, under direction of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, by the Comptroller of the Currency in his own name before the association shall be declared dissolved. In cases of such noncompliance or violation, other than the failure to become a member bank under the provisions of this Act, every director who participated in or assented to the same shall be held liable in his personal or individual capacity for all damages which said bank, its shareholders, or any other person shall have sustained in consequence of such violation

Banks don’t have the choice to “opt-out”. They are in if they want to be in this industry.

4. Blog Article From End The Fed


This is a blog entry, on reserve banking, worth a read.

Logic dictates that the ideal form of money should be durable, divisible, portable, fungible, scarce, and in demand for purposes other than a medium of exchange. Market supply and demand dynamics demonstrate that precious metals, specifically gold and silver, meet these criteria better than any other good. Many people voluntarily chose to use gold or silver as money throughout history for this reason.

So who has the power to create fiat currency? The answer is central banks. Central banks are banking cartels that have a “government” granted monopoly on the creation of fiat currency. In the United States, it’s the Federal Reserve System (the Fed). In the United Kingdom, it’s the Bank of England (the BoE). In Europe, it’s the European Central Bank (the ECB). In Japan, it’s the Bank of Japan (the BoJ). The model is the same across the world. Central banks loan fiat currency (Federal Reserve Notes, Pounds, Euros, Yen, etc) into existence. These fiat currencies often bear the name of money, such as the Federal Reserve Note bearing the word “dollar” (which is by definition a weight of silver), but they are not money. To put it simply, central banks run “legalized” counterfeiting operations with the protection and enforcement of “government.” Counterfeiting is theft because it steals purchasing power from the current holders of the currency or money and transfers it to the counterfeiter. The Fed has stolen approximately 95% of the purchasing power from the users of the Federal Reserve Note since its creation in 1913 and other central banks have similar track records. Unfortunately, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Central banks use their counterfeiting rackets to rig interest rates, bailout their cronies, fund the welfare state, fund the police state, fund the warfare state, create asset booms and busts, and stifle economic growth. You pay for all of this through lost purchasing power, whether you want to or not.

This artificial system of creating money sets up a system where the only way to pay off existing debt is to use a substantial portion of your currency.

Now, since you have used up a significant amount of your currency making debt payments, a nation now finds itself short on currency to pay for the needs of its people. How do you solve that problem? Answer, by borrowing more. This system creates a dependency where the only solution is to borrow more to pay off existing debts.

5. Fractional Reserve Banking


US banks are not required to holdanywhere near the amount of money they are lending out. They are allowed to only hold a fraction of it, hence the name “fractional banking”.

In 2016, the minimum reserves required were:

In the United States, the reserves are held in the bank’s vault or the nearest Federal Reserve Bank. The Board of Governors of the Fed set the reserve requirements and use it as one of the tools of guiding monetary policy. As at January 2016, commercial banks with deposits of less than $15.2 million were not required to maintain reserves. Banks with deposits valued at $15.2 million to $110.2 million were required to maintain the reserve requirement at 3% while those with more than $100.2 million in deposits were required to keep a reserve requirement of 10%. The Garn-St. Germain Act of 1982 exempted the first $2 million of reserve liabilities from the reserve requirements.

Bank Deposit Total Percentage required
Under $15.2M 0%
$15.2M to $100.2M 3%
Over $100.2M 10%

Let’s take a look at it. If you own a US bank, you can claim $15.2 million in deposits without actually having any. Your bank can be worth billions, and you will only be required to hold 10% of the total amount.

Lending out potentially 10 times the money that you actually have sounds absurd, yet it is entirely legal. Of course this is completely unsustainable.

6. US Federal Debt


This is very unpleasant to read, but is needed.

End of Year Debt (billions) Percent of GDP
1930 16 18%
1935 29 39%
1940 43 50%
1945 260 114%
1950 257 89%
1955 274 65%
1960 286 53%
1965 317 43%
1970 375 35%
1975 533 32%
1980 908 32%
1985 1,823 42%
1990 3,233 54%
1995 4,974 65%
2000 5,674 55%
2005 7,933 60%
2010 13,562 90%
2015 18,151 99%
2020 (est) 24,057 106%

-Trump added $3T to national debt (~15%)
-Barack Obama added almost $10T to the national debt (~50%)
-Bush Jr. added $4T (~20%)
-Clinton added $1.6T (~8%)
-Bush Sr. added $1.3T (~6.5%)
-Reagan added $1.7T (~9%)
-National debt broke $1T in 1981. More than 95% of national debt has come “after” that benchmark.

7. Who Owns Federal Reserve


(From USA Gold article)

Each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks is organized into a corporation whose shares are sold to the commercial banks and thrifts operating within the Bank’s district. Shareholders elect six of the nine the board of directors for their regional Federal Reserve Bank as well as its president. Mullins reported that the top eight stockholders of the New York Fed were, in order from largest to smallest as of 1983, Citibank, Chase Manhatten, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Bankers Trust Company, National Bank of North America, and the Bank of New York (Mullins, p. 179). Together, these banks owned about 63 percent of the New York Fed’s outstanding stock. Mullins then showed that many of these banks are owned by about a dozen European banking organizations, mostly British, and most notably the Rothschild banking dynasty. Through their American agents they are able to select the board of directors for the New York Fed and to direct U.S. monetary policy. Mullins explained,

‘… The most powerful men in the United States were themselves answerable to another power, a foreign power, and a power which had been steadfastly seeking to extend its control over the young republic since its very inception. The power was the financial power of England, centered in the London Branch of the House of Rothschild. The fact was that in 1910, the United States was for all practical purposes being ruled from England, and so it is today’ (Mullins, p. 47-48).

Admittedly, this is difficult to confirm, since the Federal Reserve tries to keep its ownership secret.

8. Conspiracy Theory: JFK’s Assassination Tied To Federal Reserve


There has long been a theory that former US President John F. Kennedy was murdered because of his opposition to the Federal Reserve. Look up “Executive Order 11110”.

Was Kennedy killed for wanting to stop this scam? I don’t know, but it is possible. It certainly was lucrative to the stockholders of the Federal Reserve.

9. System Will Collapse


As should be apparent, this system is not sustainable in the slightest.

This Federal Reserve is a bank creating its own money, and then lending it out, with interest. Note: “shareholders” are to receive a minimum of 6% return on their investments annually.

Banks operate on a “fractional reserve” system, meaning they only need to keep a portion of the actual money they claim to have on hand. Even for the biggest banks, this is capped at 10%. The same money can in fact be loaned out multiple times, since there is no requirement no have much of it on hand.

In order to finance this system, the US Government adds to its debt, year after year. This is debt that will never be paid back. The only way the US can “service the debt” is by continued economic growth. Of course, this is not possible. The dollar “used” to be backed by gold, but that is no longer the case.

The “debt ceiling” will continue to be raised, since no President or member of Congress wants to see it collapse on their watch.

But at some point it will.

World Domination: Connecting The Dots

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:

Article I
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.

Article II
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.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(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 IV:) Present mass migration as “normalized” and inevitable. Yes we will need other puppets to sign the New York Declaration, and the UN Global Migration Compact. Yes, there will be many critics, and the gaslighting should be used sparingly. There are many intellectually dishonest tactics we can use without being too obvious. Our shill media — addressed earlier — will be useful in attacking border control efforts, or even the idea of border control.

(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 UN, naturally, is a great way to centralize the consolidation of the global empire. But should the UN stop being a useful tool, we have backups in reserve.

    Just remember: taking over the world is a marathon, not a sprint.

    7. Who’s Behind All Of This?

    That will be addressed in part II, a post all by itself. There are simply too many players to do it justice in one article.

    Under 1948 UN Convention, Multiculturalism and Replacement Migration Are Genocide

    (Trudeau, speaking to the media)

    (1948 Convention On Prevention and Punishing Genocide)

    (Canadians encouraged to have less children)

    (Russian Pres. Putin: woke on the myth of civic nationalism. “We may be a multiethnic country, but we are one civilization. We are Russian, first and foremost.”)

    (Al Quds in Toronto: We execute gays, and Canada will at some point follow Sharia law. We are making babies. Your population is going down the slumps).

    Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau is in the news again. This time the MMIWG Inquiry (Missing or Murdered Indigenous Women & Girls) Inquiry has laid accusations of genocide against Canada, for doing nothing to prevent targeting killings of one group of people.

    Apparently, Trudeau believes that the findings amount to a pattern of genocide committed against Indigenous women and girls. In an effort to virtue signal, this had lead to admissions that Canada “does” engage in genocidal practices.

    As such, it is now reasonable to ask: will the UN and other foreign bodies be able to investigate Canada for genocide? Will this lead to an even bigger erosion of our sovereignty? Sadly, this is not where this article is heading. Sorry for misleading you.

    Strangely, this led to another thought: What if Canada actually “did” commit genocide, but in an entirely different way? What if mass migration, multiculturalism, forced diversity and speech codes actually led to the destruction of a nation and its people?

    The article looks at the actual 1948 UN Convention On Prevention and Punishing Genocide. It will unironically be compared to some existing laws and practices in Canada. This should be interesting.

    1. Important Links


    CLICK HERE, for the MMIWG Report.
    CLICK HERE, for the supplemental.

    CLICK HERE, for the UN Convention On Prevention and Punishing Genocide.
    CLICK HERE, for pushing for replacement of Canadian population.
    CLICK HERE, for 1988 Multiculturalism Act.
    CLICK HERE, for a previous critique of multiculturalism.
    CLICK HERE, for Iqra Khalid.
    CLICK HERE, for UN pushing global blasphemy laws.
    CLICK HERE, for Cairo Declaration on Human Rights.
    CLICK HERE, for review of Cairo Declaration.
    CLICK HERE, for Nationalist’s rejection of Conservatism and Libertarianism.

    2. Quotes From UN Convention On Genocide


    Having people killed or go missing is horrible, no doubt about it. However, it is not the only way to breach the Convention on Preventing and Punishing Genocide. See the following sections.

    Article I
    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.

    Article II
    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.

    Article III
    The following acts shall be punishable:
    (a) Genocide;
    (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
    (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
    (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
    (e) Complicity in genocide.

    Article IV
    Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

    Article V
    The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.

    Article VI
    Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.

    Article VII
    Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
    The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.

    Although killing and mass executions are an obvious and overt form of genocide, there are more subtle ways. Government, media and private organizations can work together in ways to bring about a group’s destruction “over time”. As will be demonstrated, there are ways to erase groups that don’t involve firing a shot.

    Keep in mind, Article 2 refers to “bring out the destruction, in all or in part” of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. This will be demonstrated in the coming sections.

    3. Replacement Migration


    This topic was covered in an earlier article, shown here, but the topic is worth bringing up again. While the Government is not explicitly calling for the replacement of the Canadian population, it does push 2 competing narratives:

    (A) Canadians should have less children.
    (B) Canada needs more mass migration.

    Here is the contrast from the previous article.

    (CBC wants less Canadian children)
    CLICK HERE, for “we’re only having 1 kids, and that’s okay”.
    CLICK HERE, for beware of middle child syndrome.
    CLICK HERE, for criticizing those with too many kids.
    CLICK HERE, for why I only have 1 child.
    CLICK HERE, for childless women changing culture.
    CLICK HERE, for not teaching a daughter to be polite.
    CLICK HERE, have less children to lower emissions.

    (and in case you think CBC just wants less children in general)
    CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism is critical to Canada.
    CLICK HERE, for border walls are useless.
    CLICK HERE, for nothing will stop migration.
    CLICK HERE, for Europe should have open borders.
    CLICK HERE, for Hungary’s Orban is a dictator for rejecting migration.
    CLICK HERE, for bigot Orban wanting a Christian nation.
    CLICK HERE, for Global Migration Compact is harmless.
    CLICK HERE, for Canada having 100M people by year 2100.

    The above are just a small sample of what the CBC, our state funded broadcaster, has been putting out. While calling for Canadians to have fewer (or no) children, our government also advocates for increased immigration to cover for “declining birthrates”.

    It is untrue that Canada was “always multicultural”. In the 1971 census, the population was 96% European descent. This “multiculturalism” is a phenomenon of the last 50 years. This was imposed on the population, without any democratic consent.

    While CBC is an easy target, it should be noted that politicians of all political parties promote mass migration of very different people, from very different backgrounds and cultures. Diversity is our strength, so the saying goes.

    Is this not pushing for the destruction of a group of people? Or is anything and anyone Canadian who wants to be?

    4. 1988 Multiculturalism Act


    Section 3 of the Act is the most interesting for the purposes of this article. Here it is, in its entirety:

    3 (1) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to
    (a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;
    (b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future;
    (c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation;
    (d) recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development;
    (e) ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity;
    (f) encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada’s multicultural character;
    (g) promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins;
    (h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;
    (i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and
    (j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.”

    Throughout, the Act refers to Canada’s “multicultural history”. This is a complete rewrite of history. For over 100 years, Canada had been built largely as a British colony, with heavy French regions in the east. There are also great swaths of land which belong to various Indigenous groups, and many treaties are still discussed today.

    This leaves out that the more extra cultures who gain prominence, the host(s) become diluted and weakened. They become just one of many.

    (I) and (J) are nonsensical. They want to promote languages “other than” English and French, while strengthening the status of the official languages. Newsflash, of you promote “other” languages, it leads to the weakening of the status of English and French.

    Missing from Section 3 (or any section) is a description of what Canada actually is. All this says is that it is a “collection of identities”. We are told repeatdly that “diversity is our strength”, but with no explanation of how so.

    This part, while nice, omits a crucial detail: how does a group preserve their language and culture? Simple, get like people together, form an enclave, and preserve their identity. This type of legislation directly leads to balkanization.

    5. Destruction of Religious Groups

    Let’s address the elephant in the room: Islam. Liberal idiots seem to believe we can co-exist with a group whose stated (and practiced) goals are the destruction of anyone who doesn’t share their beliefs.

    Despite plenty of available evidence, Liberals believe that mass Islamic migration and nurturing the growth of Islam is somehow “showing diversity and tolerance”.

    Look familiar?

    M103 – Systemic racism and religious discrimination
    That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    Islam does not permit the survival of non-muslims. To help achieve this goal, efforts are being made to shut down and ban criticism of Islam. But hey, diversity is our strength.

    6. Erasing Our Heritage


    Removing the statue of our nation’s founder is a pretty overt symbol of our nation being established.

    Naming a park in Winnipeg, MB, after an Islamic warlord named Jinnah (hence Jinnah Park), to celebrate the Muslim takeover of half of India is another symbol of our history being erased.

    There are too many cases to cite, but those are a few recent and obvious ones. Canadian history is being erased.

    7. Is Multiculturalism & Mass Migration “Genocide”?


    Let’s go through the list

    • Founding people of a nation are replaced.
    • Culture is replaced in favour of “multiculturalism”.
    • Common language becomes just one of many.
    • Main religion (Christianity) is removed, often through violence.
    • Heritage and history are removed.

    The ironically named “Conservatives” do nothing to actually conserve what our nation is. As such, they are complicit in its breakdown.

    Yes, it is fair to say that Canadian laws are in fact leading to the genocide of certain groups in Canada. But hey, diversity is our strength.

    8. What Was IN MMIWG Report Anyway?


    It would not be fair to readers to not at least address this topic.

    The conclusions of the MMIWG Report is that these victims are not given the care and seriousness they should have.

    1.1. The National Inquiry’s Mandate The Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec entrusted a very broad mandate to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, for Quebec.

    First, according to Order 711-2016 that created the provincial commission of inquiry, the National Inquiry had to “investigate” and “report on” two main topics: the systemic causes of all forms of violence, and the institutional policies and practices implemented in response to the violence against Indigenous women and girls. To that end, the National Inquiry’s mandate included reviewing the factors that could be associated with the relationships between public services under Quebec’s constitutional jurisdictions, including police forces, health facilities, social and educational services, and Indigenous people more generally.

    In addition, the National Inquiry had a mandate to “make recommendations.” These recommendations had to focus on two objectives: to propose concrete and sustainable actions to be implemented to prevent situations of violence against Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people, and to significantly improve the quality of relationships between Indigenous people and public services.

    Noticeably absent is any mention of “solving the cases” of these women and girls. In fact, the mandate is not about solving any of these murders or disappearances.

    In fact, it is a report about various “marginalizations” that these women face. Very little of it has anything to do with the cases of the missing/murdered women.

    Canuck Law Now Certified In Gender Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) Training (Not Satire)

    (Getting into gay marriage)

    (men, women, and non-binary….)

    (Every identity group imaginable)

    (Yes, forestry is sexist, just like construction)

    1. Important Links


    CLICK HERE, to take GBA+ course.
    CLICK HERE, for UN link to “gender inclusive language”.
    CLICK HERE, for previous “peoplekind” review.

    CLICK HERE, for the UN page on gender equality.
    CLICK HERE, for women’s human rights.
    CLICK HERE, for about UN women.
    CLICK HERE, for goal #5 of sustainable development.
    CLICK HERE, for guiding principles of UN women’s advisory, civil society groups.
    CLICK HERE, for the Commission on the Status of Women.
    CLICK HERE, for Canada’s GBA+ (Gender Based Analysis Plus)
    CLICK HERE, for declaration of women’s rights.
    CLICK HERE, for the 1995 Beijing Declaration for Women.
    CLICK HERE, for the 2017 system-strategy for gender parity.
    CLICK HERE, for gender-inclusive language
    CLICK HERE, for guidelines for gender inclusive language.
    CLICK HERE, for tools & training for gender inclusive language.

    2. About The Course

    This course is designed as a basic introduction to GBA+. You will learn to define the key concepts of GBA+ and recognize how various identity factors can influence the experience of federal government initiatives. You will learn to identify how GBA+ can enhance the responsiveness, effectiveness and outcomes of federal government initiatives while applying some foundational GBA+ concepts and processes.

    3. What Is GBA+ About?

    Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA+) is an analytical process used to assess how diverse groups of women, men and non-binary people may experience policies, programs and initiatives. The “plus” in GBA+ acknowledges that GBA+ goes beyond biological (sex) and socio-cultural (gender) differences. We all have multiple identity factors that intersect to make us who we are; GBA+ also considers many other identity factors, such as race, ethnicity, religion, age, and mental or physical disability.

    To state the glaringly obvious: this “course” embraces intersectionality, oppression complexes, and identity politics.

    Once you have completed this course, you will be able to:
    -Define the key concepts of GBA+
    -Recognize how various identity factors can influence the experience of federal government initiatives
    -Identify how GBA+ can enhance the responsiveness, effectiveness and outcomes of federal government initiatives
    -Apply some foundational GBA+ concepts and processes

    Whatever happened to treating everyone equally?

    This course is designed as a basic introduction to GBA+. Depending on previous experience, you may find the content familiar while others find it new and challenging. Also, depending on your job, you may be required to take additional training in GBA+.

    Kill me now.

    Regardless of your experience, education and current situation, this is your place to begin. The course includes video, graphic and written material for your review, as well as exercises to test your knowledge. Character profiles and case studies will assist you in applying some basic GBA+ concepts and processes. Take as much time as you require, and keep in mind that you can come back to the course as many times as you like.

    Doesn’t seem too difficult….

    You will need to score 80% or higher on this quiz to receive a certificate of completion. If you require a fourth attempt to pass the final quiz, you will be redirected to the beginning of the course.

    Where’s the cyanide when you need it?

    Now that you have gathered some information about the forest sector, it is time to seek out stakeholder perspectives on the issues of innovation and diversification in the forest sector.
    Think about which stakeholders to consider, as well as what value to place on their perspectives. For instance, if you place the highest value on consensus during your consultation and recommendation process, you risk not hearing important minority voices among your stakeholder group.
    Who is traditionally consulted? Who may get left out of the discussion, if, for example, forestry executives are consulted as a key group of stakeholders? Women and Indigenous peoples are under-represented in management positions in the forest sector and on the corporate boards most likely to seek participation in consultations. Are Indigenous leaders consulting the broader community?
    -Will the same engagement process work for all stakeholders? What are potential barriers to participation faced by different groups among your stakeholders?
    -How might socio-economic status and family responsibilities affect access to consultations? Could certain factors prevent front-line workers or women from participating in the discussion? Measures such as holding meetings during working hours might allow these groups to participate.
    -In this case, it would be particularly useful to consult those with knowledge of local ecosystems, including Indigenous forest sector organizations/representatives, community groups and other experts.

    4. Taking The Test


    Question 1 (Select the best answer.)
    Gender is:
    Roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society may construct or consider appropriate for men and women
    Biological and physiological characteristics that define men, women and intersex persons
    That’s right!

    Question 2 (Select the best answer.)
    GBA+ is conducted to:
    Examine the effects of policies, programs, and initiatives on diverse groups of women, men and non-binary people
    Ensure equality for women
    Promote pay equity
    That’s right!

    Question 3 (True or false.)
    Historical disparities do not need to be considered in the development of new policies, programs, and legislation.
    True
    False
    That’s right!

    Question 4 (True or false.)
    Before you begin developing a policy or program, you will already know whether an issue impacts diverse groups of women, men and non-binary people differently based on your individual experience.
    True
    False
    That’s right!

    Question 5 (Select the best answer. )
    Who is responsible for applying GBA+?
    The head of the organization
    Human resources officials
    Status of Women Canada
    Gender specialists
    Any official in an organization who is contributing to government initiatives
    Deputy Ministers
    That’s right!

    Question 6 (True or false.)
    Conducting GBA+ will always conclude that disparities exist between men and women.
    True
    False
    That’s right!

    Question 7 (Select all that apply.)
    Steps in the GBA+ process include:
    Checking your assumptions
    Gathering information and considering diverse stakeholder perspectives
    Consulting your organization’s Employment Equity policy
    You did not select the correct response(s).

    Question 8 (Select the best answer.)
    Which of these situations reflects bias/discrimination due to intersecting identity factors, as opposed to a single factor?
    A gay, white man is refused a construction job, even though he has all the necessary skills and experience
    An Indigenous woman is refused a job at a factory where many Indigenous men work “on the floor” in the factory and many women work in the administrative office
    That’s right!

    Question 9 (Select the best answer. )
    Parental leave policies are an example of a flexible approach because:
    Women and men are treated the same way
    Both women and men may apply
    It takes into account the evolving needs and circumstances of diverse parents
    That’s right!

    Question 10 (Select all that apply.)
    Documenting the GBA+ process can assist you with:
    Demonstrating to senior management that a thorough analysis has been undertaken in developing options
    Developing communications strategies to explain decisions
    Populating a bibliography
    That’s right!

    5. Final Thoughts


    It was possible to pass the quiz (8 of 10 questions required), on the first try, just from winging it. Just try to imagine the most SJW answers possible.

    Certificate arrived in about 10 minutes.

    The survey insisted on knowing my gender. I am a unicorn.

    S3CA: Response To Motion To Strike


    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

    ISSUES

    FACTS

    APPLICABLE LAW
    -Right to self-representation
    -Federal Court jurisdiction
    -Private & Public standing
    -Charter Provisions Engaged

    • 91 (POGG)
    • 15 (Equality)
    • 35 (Indigenous Rights)
    • 38 (Amending process)

    -Unjust enrichment
    -Unconscionability
    -High burden to strike out
    -Amending as an option
    -Defense misrepresentation

    ORDER SOUGHT


    1. Written Submissions

    2. Issues


    -Does the Plaintiff have the right to self represent in this case?
    -Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction to hear the case?
    -Is there private or public interest standing in this case?
    -Are the following Constitutional provisions engaged: 91 (POGG), 15 (equality rights), 35 (Indigenous rights), 38 (amending the constitution)?
    -Does allowing fake refugees into Canada violate the doctrine of unjust enrichment?
    -Does allowing fake refugees into Canada violate the doctrine of unconscionability?
    -Does this motion meet the “very” high burden to strike out?
    -Is amending the Claim a better option?
    -Does the Government lawyer misrepresent the facts?

    3. Facts

    1. Canada the US signed the S3CA in 2002. It came into effect in 2004.

    2. Canada is recognized as a safe country, which provides protection to people seeking genuine asylum

    3. The United States is also recognized as a safe country, and offers protection to people seeking protection from persecution based on: race, religion , political beliefs, and identity

    4. Both Canada and the US receive hundreds of thousands of refugee applications annually.

    5. Although there is a loophole in the agreement (which omits crossings “between” official ports), it was never meant to be a path for illegal immigration, or fraudulent refugee claims.

    6. Crossings from the US into Canada mainly fall into 2 categories:
      (a) Those coming to the US on tourist visas, with the intent of using the US as a stopover country,
      (b) Those living in the US illegally, who have decided to “asylum shop”

    7. There are AT LEAST 40,000 illegals who have snuck into Canada, likely many more.

    8. The Plaintiff is a self-representing, Canadian citizen, concerned about the impacts of illegal immigration. She is interested both as a private citizen, a taxpayer, and as a Canadian.

    9. Preventing illegal immigration (and bogus refugee claims), is both a private interest, and a public interest.

    10. Self represented people have every right to have their cases heard in court.

    11. Illegal immigration (such as via this loophole) undermines the integrity of the immigration system, costs cities and provinces money they don’t have, and undermines the security of the country

    12. For example, the Mayor of Toronto, John Tory, has reported that illegals have taken up almost half of the available space in homeless shelters

    13. The Federal Government has had to reimburse the Provinces (mainly Quebec and Ontario), over $300 million so far due to costs these “refugee claimants” have racked up.

    14. The Federal Government has also been paying the homeowners near Roxham Road — using taxpayer money — for the damage caused to their properties.

    15. Recently, a group of illegal “refugee claimants” has announced plans to sue Quebec for subsidized daycare.

    16. The flood of fake refugees has caused a strain on the health care system, particularly in Ontario and Quebec.

    17. All of the above statements are not “mere assertions”. They are facts which can be proven in the course of the trial and via discovery.

    18. The Government makes at least 3 serious misrepresentations.

    19. First, the Government’s lawyer, Aman Owais, misrepresents the truth when claiming the loophole was “intentionally” written into the agreement. This is provably false, since even Trudeau has publicly spoken about the need to cut the illegal border crossings.

    20. Second, there is a strawman argument that this is about refugee protections. Wrong, it is about protecting the public from illegal immigration.

    21. Third, and furthermore, Aman Owais suggests that it would be better to have a refugee claimant make this claim. This is complete nonsense. A person using legal channels wouldn’t be impacted by this case. A person using illegal means to enter Canada would have no reason to pursue this, as it would be a big conflict of interest.

    4. Applicable Law

    22: Self representing litigants: From Pintea v. Johns, [2017] 1 SCR 470, 2017 SCC 23 (CanLII)

    [3] As a result, the finding of contempt cannot stand.
    [4] We would add that we endorse the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) (online) established by the Canadian Judicial Council.
    https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_other_PrinciplesStatement_2006_en.pdf
    B. PROMOTING EQUAL JUSTICE
    STATEMENT:
    Judges, the courts and other participants in the justice system have a responsibility to promote access to the justice system for all persons on an equal basis, regardless of representation.
    PRINCIPLES:
    1. Judges and court administrators should do whatever is possible to provide a fair and impartial process and prevent an unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.
    2. Self-represented persons should not be denied relief on the basis of a minor or easily rectified deficiency in their case.
    3. Where appropriate, a judge should consider engaging in such case management activities as are required to protect the rights and interests of self-represented persons. Such case management should begin as early in the court process as possible.
    4. When one or both parties are proceeding without representation, non-prejudicial and engaged case and courtroom management may be needed to protect the litigants’ equal right to be heard. Depending on the circumstances and nature of the case, the presiding judge may:
    (a) explain the process;
    (b) inquire whether both parties understand the process and the procedure;
    (c) make referrals to agencies able to assist the litigant in the preparation of the case;
    (d) provide information about the law and evidentiary requirements;
    (e) modify the traditional order of taking evidence; and
    (f) question witnesses.

    23: There is nothing in the Pintea v. Johns ruling that says self-represented people can “only” appear in certain courts or in certain types of cases

    Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear the case

    24: Consider that the test for determining if a matter is within the Federal Court’s jurisdiction is stipulated in ITO-International Terminal Operators LTD v Miida Electronics, 1986 CanLII 91 (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 752 at 766 [ITO-International]:

    1. There must be a statutory grant of jurisdiction by Parliament.
    2. There must be an existing body of federal law which is essential to the disposition of the case and which nourishes the statutory grant of jurisdiction.
    3. The law on which the case is based must be “a law of Canada” as the phrase is used in s. 101 of the Constitution Act.

    Furthermore, the Federal Courts Act (under Rule 25) has original jurisdiction if no other court is designated as such.
    Extraprovincial jurisdiction.

    Rule 25: The Federal Court has original jurisdiction, between subject and subject as well as otherwise, in any case in which a claim for relief is made or a remedy is sought under or by virtue of the laws of Canada if no other court constituted, established or continued under any of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 has jurisdiction in respect of that claim or remedy.

    25: Although designed for Judicial Review Applications, the Federal Court does have authority under Rule 18.1(5) of Federal Courts Act to correct errors in form or technical defects. The Federal Court has the powers (under 47(1) and 53(1) and (2) of Federal Courts Rules), to ask with a wide degree of discretion and to make orders it views as just.

    Defect in form or technical irregularity,
    (5) If the sole ground for relief established on an application for judicial review is a defect in form or a technical irregularity, the Federal Court may
    (a) refuse the relief if it finds that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred; and
    (b) in the case of a defect in form or a technical irregularity in a decision or an order, make an order validating the decision or order, to have effect from any time and on any terms that it considers appropriate.

    26: Immigration matters are within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. And this case is essentially about illegal immigration and border security. Furthermore, if this case prevailed, it would certainly have an impact on how asylum claims were handled in the future.

    27: The Canadian Border Services Agency enforces the border, and enforces approximately 90 different acts. So there is ample Federal law to be looked at here. They are given their authority under the Customs Act.

    28: Furthermore, CBSA enforces such acts as

    Access to Information Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1]
    Aeronautics Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. A-2]
    Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act [S.C. 1995, c. 40]
    Appropriation Acts [R.S.C. 1985, c. Z-01 ]
    Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3]
    Canada Agricultural Products Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. 20 (4th Supp.)]
    Canada Grain Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. G-10]
    Canada Post Corporation Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-10]
    Canada Shipping Act, 2001 [S.C. 2001, c. 26]
    Canada Transportation Act [S.C. 1996, c. 10]
    Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 1997, c. 14]
    Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 2001, c. 28]
    Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 1996, c. 33]
    Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 1988, c. 65]
    Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 [S.C. 1999, c. 33]
    Canadian Wheat Board Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-24]
    Coasting Trade Act [S.C. 1992, c. 31]
    Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-38]
    Criminal Code [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46]
    Cultural Property Export and Import Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-51]
    Customs and Excise Offshore Application Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-53]
    Customs Tariff [S.C. 1997, c. 36]
    Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. A-9]
    Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act [S.C. 1994, c. 31]
    Department of Industry Act [S.C. 1995, c. 1]
    Energy Efficiency Act [S.C. 1992, c. 36]
    Excise Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-14]
    Excise Act, 2001 [S.C. 2002, c. 22]
    Excise Tax Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15]
    Explosives Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-17]
    Export Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-18]
    Export and Import Permits Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-19]
    Feeds Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-9]
    Fertilizers Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-10]
    Financial Administration Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11]
    Firearms Act [S.C. 1995, c. 39]
    Fish Inspection Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-12]
    Fisheries Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14]
    Food and Drugs Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-27]
    Harbour Commissions Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. H-1]
    Hazardous Products Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. H-3]
    Health of Animals Act [S.C. 1990, c. 21]
    Immigration and Refugee Protection Act [S.C. 2001, c. 27]
    Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. I-3]
    Industrial and Regional Development Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. I-8]
    International Boundary Commission Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. I-16 ]
    Meat Inspection Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. 25 (1st Supp.)]
    Motor Vehicle Safety Act [S.C. 1993, c. 16]
    National Defence Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. N-5]
    National Energy Board Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. N-7]
    Navigable Waters Protection Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. N-22]
    Nuclear Safety and Control Act [S.C. 1997, c. 9]
    Pest Control Products Act [S.C. 2002, c. 28]
    Pilotage Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-14]
    Plant Breeders’ Rights Act [S.C. 1990, c. 20]
    Plant Protection Act [S.C. 1990, c. 22]
    Precious Metals Marking Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-19]
    Preclearance Act [S.C. 1999, c. 20]
    Privacy Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21]
    Privileges and Immunities (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-24]
    Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act [S.C. 2000, c. 17]
    Radiation Emitting Devices Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. R-1]
    Radiocommunication Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. R-2]
    Seeds Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. S-8]
    Special Economic Measures Act [S.C. 1992, c. 17]
    Special Import Measures Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. S-15]
    Statistics Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. S-19]
    Textile Labelling Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. T-10]
    Trade-marks Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13]
    Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 [S.C. 1992, c. 34]
    Visiting Forces Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. V-2]
    Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act [S.C. 1992, c. 52]
    Source: https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/actreg-loireg/legislation-eng.html

    29: The border clearly is being protected in accordance with Federal laws, and Acts passed by Parliament. So loopholes which make it harder for them to do their job at least conflict with Federal laws.

    30: It has also long been held that,

    The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Constitution does not belong to the federal or provincial governments, but to Canadian citizens (Nova Scotia (AG)), and that it is a tool for dispute resolution, of which one of the most important goals is to serve well those who make use of it: Reference Re Residential Tenancies Act, 1996 CanLII 259 (SCC), [1996] 1 SCR 186 at 210.

    There private & public interest standing in this case

    31: Three cases which are used to determine public interest standing are:

    (a) Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, (b) Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, and (c) Minister of
    Justice v. Borowski. The trilogy was summarized as follows in Canadian Council of
    Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

    It has been seen that when public interest standing is sought, consideration must be given to three aspects.
    First, is there a serious issue raised as to the invalidity of legislation in question?
    Second, has it been established that the plaintiff is directly affected by the legislation or if not does the plaintiff have a genuine interest in its validity?
    Third, is there another reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the court?

    32: First: if this “interpretation” of the S3CA is as the Government claims, then effectively the Canada/US border disappears, except for a small number of official crossings. That is pretty serious. Illegal immigration cannot simply be shrugged off if it is not the government raising the issue.

    33: Second: Yes, I am effected by illegal immigration. As a taxpayer, and as a citizen who wants secure borders. Clearly I have a genuine interest here. Why else go to court to do this? It is insulting and misrepresents reality to suggest that citizens are not concerned and interested in the external security of their nation.

    34: Third, there doesn’t seem to be another reasonable or effective way to bring it to the Courts. It is the Government itself, with a majority mandate, which seems content to end-run the intent of the law.

    35: Note: Public-interest standing is also available in non-constitutional cases, as the Court found
    in Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance)

    36: Plaintiff submits that there clearly is standing to bring forward these justiciable issues on the facts pleaded. This standing is personal, but it is also public interest-based and is in line with recent jurisprudence: Canada (Attorney General) v Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45 (CanLII); Galati, above.

    Following Constitutional provisions engaged:

    • 91(POGG),
    • 15 (equality rights),
    • 35 (Indigenous rights),
    • 38 (amending the constitution)

    Peace, Order & Good Governance (Section 91)

    37: Consider the case of R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd., [1988] 1 SCR 401, 1988 CanLII 63 (SCC).

    33. From this survey of the opinion expressed in this Court concerning the national concern doctrine of the federal peace, order and good government power I draw the following conclusions as to what now appears to be firmly established:

    1. The national concern doctrine is separate and distinct from the national emergency doctrine of the peace, order and good government power, which is chiefly distinguishable by the fact that it provides a constitutional basis for what is necessarily legislation of a temporary nature;

    2. The national concern doctrine applies to both new matters which did not exist at Confederation and to matters which, although originally matters of a local or private nature in a province, have since, in the absence of national emergency, become matters of national concern;

    3. For a matter to qualify as a matter of national concern in either sense it must have a singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility that clearly distinguishes it from matters of provincial concern and a scale of impact on provincial jurisdiction that is reconcilable with the fundamental distribution of legislative power under the Constitution;

    38: In looking this through the Peace, Order and Good Government (POGG) doctrine, it is worth asking should we allow actions that our laws seem designed to prevent?

    34(1)(b.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act prohibits: engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada.

    39: Allowing fake refugees to slip in arounf official border ports in order to “jump the queue” seems hardly in keeping with the POGG principle, or Rule 34(1)(b.1). Again, it is submitted that poor wording, not intent is the cause of this loophole.

    40: The Court must also consider the national security implications of protecting the border. This should be obvious, but a nation that cannot control its border ceases to be a nation.

    41: Currently, illegal border jumpers (fleeing war zones in Minnesota and New York State), are able to illegally enter Canada. They are processed, then released into the public often within hours. There is no public interest in doing this.

    42: Given the vast amount of unscreened and unvetted fake “refuges” entering, there is no way to keep the public safe. This is not consistent with POGG in any sense.

    43: Again, the Government’s lawyer “claims” that this loophole was intentionally written into the S3CA. This is even while Justin Trudeau and other Government members profess their desire to cut illegal entries. Obviously, both statements can’t be true.

    44: As cited above, there are literally dozens of Acts which members of the CBSA are charged with enforcing. Obviously, enforcing the border is a sign of POGG. Now, how does adding a loophole to bypass some of these Acts make any sense?

    45: How does it now undermine our national security? Borders are meant to be the protected outer areas of a nation. No one, except the most disingenuous would argue that borders do not matter. However, the Government does an end run around that (violating POGG doctrine), by claiming the loophole in the S3CA was intentional.

    46: Border security “doesn’t” matter, apparently, as long as you go around the official checkpoints.

    Section 15; Equality Rights:

    47: This seems like a strange one to bring up. However, the Government of Canada’s website on Charter cases brought up an interesting argument about equality under the law.

    (a) Pre-existing disadvantage, stereotyping, prejudice, or vulnerability experienced by the individual or group at issue
    Section 15 has a significant remedial component (Andrews, supra at 171). Therefore, one of the most compelling factors is the impact of the governmental action on individuals or groups who are vulnerable, the object of stereotypes, disadvantaged or members of “discrete and insular minorities” (Law, supra at paragraphs 63-68). A member of a group that historically has been more disadvantaged in Canadian society is less likely to have difficulty in demonstrating discrimination (Law, supra at paragraph 68). When considering intra-group distinctions within a larger disadvantaged group (for example, as between status and non-status Indians, as determined pursuant to the Indian Act), there is no requirement that the claimant group be the more disadvantaged; there is no “race to the bottom” (Lovelace, supra at paragraph 69). Where no such unique disadvantage is established, as distinct from the broader group which provides the basis for comparison, this factor does not play a significant role (Gosselin, supra; Martin; Laseur, supra at paragraph 88).

    48: In this case, the disadvantaged people are those who immigrate legally into Canada, and go through proper channels.
    True, Canada’s immigration system is slow, expensive, and very complex. But that is a debate for another day. Point is, hundreds of thousands of people follow proper due process every year.

    49: They are the ones who suffer as “border jumpers” push ahead of them, and get preferential treatment, and access to benefits. Furthermore, they are the ones who suffer the public backlash as Canadian get fed up with mass, illegal immigration.

    50: In short, legal applicants suffer because of the actions of criminals.

    Section 35: Indigenous Rights

    51: From the case: Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR 511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII), the issue of duty to consult to brought up.

    26 Honourable negotiation implies a duty to consult with Aboriginal claimants and conclude an honourable agreement reflecting the claimants’ inherent rights. But proving rights may take time, sometimes a very long time. In the meantime, how are the interests under discussion to be treated? Underlying this question is the need to reconcile prior Aboriginal occupation of the land with the reality of Crown sovereignty. Is the Crown, under the aegis of its asserted sovereignty, entitled to use the resources at issue as it chooses, pending proof and resolution of the Aboriginal claim? Or must it adjust its conduct to reflect the as yet unresolved rights claimed by the Aboriginal claimants?

    27 The answer, once again, lies in the honour of the Crown. The Crown, acting honourably, cannot cavalierly run roughshod over Aboriginal interests where claims affecting these interests are being seriously pursued in the process of treaty negotiation and proof. It must respect these potential, but yet unproven, interests.

    52: The case of Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII), should also be considered, and for much the same principle.

    25 As discussed in Haida, what the honour of the Crown requires varies with the circumstances. It may require the Crown to consult with and accommodate Aboriginal peoples prior to taking decisions: R. v. Sparrow, 1990 CanLII 104 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075, at p. 1119; R. v. Nikal, 1996 CanLII 245 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013; R. v. Gladstone, 1996 CanLII 160 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010, at para. 168. The obligation to consult does not arise only upon proof of an Aboriginal claim, in order to justify infringement. That understanding of consultation would deny the significance of the historical roots of the honour of the Crown, and deprive it of its role in the reconciliation process. Although determining the required extent of consultation and accommodation before a final settlement is challenging, it is essential to the process mandated by s. 35(1). The duty to consult arises when a Crown actor has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of Aboriginal rights or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect them. This in turn may lead to a duty to change government plans or policy to accommodate Aboriginal concerns. Responsiveness is a key requirement of both consultation and accommodation.

    53: It is a serious question here: how much consultation (if any), was done before signing a document that — the Federal Government now claims — eliminates the security of the Canada/US border? Just because there isn’t a claim pending doesn’t mean there are not valid Indigenous interests to be considered

    54: No consultation process took place — EVER — which would fulfill the obligations to negotiate in good faith with Indigenous groups. The Government claims that the S3CA was “designed” to allow for entrants from the United States to make refugee claims, as long as they bypass the official border ports.

    It would be disingenuous for the Federal Government to claim that it wouldn’t be aware of any obligation to consult prior to “erasing” the US/Canada border.

    55: The Government breached is S35 obligations if, by this defense, the S3CA was drawn up with the loophole “intentionally” left in.

    Substantial Consent required (section 38)

    56: If the Government truly believes that POGG, and other obligations can be circumvented by intentional poor wording, then we need to amend the constitution to change what POGG means.

    57: This was decided regarding the issue of changing the Senate rules (Reference re Senate Reform, [2014] 1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38). The Court cited the amending procedure.

    [34] The process set out in s. 38 is the general rule for amendments to the Constitution of Canada. It reflects the principle that substantial provincial consent must be obtained for constitutional change that engages provincial interests. Section 38 codifies what is colloquially referred to as the “7/50” procedure — amendments to the Constitution of Canada must be authorized by resolutions of the Senate, the House of Commons, and legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces whose population represents, in the aggregate, at least half of the current population of all the provinces. Additionally, it grants to the provinces the right to “opt out” of constitutional amendments that derogate from “the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province”.

    58: If what the Government says is true, then the doctrine of Peace, Order and Good Government (POGG) has been distorted to such a degree that a Constitutional amendment should be required.

    59: These constitutional arguments are not exhaustive, and will be expanded on more fully as the case progresses. The point here, is that the case at hand (the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement), engages the same Charter rights as what is cited here.

    Doctrine of unjust enrichment

    60: The Court must also consider how allowing illegal immigration and fake refugees to gain priority over legal immigrant violates the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

    61: Citing from 3 cases:
    Kerr v. Baranow, [2011] S.C.J.
    Kerr v. Baranow, 2009 BCCA 111
    Vanasse v. Seguin, 2009 ONCA 595

    62: These cases set the standard for unjust enrichment. (a) the person received a benefit, (b) the claimant suffered a loss corresponding in some way to the benefit, and (c) there was no juristic reason for the benefit and the loss.

    63: As stated in the facts, these so-called “refugees” have been accessing public services. This costs money, and takes away from actual citizens.

    64: And forget the money factor for a moment. Isn’t Canadian residence or citizenship a thing of value itself? If we consider that being Canadian is something to be valued, then doesn’t obtaining it (or Permanent Residence, or Protected Status) under false pretenses count as illegally obtaining a benefit?

    Doctrine of unconscionability

    65: From the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, trying to circumvent proper immigration channels should not be rewarded.

    34(1)(b.1) engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;

    66: If the loophole in S3CA was written in such a way as to circumvent very legitimate national security and immigration concerns, then how valid and enforceable is it?

    67: Remember, Aman Owais, (the Government’s lawyer) has pleaded the intent of the agreement was “not” to apply the proper screening rules as long as self-identified “refugees” bypass official border ports. This is claimed to be intentional, not accidental.

    68: Notwithstanding that no reasonable person could view it that way, and notwithstanding the Canadian Government has made announcements to cut down on these crossings, how valid are these provisions?

    Does this motion meet the “very” high burden to strike out

    69: Even if there are deficiencies in the Statement of Claim, they can usually be cured by filing an “amended” Statement of Claim. That must always be considered when asked to strike out. This is settled by a great many cases.

    In terms of the general principles that ought to be applied on a motion to strike, the Plaintiffs assert that the facts pleaded by the Plaintiffs must be taken as proven: Canada (Attorney General) v Inuit Tapirasat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] 2 SCR 735; Nelles v Ontario (1989), DLR (4th) 609 (SCC) [Nelles]; Operation Dismantle, above; Hunt v Carey Canada Inc 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 959 [Hunt]; Dumont v Canada (Attorney General), 1990 CanLII 131 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 279 [Dumont]; Nash v Ontario (1995), 1995 CanLII 2934 (ON CA), 27 OR (3d) 1 (Ont CA) [Nash]; Canada v Arsenault, 2009 FCA 242 (CanLII) [Arsenault].

    The Plaintiffs echo the test referenced by the Defendants, asserting that a claim can be struck only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading is bad beyond argument: Nelles, above, at para 3. The Court has provided further guidance in Dumont, above, that an outcome should be “plain and obvious” or “beyond doubt” before striking can be invoked (at para 2). Striking cannot be justified by a claim that raises an “arguable, difficult or important point of law”: Hunt,

    The history of our law reveals that often new developments in the law first surface on motions to strike or similar preliminary motions, like the one at issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson. Therefore, on a motion to strike, it is not determinative that the law has not yet recognized the particular claim.

    70: This case DOES raise an important point of law, one the Defendant pretends doesn’t exist. Can the Court close a plain and obvious loophole in the S3CA?

    71: Can a clearly frivilious, fraudulent, abusive and vexxing defense filed by the Crown be overcome?

    72: Note: this does not amount to a rejection of the agreement as a whole. For the most part, it is a fine document.

    Amending the Claim a better option

    73: The Federal Court has the powers (under 47(1) and 53(1) and (2) of Federal Courts Rules), to ask with a wide degree of discretion and to make orders it views as just.

    The novelty of the Amended Claim is not reason in and of itself to strike it: Nash, above, at para 11; Hanson v Bank of Nova Scotia (1994), 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA), 19 OR (3d) 142 (CA); Adams-Smith v Christian Horizons (1997), 3 OR (3d) 640 (Ont Gen Div). Additionally, matters that are not fully settled by the jurisprudence should not be disposed of on a motion to strike: RD Belanger & Associates Ltd v Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd (1991), 1991 CanLII 2731 (ON CA), 5 OR (3d) 778 (CA). In order for the Defendants to succeed, the Plaintiffs state that a case from the same jurisdiction that squarely deals with, and rejects, the very same issue must be presented: Dalex Co v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman (1994), 19 OR (3d) 215 (CA). The Court should be generous when interpreting the drafting of the pleadings, and allow for amendments prior to striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA).

    74: The facts as laid out in the above section are not bare assertions. They can be proven in court, going through the discovery and document production phases. It is not at all plain and obvious that the Claim is baseless.

    75: Any flaws in the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim could be cured by amending.

    Government lawyer misrepresents the facts

    76: The Government claims, without any basis, that the S3CA was negotiated with the “loophole” deliberately written in. In essence, they are arguing that although the Canada/US border stretches for thousands of miles, only the few dozen “legal” entry ports should be considered. Anywhere else, people are free to walk across and claim asylum. If this were actually true, it would effectively erase the Canadian border.

    77: Bald assertions, without supporting facts, are not sufficient to satisfy the rules of pleading. See Rule 174 and accompanying jurisprudence. This should also applies to motions to strike.

    78: Bald assertions, without facts, are baseless. If any part of the claim is “plainly and obviously” without merit, it is the defense raised by the Government.

    79: The claim that the S3CA was “intended” to allow illegal border crossings is fraudulent, and an attempt to mislead and deceive the court by Aman Owais. This is plain and obvious given that members of the Government, including Justin Trudeau himself, have publicly stated the need to stop illegal border crossings. The false defense violates Rule 221, as a frivilous, vexous, and abusive misuse of Court procedure.

    80: This can and will be proven in a trial.

    81: Also worth noting: according to Rule 221, “inconsistent pleadings” can be struck out. So if the Government ever tries to put another spin on this, it will automatically qualify for striking.

    82: And to reiterate: the “remedy” suggested makes no sense. A person entering Canada legally would have no interest in the case, since it only covers illegal entry. A person entering Canada illegally would have no reason to pursue the case, as it would be a conflict of interest. This absurd solution wastes court resources.

    83: The government also appears to distort the purpose of the case. It is about protecting the Canadian public from illegal immigration, not making things easier for people to cross the border.

    84: To add insult, Aman Owais also implies that I have no business attempting this case since I am not a lawyer. Arrogance. Pintea v Johns (2017, SCC) enshrines protections for “all” self-representing litigants. It doesn’t limit it to certain types of cases, or certain Courts.

    85: Will closing this loophole have an impact on current and future cases? Hopefully. Otherwise, what would be the point of going to Court?

    4. Summary

    86: Plaintiff has a right to self represent

    87: Federal Court has jurisdiction

    88: Plaintiff has both a private interest, and qualifies for public interest standing

    89: Constitutional provisions engaged: 91(POGG), 15 (equality rights), 35 (Indigenous rights), 38 (amending the constitution)

    90: Allowing fake refugees into Canada violates the doctrine of unjust enrichment & unconscionability

    91: Motion doesn’t meet the “very” high burden to strike out

    92: Amending the Claim a better option than striking without leave.

    93: Note: This is not an attempt to get to court to make a final ruling on the case. Rather, it is to show that there is merit to the case

    94: The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Constitution does not belong to the federal or provincial governments, but to Canadian citizens (Nova Scotia (AG))

    95: The history of our law reveals that often new developments in the law first surface on motions to strike or similar preliminary motions, like the one at issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson

    96: The Court should be generous when interpreting the drafting of the pleadings, and allow for amendments prior to striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA).

    5. Order Sought

    (a) Dismiss the motion; or
    (b) Allow the Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the statement of claim.

    Arson Apparently Caused By Climate Change (Climate Change Scam #7)

    (Prime Minister Justin Trudeau)

    (Environment Minister Catherine McKenna)

    (BC Premier John Horgan)

    (Claims that 2018 BC wildfires were caused by climate change, despite RCMP reports that most, if not all, were arson)

    1. Important Links


    CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
    CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
    CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
    CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
    CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.
    CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework.

    CLICK HERE, for CBC article.

    Firefighters were warned about string of arsons before destructive Lake Country wildfire

    Soon after that disastrous July day, Smith and the other homeowners learned that investigators believed the fire had been set deliberately.

    And then this week, there was more unsettling news — police had connected the Lake Country wildfire to 28 other Okanagan arson cases dating back to 2014. The RCMP have set up a task force to track down the person or people responsible.

    The fires were set in Naramata, Okanagan Falls, Osoyoos, Oliver, Penticton, Summerland and Lake Country — mostly in the interface areas where wilderness meets human habitation.

    The 29 wildfires include, in part, the following:
    July 7, 2014, K50209, Naramata
    July 7, 2014, White Lake Road, Penticton
    July 9, 2014, Richter Pass, Osoyoos
    July 15, 2014, Mt. Kobau, Oliver
    July 15, 2014, Apex Road, Penticton
    July 17, 2014, Reservoir Road / Landfill Road, Penticton
    July 22, 2014, White Lake Road, Okanagan Falls
    Aug. 11, 2014, Chute Lake Road, Naramata
    Aug. 11, 2014, Green Mountain Road, Penticton
    Aug. 13, 2014, White Lake Road, Penticton
    Aug. 19, 2014, North Naramata Road, Naramata
    Sept. 15, 2014, Green Mountain Road, Penticton
    July 2, 2015, Canyon View Road, Summerland
    Aug. 7, 2015, Pampas Grass Way, Oliver
    Aug. 8, 2015, Spiller Road, Penticton
    Aug. 11, 2015, Commonage Road, Lake Country
    Aug. 11, 2015, Beaver Lake Road, Lake Country
    Aug. 12, 2015, Gulch Road, Naramata
    Aug. 14, 2015, White Lake Road, Penticton
    April 9, 2016, Fairview-Cawston Road, Cawston
    Aug. 17, 2016, Commonage Road, Lake Country
    Aug. 17, 2016, Oyama Road, Lake Country
    July 3, 2017, Pixie Beach, Lake Country
    July 15, 2017, Okanagan Centre RoadW, Lake Country
    Sept. 1, 2017, Westhills Road, Penticton
    Sept. 1, 2017, Old Princeton Hwy, Summerland

    This is where things currently are in Canada. “Progressive” politicians in Canada are so eager to push the climate change agenda that they will outright lie about arson in order to suit a narrative.

    It’s disgusting. And worse, it potentially helps the actual arsonist(s) get away, by telling the public there was no crime committed.

    Dodgeball Is A Tool Of Oppression (Satire)

    CLICK HERE, for the actual article.

    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.

    What’s next? Pepe memes?

    Kirsten Jenkins: Humanizating Sociotechnical Transitions Through Energy Justice

    1. Go Check Out Uppity Peasants Site


    This is a fairly new site, however, it has some interesting content on it. Well researched, it will give some alternative views on how we are really being controlled. It you haven’t been there, what are you waiting for?

    2. About The Authors


    CLICK HERE, for the profile of Kirsten Jenkins. Side note: no shocker she has cited Frank Geels.

    CLICK HERE, for Benjamin Sovacool.

    He is a Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), due to be published in 2022, and an Advisor on Energy to the European Commission’s Directorate General for Research and Innovation in Brussels, Belgium.

    He has played a leadership role in winning and managing collaborative research grants worth more than $19.6 million, including those from the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. National Science Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Energy Technology Development and Demonstration Program of Denmark, the Danish Council for Independent Research, and the European Commission. In the United Kingdom, he has served as a Principal Investigator on projects funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, Natural Environment Research Council, and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

    CLICK HERE, for Darren McCauley.

    3. The Paper Itself

    Humanizing sociotechnical transitions through energy justice: An ethical framework for global transformative change
    Kirsten Jenkins, Benjamin K. Sovacool, Darren McCauley

    Not even kidding. That is the title of the paper.

    ABSTRACT
    Poverty, climate change and energy security demand awareness about the interlinkages between energy systems and social justice. Amidst these challenges, energy justice has emerged to conceptualize a world where all individuals, across all areas, have safe, affordable and sustainable energy that is, essentially, socially just. Simultaneously, new social and technological solutions to energy problems continually evolve, and interest in the concept of sociotechnical transitions has grown. However, an element often missing from such transitions frameworks is explicit engagement with energy justice frameworks. Despite the development of an embryonic set of literature around these themes, an obvious research gap has emerged: can energy justice and transitions frameworks be combined? This paper argues that they can. It does so through an exploration of the multi-level perspective on sociotechnical systems and an integration of energy justice at the model’s niche, regime and landscape level. It presents the argument that it is within the overarching process of sociotechnical change that issues of energy justice emerge. Here, inattention to social justice issues can cause injustices, whereas attention to them can provide a means to examine and potential resolve them

    This article is the first time I have encountered the term “energy justice”. Rather than simply dealing with a problem in a scientific and factual way, the authors add some social-justice element to it. The abstract doesn’t really explain how this works. Hopefully the body will.

    Thus, it calls for greater engagement with the three-tenet energy justice approach (distributional justice, procedural justice and justice as recognition) when planning for more sustainable transitions.

    Energy justice apparently consists of:

    • Distributional justice
    • Procedural justice
    • Justice as recognition

    Okay, but that doesn’t really explain what it is.

    Amidst serious sustainability challenges, transitions frameworks have evolved to either conceptualize or facilitate decarbonised energy systems that provide both security of supply and universal access to energy; a process that it is widely acknowledged will require new ways of producing, living and working with energy (Bridge et al., 2013; Heffron and McCauley, 2018; IEA, 2008; Mernier, 2007). In aiming to implement sociotechnical solutions, governments are increasingly utilising the language of transitions, and the concept has begun to feature in the energy policies of countries including Denmark, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (UK)

    Some points that should be addressed:

    • They are quite blunt (and proud it seems) that their language is filtering into government activity.
    • Provide universal supply of energy? Is this meant to be some sort of socialist or communist idea?
    • Has it sunk in that if you remove all Carbon forms of energy that it will reduce supply, and make your universal supply harder to obtain?
    • When you say a “new way of living”, does this mean reducing the standard of living in the West to ensure that everyone has access to the same amount of energy?

    Yet despite ongoing debates about ethics or justice across many fields of literature (including extended discussions between antagonist camps that have gone on across the history of political philosophy), one social element missing from transitions frameworks is explicit, practice oriented engagement with the energy justice concept and related approaches to justice concerns. Eames and Hunt (2013) draw attention to the fact that considerations of equity and justice are underrepresented within the sociotechnical transitions literature and the wider energy transitions debate, despite the fact that the concept of sustainable development, the target of many transition plans, is inherently rooted in these core notions (Hopwood et al., 2005). Transitions literatures can also fail to give due consideration to issues of landscape, health and existing property values too (Jefferson, 2017).

    More points to be looked at:

    • This seems a shameless attempt to turn what is supposed to be an environmental issue into a “social justice”, and hence blur the lines.
    • “Equity and justice” and terms that need to be rammed into discussions.
    • It appears that including “social justice” would be a way to better market their ideas. They don’t seem to make an actual connection though.
    • If a platform needs to latch on to overused buzzwords to sell itself, then it’s probably not a very good platform.

    Failure to adequately engage with questions of justice throughout the transition process is dangerous. It may lead to aggravated poverty, entrenched gender bias and non-participation as outcomes or by-products of ‘blinkered’ decision-making. Indeed, without a focus on justice, transitions may fail to acknowledge the burdens of having too much energy, such as waste, over-consumption and pollution, or from not having enough, where some individuals lack access, are challenged by under-consumption and poverty, and may face health burdens and shortened lives as a consequence of restricted energy choices (Sovacool et al.,2016a). This paper therefore utilizes the energy justice concept as a way of engaging with these ethical dilemmas within pre-existing transitions frameworks.

    More nonsense which requires a response:

    • There is an obsession with redefining terms to suit an agenda.
    • This is energy we are talking about, not poverty, gender bias, or non-participation. That’s right, they really played the “gender” card here.
    • Burden of having too much? Can I assume the solution is to force sharing? Or rather, to force “rich” nations to hand over energy supplies?
    • Engaging with these ethical dilemmas? You haven’t demonstrated any sort of cause and effect yet.

    The origins of the energy justice literature is largely reported as coming from activist accounts of energy issues using the environmental justice frame – a precursor to the energy justice concept which shares overlapping philosophical groundings

    That’s right. A bunch of activists made this up.

    Specifically, as environmental justice is commonly defined as the distribution of environmental hazards and access to all natural resources; it includes equal protection from burdens, meaningful involvement in decisions, and fair treatment in access to benefits……….. This approach forms the basis of the energy justice approach and framework. However, mentions of its core notions also appear elsewhere, including in the guise of the “three A’s” of availability, accessibility and affordability

    It reads like the sort of nonsense one would get in a gender studies class. Only thing is that “energy” is being substituted for here.

    note in this regard, that even ‘a “low-carbon” transition has the potential to distribute its costs and benefits just as unequally [as historical fossil-based transitions] without governance mindful of distributional justice’ or, as an extension, without attention to the issues of justice as recognition and due process–energy justice tenets we explore below. We argue that the energy justice concept provides one way of filling this gap.

    Here, we get into some straight up Communism. Is it true that costs and benefits don’t impact everyone equally? Yes. However, there is no practical way to do this. Either you would have to forcefully arrange differences in benefits and costs to “make things right”, or you would have to alter everyone’s standard of living so that they were equal.

    Guess the road to Hell could use a re-paving.

    Throughout, we present three main claims, each coinciding with a level in the MLP model; the niche, regime, and landscape:

    (1) That the energy justice concept can expose exclusionary and/or inclusionary technological and social niches before they develop, leading to potentially new and socially just innovation;

    (2) That in addition to using the MLP to describe regimes, the energy justice framework provides a way for these actors to normatively judge them, potentially destabilising existing regimes using moral criteria;

    (3) That framing energy justice as a matter of priority at the landscape level could exert pressure on the regime below, leading to the widespread reappraisal of our energy choices, and integration of moral criteria.

    (1) Sounds like a way to vilify or outcast technology that is scientifically sound, because it doesn’t meet their criteria.
    (2) Appears to be a method of using peer pressure and social pressure as a way of destabilizing systems.
    (3) Comes across as more overt propaganda.

    This governance focus means that the socio-technical literature increasingly acknowledges the political dynamics related to the process through which innovations scale, diffuse or entrench. We focus here on the most prominent socio-technical transitions framework, the multi-level perspective (MLP). The MLP takes the form of a series of nested levels, the niche, regime, and landscape

    Nothing scientific. Purely political manoeuvering.

    Analysis through the energy justice lens reveals that although electric vehicles (EVs) do have laudable environmental (and social) attributes, they can be exclusionary in the sense that they can perpetuate already widening gaps between the wealthy and poor, as well as potentially raising new forms and geographies of injustice – distributional and justice as recognition concerns.

    I thought the point was protecting the environment. But here, they talk about how electric cars will not impact everyone equally, even if they do have considerable environmental benefits. Again, is this an argument in favour of socialism or communism?

    Equal opportunity v.s. equal outcome.

    In addition to applications in niches, the energy justice framework can support the current role of the MLP to describe regimes by providing a means for policy actors to normatively judge them—exposing unjust practices and resultantly, increasing regime ‘humanisation’. We illustrate this first through the exploration of nuclear power and hydroelectric power production, regimes in which there is some consensus that technological development and lock-in raises issues of justice, or injustice. We identify that the metrics, frameworks, or checklists presented above – as well as the three-tenet framework of energy justice more generally – provide a means of normatively judging both planned and current energy and future sociotechnical regimes, leading to potential re-evaluation of our energy selection criteria. These approaches also recognise the need to politicise the actualisation of energy justice itself.

    Finally some honesty. This is a political agenda.

    And working to “humanize” a movement? What happened to simply relying on scientific consensus?

    4. Conclusions From The Paper

    Energy decisions are all too frequently made in a moral vacuum, culminating in a strong normative case for combining the literature on sociotechnical transitions with concepts arising from energy justice. Moreover, we illustrate that energy justice can play a role at each level of one of the more expansive sociotechnical transitions frameworks, the MLP. Within this latter contribution, (1) the energy justice concept could expose exclusionary niches, (2) provide a means for actors to normatively judge regimes, and (3) through the framing of energy justice at the landscape level foster the reappraisal of our energy choices and integration of moral principles. Across all stages of this argument, we present a case for not only mitigating environmental impacts of energy production via sociotechnical change, but doing so in an ethically defensible, socially just way.

    To repeat, this is not about environmental protection. It is about blending a social justice causes and lingo into an unrelated topic.

    Our caveats come as recognition of the intricacies of politics and political processes around energy transitions and energy justice. For as Meadowcroft (2009) highlights, long-term change is likely to be even messier and more contested than the transitions literature discusses. Indeed, there are likely to be political aspects that approaches such as the MLP are ill equipped to negotiate, and trade-offs that a tenet approach to energy justice cannot entirely resolve.

    This may be the most honest thing they say. Politically, this is a very tough sell. They also admit that there “energy justice” approach will not answer the hard questions.

    Nonetheless, they still cover those facts in academic jargon.

    5. My Own Thoughts

    The authors keep repeating that they are just “framing the issue”. In reality, they are publishing propaganda.

    There is nothing scientific that the paper adds. There is no building on previous work, or fact checking of previous research. It is entirely about manipulating people to their cause by pretending it is a “social justice” issue. This is blatant activism, masquerading as science.

    I also noticed a lot of overlap with the Frank W. Geels article. Do they merely cite each other, or do they just republish the same articles over and over again?

    This environmental movement seems to have a lot of self-inflicted problems. For example, this obsession with “energy justice” and other non-issues actually stonewalls progress that they could have made.

    Frank Geels & Disruptive Innovation Framework (Climate Change Scam #6)

    (From actual academic writing: Frank W. Geels)

    (More academia: Sustainable Consumption Institute, Manchester University)

    (Clayton Christiansen and “Disruptive Innovation” video)

    (From the Uppity Peasants site)

    1. Go Check Out Uppity Peasants Site


    This is a fairly new site, however, it has some interesting content on it. Well researched, it will give some alternative views on how we are really being controlled.
    Go check out “Uppity Peasants“.

    2. Important Links


    CLICK HERE, for the Sustainable Consumption Institute & Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, The University of Manchester, Denmark Road Building, M13 9PL, Manchester, United Kingdom.
    CLICK HERE, for Clayton Christiansen and “Disruptive Innovation”.
    CLICK HERE, for SCI Collective Action & Social Movements.
    CLICK HERE, for SCI Social Inequality.
    CLICK HERE, for Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability.
    CLICK HERE, for a Wiki explanation of disruptive innovation.
    CLICK HERE, for removing the innovator’s dilemma.

    CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
    CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
    CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
    CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
    CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.

    3. Quotes From The Geels Article

    Disruption and low-carbon system transformation: Progress and new challenges in socio-technical transitions research and the Multi-Level Perspective

    This will be elaborated on, but is about subverted the status quo, or “disruption”. Worth pointing out, that although these types of articles are published and marketed as “science”, they are anything but.

    As this title would suggest, the article is extremely political. The concern is not about science itself, but how to “sell” the science. And the agenda here is searching for political methods of implementing the transition to a Carbon free

    ABSTRACT
    This paper firstly assesses the usefulness of Christensen’s disruptive innovation framework for low-carbon system change, identifying three conceptual limitations with regard to the unit of analysis (products rather than systems), limited multi-dimensionality, and a simplistic (‘point source’) conception of change. Secondly, it shows that the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) offers a more comprehensive framework on all three dimensions. Thirdly, it reviews progress in socio-technical transition research and the MLP on these three dimensions and identifies new challenges, including ‘whole system’ reconfiguration, multi-dimensional struggles, bi-directional niche-regime interactions, and an alignment conception of change. To address these challenges, transition research should further deepen and broaden its engagement with the social scienceseconomy.

    The usefulness of Christiansen’s disruptive innovation framework? While used in a business sense, it appears to be a way for entrepreneurs to get into a market or business. However, in this context it is used as disrupting an environmental policy.

    It is mildly (or downright) creepy that the author, Frank Geels, openly suggests that research should broaden its engagement with social sciences. In plain English, this means merging, where scientific research is viewed through a “social” lens.

    Christiansen’s “Disruptive Innovation Framework” is explained in the above video. Also see “disruption in financial services“.

    Christensen [4] made important contributions to the long-standing debate in innovation management about new entrants, incumbents and industry structures. He argued that disruptive innovations enable new entrants to ‘attack from below’ and overthrow incumbent firms. Christensen thus has a particular understanding of disruption, focused mainly on the competitive effects of innovations on existing firms and industry structures. His framework was not developed to address systemic effects or broader transformations, so my comments below are not about the intrinsic merits of the framework, but about their usefulness for low-carbon transitions.

    Christensen’s disruptive innovation framework offers several useful insights for low-carbon transitions (although similar ideas can also be found elsewhere). First, it suggests that incumbent firms tend to focus their innovation efforts on sustaining technologies (which improve performance along established criteria), while new entrants tend to develop disruptive technologies (which offer different value propositions). Second, it proposes that disruptive technologies emerge in small peripheral niches, where early adopters are attracted by the technology’s new functionalities. Third, incumbent firms may initially overlook or under-estimate disruptive technologies (because of established beliefs) or are not interested in them, because the limited return on-investments associated with small markets do not fit with existing business models. Fourth, price/performance improvements may enable disruptive technologies to enter larger markets, out-compete existing technologies and overthrow incumbent firms

    Worth pointing out right away, Geels has no interest in the “intrinsic merits” of the disruptive innovation framework that Christiansen talks about. Rather, he focuses on applying that technique to reducing/eliminating Carbon emissions from society.

    Christiansen’s idea could be applied fairly practically to business, where new players want to establish themselves. However, Geels “weaponizes” this idea and wants to apply it with the climate-change agenda.

    Geels also makes it obvious that overthrowing incumbents is a priority. Again, Christiansen’s writings were meant with the business approach, and trying to start your own, but Geels “repurposes” it.

    While Christensen’s framework focuses on technical and business dimensions, the MLP also accommodates consumption, cultural, and socio-political dimensions. Although co-evolution has always been a core concept in the MLP, this is even more important for low-carbon transitions, which are goal-oriented or ‘purposive’ in the sense of addressing the problem of climate change. This makes them different from historical transitions which were largely ‘emergent’, with entrepreneurs exploiting the commercial opportunities offered by new technology

    [27]. Because climate protection is a public good, private actors (e.g. firms, consumers) have limited incentives to address it owing to free rider problems and prisoner’s dilemmas. This means that public policy must play a central role in supporting the emergence and deployment of low-carbon innovations and changing the economic frame conditions (via taxes, subsidies, regulations, standards) that incentivize firms, consumers and other actors. However, substantial policy changes involve political struggles and public debate because: “[w]hatever can be done through the State will depend upon generating widespread political support from citizens within the context of democratic rights and freedoms” ([28]: 91).

    Again, Geels hijacking a legitimate business concept, but using it for his enviro agenda.

    How to implement this? Taxes, subsidies, regulations, standards for businesses and consumers. Use these to regulate and influence behaviour.

    Geels rightly says that widespread political support will be needed. But he frames the climate change scam as a way to protect rights and freedoms. Nice bait-and-switch.

    Conceptually, this means that we should analyse socio-technical transitions as multi-dimensional struggles between niche-innovations and existing regimes. These struggles include: economic competition between old and new technologies; business struggles between new entrants and incumbents; political struggles over adjustments in regulations, standards, subsidies and taxes; discursive struggles over problem framings and social acceptance; and struggles between new user practices and mainstream ones.

    Despite Geels’ article being published in the Journal, “ENERGY RESEARCH AND SOCIAL SCIENCE”, this anything but scientific. If anything, it seems analogous to the “lawfare” that Islamic groups perpetuate on democratic societies.

    While Geels promotes economic competition, this is anything but a fair competition. He also calls for:

    • Political struggles over regulations
    • New standards
    • Subsidies
    • Taxes
    • Discursive struggles over problem framings & social acceptance
    • Struggles between new and mainstream user practices

    There is nothing scientific here. This is a call for using “political” manoeuvering for achieving social goals.

    The importance of public engagement, social acceptance and political feasibility is often overlooked in technocratic government strategies and model-based scenarios, which focus on techno-economic dimensions to identify least-cost pathways [32]. In the UK, which is characterized by closed policy networks and top-down policy style, this neglect has led to many problems, which are undermining the low carbon transition.

    • Onshore wind experienced local protests and permit problems, leading to negative public discourses and a political backlash, culminating in a post-2020 moratorium.

    • Shale gas experienced public controversies after it was pushed through without sufficient consultation.

    • Energy-saving measures in homes were scrapped in 2015, after the Green Deal flagship policy(introduced in2013) spectacularly failed, because it was overly complicated and poorly designed, leading to limited uptake.

    • The 2006 zero-carbon homes target, which stipulated that all new homes should be carbon-neutral by 2016, was scrapped in 2015, because of resistance by major housebuilders and limited consumer interest.

    • The smart meter roll-out is experiencing delays, because of controversies over standards, privacy concerns, and distribution of benefits (between energy companies and consumers).

    While these points are in fact true, Geels suggests that problems could have been avoided if there was sufficient public consultation. This is wishful thinking.

    These points raise many legitimate concerns with the eco-agenda. Yet Geels shrugs them off as the result of not engaging the public enough.

    Christensen and other innovation management scholars typically adopt a ‘point source’ approach to disruption, in which innovators pioneer new technologies, conquer the world, and cause social change. Existing contexts are typically seen as ‘barriers’ to be overcome. This ‘bottom-up’ emphasis also permeates the Strategic Niche Management and Technological Innovation System literatures. While this kind of change pattern does sometimes occur, the MLP was specifically developed to also accommodate broader patterns, in which niche-innovations diffuse because they align with ongoing processes at landscape- or regime-levels [9].

    The MLP thus draws on history and sociology of technology, where processual, contextual explanations are common. Mokyr [58], for instance, emphasizes that “The new invention has to be born into a socially sympathetic environment” (p. 292) and that “Macro-inventions are seeds sown by individual inventors in a social soil. (.) But the environment into which these seeds are sown is, of course, the main determinant of whether they will sprout” (p. 299). So, if radical innovations face mis-matches with economic, socio-cultural or political contexts, they may remain stuck in peripheral niches, hidden ‘below the surface’.

    Since low-carbon transitions are problem-oriented, transition scholars should not only analyse innovation dynamics, but also ‘issue dynamics’ because increasing socio-political concerns about climate change can lead to changes in regime-level institutions and selection environments. Societal problems or ‘issues’ have their own dynamics in terms of problem definition and socio-political mobilization as conceptualized, for instance, in the issue lifecycle literature [59,50]. Low carbon transitions require stronger ‘solution’ and problem dynamics, and their successful alignment, which is not an easy process, as the examples below show.

    These passages go into marketing strategies, and ways to “frame an argument”. Notice not once does Geels suggest doing more research, or checking the reliability of existing data. Instead, this is a push for emotional manipulation and shameless advertising.

    Invention has to be born into a socially sympathetic environment. Science be damned.

    There are also positive developments, however, that provide windows of opportunity. Coal is losing legitimacy in parts of the world, because it is increasingly framed as dirty, unhealthy and old-fashioned, and because oil and gas companies are distancing themselves from coal, leading to cracks in the previously ‘closed front’ of fossil fuel industries. The UK has committed to phasing out coal-fired power plants by 2025 and several other countries (Netherlands, France, Canada, Finland, Austria) also move in this direction, providing space for low-carbon alternatives, including renewables.

    I would actually agree that coal being phased out would benefit society. However, Geels makes it a “marketing” issue rather than a scientific one. Coal is “increasingly framed” as dirty. Notice that the actual science, such as from this site, are very rarely described.

    Following chemical reactions takes place in the combustion of coal with the release of heat:
    C + O2 = CO2 + 8084 Kcal/ Kg of carbon (33940 KJ/Kg)
    S + O2 = SO2 + 2224 Kcal/Kg of sulfur (9141 KJ/Kg)
    2 H2 + O2 = 2 H2O + 28922 Kcal/Kg of hydrogen (142670 KJ/Kg)
    2C + O2 = 2CO + 2430 Kcal/Kg of carbon (10120 KJ/Kg)

    4. Geels’ Conclusions

    The paper has also identified several research challenges, where the transitions community could fruitfully do more work. First, we should broaden our analytical attention from singular niche-innovations (which permeate the literature) to ‘whole system’ change. This may involve changes in conceptual imagery (from ‘point source’ disruption to gradual system reconfiguration) and broader research designs, which analyze multiple niche-innovations and their relations to ongoing dynamics in existing systems and regimes. That, in turn, may require more attention for change mechanisms like add-on, hybridisation, modular component substitution, knock-on effects, innovation cascades, multi regime interaction.

    Second, we should better understand regime developments. Existing regimes can provide formidable barriers for low-carbon transitions. Incumbent actors can resist, delay or derail low-carbon transitions, but they can also accelerate them if they reorient their strategies and resources towards niche-innovations. The analysis of niche-to-regime dynamics (as in the niche empowerment literature) should thus be complemented with regime-to-niche dynamics, including incumbent resistance or reorientation. Additionally, we need more nuanced conceptualizations and assessments of degrees of lock-in, tensions, cracks, and destabilisation.

    Third, we need greater acknowledgement that socio-technical systems are a special unit of analysis, which spans the social sciences and can be studied through different lenses and at different levels. The recent trend towards deepening our understanding of particular dimensions and societal groups is tremendously fruitful, because disciplinary theories offer more specific causal mechanisms. But, as a community, we should complement this with broad analyses of co-evolution, alignment, multi-dimensionality and ‘whole systems’.

    This all sounds elegant, but read between the lines. It is about influencing public perception. Whenever academics, lawyers or politicians seem to make things confusing we need to ask: are they trying to obscure their goals?

    5. More About Frank W. Geels

    Selected publications of Geels
    If you would like a broader cross section of Geels’ work, perhaps these publications will be of interest.

    • Geels, F.W., Berkhout, F. and Van Vuuren, D., 2016, Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions, Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 576-583
    • Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Fuchs, G., Hinderer, N., Kungl, G., Mylan, J., Neukirch, M., Wassermann, S., 2016, The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (19902014), Research Policy, 45(4), 896-913
    • Turnheim, B., Berkhout, F., Geels, F.W., Hof, A., McMeekin, A., Nykvist, B., Van Vuuren, D., 2015, Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges, Global Environmental Change, 35, 239–253
    • Penna, C.C.R. and Geels, F.W., 2015, ‘Climate change and the slow reorientation of the American car industry (1979-2011): An application and extension of the Dialectic Issue LifeCycle (DILC) model’, Research Policy, 44(5), 1029-1048
    • Geels, F.W., 2014, ‘Regime resistance against low-carbon energy transitions: Introducing politics and power in the multi-level perspective’, Theory, Culture & Society, 31(5), 21-40
    • Geels, F.W., 2013, ‘The impact of the financial-economic crisis on sustainability transitions: Financial investment, governance and public discourse’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 6, 67-95
    • Geels, F.W., 2012, ‘A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: Introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies’, Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 471-482
    • Geels, F.W., Kemp, R., Dudley, G. and Lyons, G. (eds.), 2012, Automobility in Transition? A Socio Technical Analysis of Sustainable Transport, New York: Routledge
    • Verbong, G.P.J. and Geels, F.W., 2010, ‘Exploring sustainability transitions in the electricity sector with socio-technical pathways’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(8), 12141221 Verbong, G.P.J. and Geels, F.W., 2007, ‘The ongoing energy transition: Lessons from a sociotechnical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960-2004)’, Energy Policy, 35(2), 1025-1037
    • Geels, F.W., 2002, ‘Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study’, Research Policy, 31(8/9), 1257-1274

    Frank Geels publicly available CV
    Education
    • Ph.D., Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, Twente University of Technology (Jan. 1998- July 2002), Netherlands. Supervisors: Arie Rip and Johan Schot. Title PhD thesis: Understanding the Dynamics of Technological Transitions: A co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis.
    • Masters degree in Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society, Twente University of Technology (1991-1996)
    • Bachelor degree in Chemical Engineering, Twente University of Technology (1989-1991)

    For what it’s worth, his formal education is pretty impressive. Where I lose respect is when he deviates from scientific argument in favour of political discourse. What could be very interesting work is corrupted be having an agenda.

    His undergraduate degree is chemical engineering, which again, is very respectable. However, his Masters and PhD show a deviation from science and research.

    While there are many other such authors, Frank W. Geels is a good case of what happens when political agendas and manoeuvering creep into science.

    A morbidly fascinating topic. Check out some of his other publications.

    Central Banking, Part 2: The COMER Case

    (Specific to the litigation in question)

    (COMER – Committee On Monetary & Economic Reform)

    1. Important Links


    CLICK HERE, for the last piece, a call to restore the 1934 Bank of Canada Act.
    CLICK HERE, for www.comer.org.
    CLICK HERE, for a failed Court bid to reform the banking process in Canada.
    CLICK HERE, for COMER’s 2011 press release.
    CLICK HERE, for 2012 Proceedings.
    CLICK HERE, for the ruling to strike our the claim, without leave to amend.
    CLICK HERE, for April 24, 2014 ruling, which overturned the portion of the striking out, instead, allowing an amended statement to be filed.
    CLICK HERE, for press release on April 24, 2014 decision, overturning a Pronothary’s dismissal.
    CLICK HERE, for the 2015 Federal Court of Appeal ruling.
    CLICK HERE, for the 2015 Federal Court of Appeal

    2. From COMER’s 2011 Press Release

    The action also constitutionally challenges the government’s fallacious accounting methods in its tabling of the budget by not calculating nor revealing the true and total revenues of the nation before transferring back “tax credits” to corporations and other taxpayers.

    The Plaintiffs state that since 1974 there has been a gradual but sure slide into the reality that the Bank of Canada and Canada’s monetary and financial policy are dictated by private foreign banks and financial interests contrary to the Bank of Canada Act.

    The Plaintiffs state that the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were all created with the cognizant intent of keeping poorer nations in their place which has now expanded to all nations in that these financial institutions largely succeed in over-riding governments and constitutional orders in countries such as Canada over which they exert financial control.

    The Plaintiffs state that the meetings of the BIS and Financial Stability Board (FSB) (successor of FSF), their minutes, their discussions and deliberations are secret and not available nor accountable to Parliament, the executive, nor the Canadian public notwithstanding that the Bank of Canada policies directly emanate from these meetings. These organizations are essentially private, foreign entities controlling Canada’s banking system and socio-economic policies.

    The gist of the press release, and of the Claim overall, is that Canada’s banking system has been hijacked and usurped. As such, it is controlled by foreign entities such as the Bank of International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund.

    As was outlined in the last article, Canada’s banking “was” effectively turned over. The result is that Canada, instead of loaning money to itself, is now borrowing from private banks. As such, it is being bled dry.

    In fact, COMER’s claims can be easily validated by online research. The question for the Court to decide: is this actually legal?

    3. Ruling Striking Out Statement of Claim

    [5] The core elements of COMER’s Claim can be reduced to three parts:
    1. The Bank of Canada (Bank) and Crown refuse to provide interest-free loans for capital expenditures.
    2. The Crown uses flawed accounting methods in describing public finances, which provides the rationale for refusing to grant such loans.
    3. These and other harms are caused by the Bank being controlled by private foreign interests.

    The Pronothary summarizing the main issues the Plaintiffs raise

    Discussion
    [41] Against these competing positions, it must be remembered that the test for striking an action is a high one. The action must be bereft of any chance of success and as noted above just because it is a novel cause of action it does not automatically fail.[26]

    [42] The Supreme Court of Canada has recently summarized the principles to be applied on a motion to strike. In R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.,[27] the Chief Justice, writing for the Court made the following observations regarding a motion to strike:

    17. The parties agree on the test applicable on a motion to strike for not disclosing a reasonable cause of action under r. 19(24)(a) of the B.C. Supreme Court Rules. This Court has reiterated the test on many occasions. A claim will only be struck if it is plain and obvious, assuming the facts pleaded to be true, that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action: Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69 (CanLII), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263, at para. 15; Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959, at p. 980. Another way of putting the test is that the claim has no reasonable prospect of [page 67] success. Where a reasonable prospect of success exists, the matter should be allowed to proceed to trial: see, generally, Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D., 2007 SCC 38 (CanLII), [2007] 3 S.C.R. 83; Odhavji Estate; Hunt; Attorney General of Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735.

    . . .

    21. Valuable as it is, the motion to strike is a tool that must be used with care. The law is not static and unchanging. Actions that yesterday were deemed hopeless may tomorrow succeed. Before Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.) introduced a general duty of care to one’s neighbour premised [page68] on foreseeability, few would have predicted that, absent a contractual relationship, a bottling company could be held liable for physical injury and emotional trauma resulting from a snail in a bottle of ginger beer. Before Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners, Ltd., [1963] 2 All E.R. 575 (H.L.), a tort action for negligent misstatement would have been regarded as incapable of success. The history of our law reveals that often new developments in the law first surface on motions to strike or similar preliminary motions, like the one at issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson. Therefore, on a motion to strike, it is not determinative that the law has not yet recognized the particular claim. The court must rather ask whether, assuming the facts pleaded are true, there is a reasonable prospect that the claim will succeed. The approach must be generous and err on the side of permitting a novel but arguable claim to proceed to trial.

    What we can gain from this is that striking out a Statement of Claim is something that must be done cautiously, and only when it is plain and obvious that there is no chance to succeed.

    Some of what may be “struck out” now, may in fact later be the basis for new laws, so the Courts should exercise caution and not jump to conclusions.

    [30] The Crown further contends that COMER’s claim is outside this Court’s jurisdiction as it fails to meet the three-part test set out in ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd v. Miida Electronics Inc.[21] In ITO, the Supreme Court considered the jurisdiction of the Federal Court in the context of an admiralty action. The Supreme Court determined that jurisdiction in the Federal Court depends on three factors:
    1. There must be a statutory grant of jurisdiction by the Federal Parliament.
    2. There must be an existing of body of federal law which is essential to the disposition of the case and which nourishes the statutory grant of jurisdiction.
    3. The law on which the case is based must be a “law of Canada” as the phrase is used in s. 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867 [page 766]

    [57] The jurisdictional issue raised by the Crown engages the three part test set out in ITO as discussed above. The Crown argues that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain tort claims against Federal authorities.

    [58] However, pursuant to sections 2, 17 and 18 of the Federal Courts Act, the wording is sufficiently wide to capture these types of claims against federal actors and Crown servants. It is therefore not plain and obvious that this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain claims seeking declaratory relief as here.

    One of the major contentions is that the Government alleged that the Federal Court had no jurisdiction to even hear the case. The Pronothary took a different view. However, there were other problems which ended with this.

    [71] There is ample authority in this Court and in the jurisprudence generally that where a claim has some kernel of a legitimate claim it should not be tossed aside but permitted to be amended to determine if the clam in law can be cured.[45]

    [72] Given that the Claim, in my view, is not justiciable, leave to amend will not cure the defects. Leave to amend is therefore not granted.

    The case was thrown out on a motion to strike. However, that will not be the end of it. The Plaintiffs would appeal to a Justice of the Federal Court.

    4. COMER Appeals Dismissal


    (See here.)

    The striking out (without permission to amend) was appealed to a Justice of the Federal Court. This was a partial victory, as the dismissal “was” upheld, but it allowed the Plaintiff’s to file an amended Claim. This would be another “chance” to get it right.

    5. COMER Tries To File Again


    (See here.)
    After the Justice of the Federal Court upheld the dismissal (but giving leave to amend the Statement of Claim), COMER appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, and the Government cross-appealed.

    In short, the Plaintiffs were trying to get the dismissal overturned entirely, while the Government tried to remove the clause to allow COMER to file an amended Statement of Claim.

    The Federal Appeals Court panel (3 Justices) threw out both the appeal and cross-appeal.

    6. COMER’s Amended Statement Thrown Out


    (See here.)

    [66] In terms of the general principles that ought to be applied on a motion to strike, the Plaintiffs assert that the facts pleaded by the Plaintiffs must be taken as proven: Canada (Attorney General) v Inuit Tapirasat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] 2 SCR 735; Nelles v Ontario (1989), DLR (4th) 609 (SCC) [Nelles]; Operation Dismantle, above; Hunt v Carey Canada Inc 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 959 [Hunt]; Dumont v Canada (Attorney General), 1990 CanLII 131 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 279 [Dumont]; Nash v Ontario (1995), 1995 CanLII 2934 (ON CA), 27 OR (3d) 1 (Ont CA) [Nash]; Canada v Arsenault, 2009 FCA 242 (CanLII) [Arsenault].

    [67] The Plaintiffs echo the test referenced by the Defendants, asserting that a claim can be struck only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading is bad beyond argument: Nelles, above, at para 3. The Court has provided further guidance in Dumont, above, that an outcome should be “plain and obvious” or “beyond doubt” before striking can be invoked (at para 2). Striking cannot be justified by a claim that raises an “arguable, difficult or important point of law”: Hunt, above, at para 55.

    [68] The novelty of the Amended Claim is not reason in and of itself to strike it: Nash, above, at para 11; Hanson v Bank of Nova Scotia (1994), 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA), 19 OR (3d) 142 (CA); Adams-Smith v Christian Horizons (1997), 3 OR (3d) 640 (Ont Gen Div). Additionally, matters that are not fully settled by the jurisprudence should not be disposed of on a motion to strike: RD Belanger & Associates Ltd v Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd (1991), 1991 CanLII 2731 (ON CA), 5 OR (3d) 778 (CA). In order for the Defendants to succeed, the Plaintiffs state that a case from the same jurisdiction that squarely deals with, and rejects, the very same issue must be presented: Dalex Co v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman (1994), 19 OR (3d) 215 (CA). The Court should be generous when interpreting the drafting of the pleadings, and allow for amendments prior to striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA).

    [69] The Plaintiffs also remind the Court that the line between fact and evidence is not always clear (Liebmann v Canada, 1993 CanLII 3006 (FC), [1994] 2 FC 3 at para 20) and that the Amended Claim must be taken as pleaded by the Plaintiffs, not as reconfigured by the Defendants: Arsenault, above, at para 10.

    Plaintiffs arguing that the Defendant has not actually met the burden to strike out a Statement of Claim. However, the Justice decides differently.

    [137] In the present case, the Plaintiffs have not, in their Amended Claim, pleaded facts to demonstrate a “real” issue concerning the relative interests of each party, and the nexus of that real issue to the Plaintiffs and their claim for relief. Although as I pointed out in my Order of April 24, 2014, the Plaintiffs do distinguish between legal issues and policy issues, the legal issues remain theoretical with no real nexus to some interest of the Plaintiffs, other than an interest in having the Court endorse their opinion on the Bank Act issues raised.

    [138] The Plaintiffs have not addressed the jurisdictional problems I referred to in paras 85 to 91 of my Order of April 24, 2014 and/or what might generally be referred to as the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain, or its willingness to grant, free-standing requests for declaration.

    The Justice Rules that the original problems are left unfixed. As such, the case is thrown out. This time, there is no leave to amend, so if this is to continue, it must go back to the Federal Court of Appeals.

    7. Return to Federal Court of Appeals


    (See here.)

    [9] The essence of the Federal Court judge’s reasoning for striking the amended statement of claim is summed up at paragraph 144 of his reasons: It seems to me, then, that the latest Amended Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and has no prospect of success at trial. It also seems to me that the Plaintiffs are still asking the Court for an advisory opinion in the form of declarations that their view of the way the Bank Act and the Constitution should be read is correct. It also seems to me that they have failed to show a statutory grant of jurisdiction by Parliament that this Court can entertain and rule on their claim as presently constituted, or that they have any specific rights under the legislation which they invoke, or a legal framework for any such rights. As the Supreme Court of Canada pointed out in Operation Dismantle, above, the preventive function of a declaratory judgment must be more than hypothetical and requires “a cognizable threat to a legal interest before the Court will entertain the use of its process as a preventative measure” (para 33). The Court is not here to declare the law generally or to give an advisory opinion. The Court is here to decide and declare contested legal rights.

    [10] The appellants assert that the opinion so expressed is wrong in law. In support of this proposition, they essentially reiterate the arguments which they urged upon the Federal Court judge and ask that we come to a different conclusion. Counsel for the appellants focused his argument during the hearing on the issue of standing and the right to seek declarations of constitutionality. It remains however that, as the Federal Court judge found, the right to a remedy is conditional on the existence of a justiciable issue.

    The Federal Appeals Court believes that COMER is still asking for an advisory opinion. Furthermore, the FCA still believes that no justiciable issue has been raised.

    8. Supreme Court of Canada Declines To Hear Case


    (See here.)

    The Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, which means it is legally over. It would have been nice to have some actual reasons included. However, due to the volume of cases it receives, rejected applications generally don’t receive them.

    9. Issues Still Remain Unaddressed


    Despite repeated rejection by the Courts, the questions about the changes in banking policy were never really addressed. Does giving control of our central bank to foreign powers break the law?

    This is supposedly a “political” issue, but no politicians are willing to talk about it.

    As of now, Canada is still borrowing money from private banks, as opposed to ourselves. We are racking up huge levels of debt that we shouldn’t be.