As has been thoroughly outlined and documented on this website, the United Nations is a globalist institution aiming at world domination. Under the guise of “international cooperation”, national sovereignty has been eroded for decades.
Therefore, it is quite uplifting to see that the UN has dire financial problems. Consider this a form of schadenfreude, enjoying the misery of your enemy.
3. Data On How Many Pay Up
Paid In Full
Source is right here. However, it is a little unclear why only the people who are fully paid up are listed. Is this an attempt to shame those who aren’t paying their “fair share” to erase their sovereignty?
Note: In fairness, 2019 obviously isn’t over yet, so that 127 number could very easily change.
4. UN Posting On “Cash Crisis”
In a statement issue by his Spokesperson, the Secretary-General said he had written to Member States, “about the worst cash crisis facing the United Nations in nearly a decade. The Organization runs the risk of depleting its liquidity reserves by the end of the month and defaulting on payments to staff and vendors.”
Although 129 States out of 193 have now paid their regular annual dues, the most recent being Syria, UN Spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric told correspondents at the regular briefing in New York, others needed to pay “urgently and in full”.
“This is the only way to avoid a default that could risk disrupting operations globally. The Secretary-General further asked governments to address the underlying reasons for the crisis and agree on measures to put the United Nations on a sound financial footing.”
As of the end of September, only 70 per cent of the total assessment for the year had been paid, versus 78 per cent this time last year. Up to 8 October, Member States have paid $1.99 billion towards the regular budget assessment for 2019, which means there is an outstanding amount of around $1.3 billion for the year, Mr. Dujarric told correspondents.
In the page, the UN warns that travel will have to be kept to a minimum, and new postings not filled. Okay, but why isn’t non-essential travel already stopped? The UN takes money from other nations with those “Carbon taxes”.
Those annual conferences on climate change involve flying in tens of thousands of people — each year — to talk about cutting emissions. The hypocrisy is astounding. Has no one ever heard of video conferencing?
Looking at all of the overhead and personnel involved in the UN, one would reasonably wonder how much of the waste can be cut. It seems like a horribly inefficient organization.
With all of the money coming in, and all of the “extra” sources of revenue starting up, where exactly is it going? Should the UN be audited by outside firms?
5. From The Reuters Article
He told the 193-member U.N. General Assembly’s budget committee that if he had not worked since January to cut spending then “we would not have had the liquidity to support” the annual gathering of world leaders last month.
Pardon the nitpicking, but I have to ask: if you are concerned about financing essential humanitarian efforts around the world, why are you wasting money with an annual world leaders gettogether? Seems like the money can be better spent than on photo-ops.
“This month, we will reach the deepest deficit of the decade. We risk … entering November without enough cash to cover payrolls,” said Guterres. “Our work and our reforms are at risk.”
The United States is the largest contributor – responsible for 22 percent of the more than $3.3 billion regular budget for 2019, which pays for work including political, humanitarian, disarmament, economic and social affairs and communications.
Yes, the U.S. contributes almost a quarter of your budget. And it does so every year.
Washington owes some $381 million for prior regular budgets and $674 million for the 2019 regular budget. The U.S. mission to the United Nations confirmed the figures.
Sure, let’s take a shot at the United States. But just a bit later in the article, Reuters provides some context for the American contributions:
“Overall the United States, as the largest contributor to the U.N., contributes roughly $10 billion annually in assessed and voluntary contributions across the United Nations system,” the official said.
U.S. President Donald Trump has said Washington is shouldering an unfair burden of the cost of the United Nations and has pushed for reforms of the world body. Guterres has been working to improve U.N. operations and cut costs.
Well, it’s true.
6. Where Does It Go From Here?
Admittedly this is speculation.
While having the UN collapse and die off sounds appealing, it’s very unlikely that it would actually happen. it can always downsize parts of its operations and keep going. It can also raise additional cash, say by Soros or other globalists. Or it can just refuse to honour parts of its debts. Businesses and other organizations can survive a long time while being in the red financially.
This is definitely encouraging, but too soon to predict a collapse of the UN. Hopefully that day will come. National sovereignty is more important than “multilateralism”.
(Shafia family murders, 4 dead in honour killings)
(First FGM case in America, yes, America)
(Nigerian Muslims committing genocide against Christians)
(Iqra Khalid’s blasphemy motion, M-103)
1. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for Part I: Fake Refugees Gaming The System. CLICK HERE, for Part II: Int’l Smuggling, Child Exploitation, Various
Documents To View CLICK HERE, for text of Cairo Declaration. CLICK HERE, for Bill C-6, citizenship for terrorists. CLICK HERE, for repatriating terrorists to home countries. CLICK HERE, for 2018 Report to Parliament on Terrorism. CLICK HERE, for Bill C-59, Changes to Young Offender Act. CLICK HERE, for Bill C-75, weakening terrorism penalties. CLICK HERE, for Washington Post on ISIS sex slavery. CLICK HERE, for a BBC article on child brides. CLICK HERE, for Gatestone on grooming gangs being ignored in UK. CLICK HERE, for CP article, Muslims slaughtering Christians in Nigeria.
Previous Articles CLICK HERE, for Cairo Declaration on Human “Right”. CLICK HERE, for World Hijab Day review. CLICK HERE, for guidelines for returning terrorists. CLICK HERE, for the efforts to ban criticism of Islam globally. CLICK HERE, for purging “Shia” and “Sunni” from terrorism reports to avoid naming the actual perpetrators. CLICK HERE, for Islam and domestic violence. CLICK HERE, for ECHR upholding Austrian blasphemy conviction.
2. Context For This Article
Yes, Islam has been covered before on the site. Just look at the above articles.
This one focuses on the exploitation that Islam enables and encourages. Forced child marriages, no rights for women, slavery or killings of non-believers or apostates is common in Islamic culture. This isn’t something that can shrugged off as normal, but amounts to serious human rights violations.
Despite censorship, information is getting out about how people are being abused, sexually exploited, trafficked and killed. Certainly these crimes are not exclusively because of Islam, but it does play a role in much of it.
So why isn’t this much more public? Quite simply, because of a concentrated effort to shut down criticism and discussion about Islam. Individual campaigns have been launched, national legislations introduced, and even global bans have been attempted. Beyond that, attempts have been made to frame Islam (ex. the Cairo Declaration) as entrenching human rights.
It’s quite a clever strategy to disguise a political ideology as a religion. That way, any criticism — regardless of how valid — can be condemned as bigotry and hatred. If the enemy cannot criticize you, then you have already won.
It should also be noted that the endless demands of Muslims to accommodate have taken their toll.
3. Grooming Gangs In The UK
In allowing this criminality to fester for decades, the British authorities have effectively become criminal themselves as accessories after the fact. They could also be accused of breaking not only domestic law but international treaties regarding child protection, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography.
As the abuse is largely perpetrated by “(South) Asian” criminals, UK authorities now find themselves in a bind. To act with concerted government and police action may increase existing community tensions. Alternatively, by not acting, faith in the country’s institutions and laws — and minority communities themselves — will continue to deteriorate among large sections of the public. As that may not happen immediately on the watch of the current crop of feckless UK politicians, there is most likely the inclination among them to kick this human tragedy down the road.
The UK has abdicated its responsibilities to protect its citizens, and especially to protect children from exploitation.
Under the guise of wanting to be tolerant and not inflame ethnic tensions, UK law enforcement has effectively turned a blind eye to hundreds of sexual predators operating within its borders.
However, they are not being completely useless. In the rare time that charges are brought, police are ready to snag someone like Tommy Robinson for reporting on the proceedings of the grooming gangs.
4. Islamic Slave Trade
Younger Yazidi girls fetch higher prices in the Islamic State slave markets. According to some accounts, those higher up in the organization’s command structure get first choice. But it’s clear the trade comprises a real wing of the Islamic State’s internal economy.
“The girls get peddled like barrels of petrol,” Zainab Bangura, the United Nations’ special representative on sexual violence and conflict, said in an interview with Bloomberg. “One girl can be sold and bought by five or six different men. Sometimes these fighters sell the girls back to their families for thousands of dollars of ransom.”
The Washington Post details some of the barbaric practices that been going on be ISIS fighters. Women are bought and sold like property, and become slaves for men willing to do cruel things to them.
Of course, this practice long precedes ISIS. In fact Islam itself has a lengthy history of slavery, which is permitted for “infidels”. Funny how leftists in the West blame whites for limited slavery by some ancestors, yet are silent about the ongoing slavery that goes on under the name of Islam.
5. Forced Child Marriages
Almost one third ( 32% ) of refugee marriages in Jordan involve a girl under 18, according to the latest figures from Unicef. This refers to registered marriages, so the actual figure may be much higher. The rate of child marriage in Syria before the war was 13%.
Some families marry off their daughters because of tradition. Others see a husband as protection for their daughters, but the UN says most are driven by poverty.
City of the dispossessed
“The longer the crisis in Syria lasts, the more we will see refugee families using this as a coping mechanism,” said Michele Servadei, deputy Jordan representative for Unicef. “The vast majority of these cases are child abuse, even if the parents are giving their permission.”
It involves Syrian brokers and men – mainly from the Gulf States – who present themselves as donors, but are actually shopping for brides.
They prey on refugee families, living in rented accommodation, who are struggling to get by.
This piece is very heartbreaking. Many are abandoned by their family out of poverty, or married off due to tradition.
Circumstances also make these young girls easy targets for adult men who fully intend to exploit them. This isn’t “marriage” in any real sense of the word. It’s child sex slavery.
6. Polygamy, Multiple Marriages
If the idea of forcing a young child into marriage isn’t sick enough, consider the idea of forcing children (yes, multiple) children into marriages.
Considering the power imbalance in child marriages, and under Sharia law in general, how exactly is the well being of these “wives” supposed to be looked after?
7. Female Genital Mutilation
This is a move that should outrage feminists, but they are stunningly silent on it. Young girls, often against their will, and having their privates mutilated in order to prevent them from getting aroused in later years.
Obviously, if there is unwanted sexual contact, it is exclusively the girl/woman’s fault. The man is never responsible.
This practice is banned in dozens of countries, but is going on under the radar in the West. The U.S. recently had a very public case against 2 doctors performing such actions.
Dr. Jumana Nagarwala is the lead defendant in the case. While the charges of conspiring to commit and committing female genital mutilation, as well as aiding and abetting others in doing so, have been dropped, Nagarwala still faces charges of conspiring to travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct and conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding. She was charged alongside Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, his wife, Farida Attar, and five other residents of Michigan and Minnesota.
Congress had no authority to pass a law criminalizing female genital mutilation, judge says
Apparently, a law designed to protect girls and women from violence directed at them is unconstitutional. From the CNN article, it shows how the victims have been failed by the courts.
Make no mistake. FGM does happen elsewhere in the West. However, Islamic groups would much prefer that it not be discussed publicly.
8. Domestic Violence
This was addressed in another article. The example included research by a Calgary group for violence survivors, who found that up to 40% of their patrons were visible Muslims. Of course one may ask “why” there is such rampant abuse in Islamic families, but that would be bigoted.
9. Honour Killings Of Girls
Of course, it doesn’t always stop at just violence. It can, and does, often lead to murder.
Two cases that made national headlines were: (a) the Shafia family killing, where 3 daughters and an ex-wife were killed; and Asqa Parvez, killed by her brother and father.
While those are just 2, there are many more that are going on in the West. In the name of diversity, we import cultures who do not believe in equality between men and women.
10. Pro-Islam Campaigns Pushed By Media
Now that we’ve gotten into the horrendous, exploitative things done in the name of Islam, we have to ask the next question. Why aren’t these things repeatedly and thoroughly condemned by the media?
In short, great marketing. Islamic groups frequently push and promote their “religion”, using selective truthfulness. It happens very often.
Consider this example of a CBC article promoting World Hijab Day. 2 women are at the Windsor Regional Hospital to talk about and promote the event. They speak of it in absolute glowing terms.
Of course, neither these women (nor other Muslim women) mention the ugly truth: women in many regions are FORCED to wear the hijab. See here, see here, and see here. Certainly this should at least be mentioned. Otherwise, this is just propaganda.
11. Media Sweeps Islamic Terrorism Under Rug
The church leaders said that “over 6,000 persons, mostly children, women and the aged have been maimed and killed in night raids by armed Fulani herdsmen,” which is prompting their cry to the government of Nigeria “to stop this senseless and blood shedding in the land and avoid a state of complete anarchy where the people are forced to defend themselves.”
The press release also pleaded with the international community, as well as the United Nations, to intervene in the Fulani attacks, fearing they might spread to other countries as well.
“We are particularly worried at the widespread insecurity in the country where wanton attacks and killings by armed Fulani herdsmen, bandits and terrorists have been taking place on a daily basis in our communities unchallenged despite huge investments in the security agencies,” they added, saying President Muhammadu Buhari has failed to bring attackers to justice.
In Nigeria, as well as other places, Muslims openly wage war against infidels. This is nothing short of a genocide. People, often Christians, are slaughtered simply for believing in something different.
This has been going on for 1400 years in some form or another. However, Islamists using Taqiyya (deception) have been largely successful in persuading large parts of the public that it is only extremists who are engaged in this sort of thing.
Articles and stories like this are quite common, but you will never hear about it on the mainstream media.
April 29, 2019 Update
As per the Minister of Public Safety’s statement on the 2018 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada, a review of the language used to describe extremism has been undertaken and is ongoing. The Government’s communication of threats must be clear, concise, and cannot be perceived as maligning any groups. As we continue this review, it is apparent that in outlining a threat, it must be clearly linked to an ideology rather than a community. The Government will carefully select terminology that focuses on the intent or ideology. As a first step, the Government has updated terminology used in the 2018 report to eliminate terminology that unintentionally impugns an entire religion. Going forward, the Government of Canada is committed to applying a bias-free approach to the terminology used to describe any threats inspired by ideology or groups.
Ralph Goodale, who identifies as the “Public Safety Minister”, tries to sanitize the report by emphasizing that it is not the ideology itself (Sunnis and Shias) who are committing acts of terrorism, but rogue elements.
Never mind that Islam is an ideology which requires its followers to commit violence against non-believers. This is just whitewashing the truth. He can’t even call a spade a spade.
This is as absurd as when former U.S. President Barry Soretoro (a.k.a. Barack Obama) claimed that the Fort Hood shooter — an Islamist who killed 40 troops — was committing workplace violence instead of terrorism.
13. Legislation To Combat “Islamophobia”
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has upheld a conviction against an Austrian woman who publicly called Mohamed a “pedophile” for marrying a 6 year old girl. Also see the video.
In Canada, the Federal Government passed a motion to ban “Islamophobia” and other forms of discrimination. Not accidently, “Islamophobia” was never explicitly defined, making it easier to be interpreted broadly.
Those are just 2 examples of creeping Islam, and efforts to shut down any questions or criticism, regardless of merit.
14. Global Efforts Against “Islamophobia”
This was covered in a previous article. There are attempts to make criticism of Islam a crime everywhere in the world. While these movements are portrayed as stopping religious defamation and prejudice, the real goal is to shield Islam from people speaking the truth
CLICK HERE, for a March 2008 meeting. CLICK HERE, for an April 2009 press briefing. CLICK HERE, for a 2009 statement, States obliged to promote religious tolerance. CLICK HERE, for World Interfaith Harmony Week, February 2010. CLICK HERE, for a 2010 call for “minority rights”. CLICK HERE for UN Assistance in Afghanistan meeting in 2012. CLICK HERE, for a 2012 address from the Turkish Foreign Minister CLICK HERE, for a 2014 Iranian statement to the UN. CLICK HERE, for a whitewashing of Islam, October 2014. CLICK HERE, for a gripe-fest about Islamophobia, August 2017. CLICK HERE, for Iqra Khalid, Pakistani Muslim, and Liberal MP.
15. Islamists Infiltrating “Human Rights” Bodies
There are 57 members in the UN OIC, which is the Organization of Islamic Countries. This makes up the single biggest voting bloc in the UN. Their goal, predictably, is to work collectively to advance Sharia Law.
Several of these nations are also on the UN Human Rights Council. That’s right. Nations which commit human rights abuses are on the HRC.
16. Cairo Declaration Provides No Protection
ARTICLE 2: (a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to safeguard this right against any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a shari’ah prescribed reason.
ARTICLE 12: Every man shall have the right, within the framework of the Shari’ah, to free movement and to select his place of residence whether within or outside his country and if persecuted, is entitled to seek asylum in another country. The country of refuge shall be obliged to provide protection to the asylum-seeker until his safety has been attained, unless asylum is motivated by committing an act regarded by the Shari’ah as a crime.
ARTICLE 22: (a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.
1.. Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.
(b) Everyone shall have the right to participate, directly or indirectly in the administration of his country’s public affairs. He shall also have the right to assume public office in accordance with the provisions of Shari’ah.
ARTICLE 24: All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.
ARTICLE 25: The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.
Nice bait-and-switch here. While the Cairo Declaration presents as an enshrinement of human rights, one thing must be pointed out. All of these “rights” are solely within the context of Shari’ah. This effectively means that there are no real rights, nor any true equality.
Certainly, the Cairo Declaration “appears” to enshrine many basic rights for everyone, and to ensure equality between men and women. It appears to support free speech, and fundamental freedoms for all. But again, only within the context of Sharia law.
17. Final Thoughts
So what is really going on here with Islam?
Media propaganda to promote Islam
Keep names out of government reports
Pass laws to ban “Islamophobia”
Work to ban criticism of Islam (globally)
Infiltrate human rights organizations
Enshrine meaningless declarations
Of course, this is only a partial list, but should illustrate the point. But why do all of this though?
It’s to cover up the exploitive and downright predatory nature of Islam. It’s to silence and discredit people who ask questions — regardless of how well founded they are. To keep people in the dark about how women and girls are really treated in Muslim majority areas.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention on Preventing/Punishing Genocide CLICK HERE, for review of multiculti/genocide. CLICK HERE, for Robert Putnam’s research on diversity & community.
UN Replacement Migration Schemes CLICK HERE, for UN Population Conferences (1974 Romania, 1984 Mexico, 1994 Egypt) CLICK HERE, for the Barcelona Declaration (of 1995). CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 1995). CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 1998). CLICK HERE, for the Expert Group of Population Decline (of 2000). CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2002). CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2005). CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2008). CLICK HERE, for the Declaration on High Level Dialogue on Migration (of2013). CLICK HERE, for the New York Declaration (of 2016) CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact (of 2018) CLICK HERE, for the Charlemagne Prize, for unifying Europe. CLICK HERE, for Canada’s Multiculturalism Act.
Other Articles On Immigration CLICK HERE, for mass migration at 1M/year in Canada. CLICK HERE, for migration programs in Canada. CLICK HERE, for replacement migration since 2003/04. CLICK HERE, for domestic violence path to permanent residence. CLICK HERE, for International Mobility Program. CLICK HERE, for remittances and brain drain. CLICK HERE, for economic migration during high unemployment. CLICK HERE, for CANZUK review.
2. The Kalergi Plan
This video was originally posted by YouTuber Black Pigeon Speaks, but was taken down. In short, the Kalergi Plan, (named after Richard Codenhove-Kalergi) is a scheme to impose multiculturalism on nations, and breed out individual races.
The rationale behind it is the idea that race and ethnicity were the root causes of much violent conflicts. If everyone was of a single race, this would be eliminated.
Peace through ethnic cleansing. It’s nonsense like this that actually makes Hitler seem normal by comparison.
3. 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.
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The following acts shall be punishable:
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
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.
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.
4. Abstract Of Research Paper
We provide new measures of ethnic, linguistic and religious fractionalization for about 190 countries. These measures are more comprehensive than those previously used in the economics literature and we compare our new variables with those previously used. We also revisit the question of the effects of ethnic, linguistic and religious fractionalization on quality of institutions and growth. We partly confirm and partly modify previous results. The patterns of cross-correlations between potential explanatory variables and their divergent degree of endogeneity makes it hard to make unqualified statements about competing explanations for economic growth and the quality of government.
5. Quotes From Harvard Paper
a) On economic growth, we broadly confirm the results by Easterly and Levine (1997). In fact the negative effect of ethnic fragmentation on growth is reinforced with the new data, and we are able to highlight the differences between ethnic, linguistic and religious fractionalization.
Here it is. These differences can be measured and contrasted.
The differences in the results between religious and linguistic and ethnic fractionalization are quite suggestive. Religious affiliation is the most endogenous of the three variables. Religions can be banned and individual can relatively easily “hide” their religious affiliation to avoid repression. Individuals and families can change from one religion to another far more easily than they can change race or language. In a sense, a higher observed measure of religious fractionalization can be a sign of a more tolerant and democratic form of government. In a more repressive regime, you can hide your religion or conform to the state-imposed religion, but hiding your racial origin, especially if it relates to skin color, is much more difficult. Short of genocide, it is difficult to change the ethnic composition of a country.
(Page 13) Short of genocide, it is difficult to change the ethnic composition of a country? Not really. Mass migration policies of the West do exactly that. Want to create a Chinese nation? Just import enough Chinese nationals until they dominate the area. Want an Islamic state? Import endless Muslims.
The authors are correct that it is difficult to change the ethnic composition. However, open borders activists are doing exactly that, under the guise of “diversity”.
4 The Quality of Government
One of the reasons why ethnic fractionalization may negatively influence economic success in terms of growth and level of income has to do with the potentially negative effects of ethnic conflict on the quality of policy and of institutions
No kidding. It’s almost as if forced diversity if harmful to the productivity of a nation.
5 Discussion of Individual Data Points
A cross-country statistical exercise is a crude way to summarize complex political and economic histories of countries and their constituent ethnic groups. A promising direction for future research would be for economists to do more case histories of development, economic policy, and government quality in ethnically diverse places, of the kind that the political science literature does.
How long before we start imposing more diversity as a means of generating more samples to conduct research.
The standard account of Nigeria’s ethnic conflict pits the Muslim North versus the Christian South, but this is a simplification. Firstly, the Christian South is divided between the Yoruba and Igbo. Secondly, there are substantial Southern minority groups living in Northern cities, a situation that has led to recurrent communal violence. Thirdly, fractious ethnic groups in the center of the country and in the oil-rich Niger delta keep small-scale conflict going even out of the limelight of the Hausa/Yoruba/Igbo three-way ethnic war. Table 15 shows that Nigeria has had disastrous economic policies (high black market premiums), poor infrastructure (virtually no telephone density) and high corruption.
(Page 16) Interesting how Islam is downplayed here. Muslims have been waging war for 1400 years, and millions of Christians have died because of it.
Also intriguing is the authors omit a possibility ethnic conflicts are kept from the media: perhaps the players want to keep the money rolling in, so there may be a pact to keep it on the down low.
Ethiopia also has very high ethnic and linguistic diversity (according to both new and old measures), and ethnic conflict has been at the center of Ethiopian history for centuries. Ethiopia has had one of the lowest growth rates in the world over the past half-century and as a result remains one of the least developed nations in the world
Wouldn’t this be a clear case of diversity and multiculturalism not working out?
Guyana shows up as ethnically diverse in our data because of its racial breakdown between Africans, East Indians, Europeans, and others. The Afro-Guyanese and Indo-Guyanese are the predominant groups and are almost numerically equal. Since they have mobilized politically along ethnic lines (supporting two different parties since before independence), any consensus for development has been torn apart by competition for rents between the two groups
Mobilizing along racial and ethnic lines to protect your group interests? Funny, whites are considered racist when they do that.
Chile, in contrast, is a well known Latin American success story ….. The difference in Chile was probably due to its higher level of homogeneity. In fact, after Pinochet’s departure from power the new democratic regime showed remarkable stability by Latin American standards. The relative ethnic homogeneity of the society may have made achieving support for reform and economic development easier than in Bolivia or Guyana.
In today’s lesson we learn that apples are different from oranges. Chile is seen as a success story, but it is also much more homogenous than many other places.
The question of what makes different countries more or less successful economically and what explains their quality of policies is one of the most fascinating that economists can ask, but it is also one of the most difficult to answer. Different authors have their own “favorite” explanatory variables: from purely “economic” ones, to geographic ones, to legal ones, to political, cultural, religious and historical ones. In this paper we have considered closely one such set of variables: measures of ethnic, linguistic and religious fractionalization.
(Page 20) Thank you Harvard, for proving that multiculturalism and diversity do not work when objectively measured.
6. Asking The Obvious Questions
This paper is from 2002, 17 years ago.
The detrimental effects of multiculturalism and forced diversity have been researched extensively, and the same trends keep coming back. People want to live and work with others who are like themselves.
One can sing the praises of diversity endlessly. Fact is, however, an awful lot of people want nothing to do with it. They prefer close knit, homogenous communities.
Despite all of this being obvious, and despite the research done, multiculturalism and diversity are still pushed in Western nations. Why is that? Why push for policies that are clearly and blatantly harmful? Is this sheer stupidity, or is there malice involved? Who is behind this push in the West?
Why is it that some nations can protect their national cultures, heritages, traditions — and yes ethnicities — but others are pressured into being diverse? Why these double standards?
(U.N. decided that replacing the populations of certain nations is more important than promoting higher birth rates.)
(Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples)
(Replacement migration schemes violate Convention On Genocide)
(The outlines of a variety of globalist wealth schemes)
(Agenda 2030, global socialism)
(Plans for the global regulation of the internet)
(Global Citizenship Education. Post nation-state?)
(The ultimate goal is a world government)
While there are an almost endless number of reasons to leave the United Nations, this essay focuses on some of the more obvious ones.
Any true patriot, or nationalist, should be alarmed at the increasing loss of our sovereignty to the U.N. It is done incrementally, which makes it even more dangerous. Previous articles, along with the corresponding links and citations are available on the website. In no particular order, here are the arguments in favour of exiting the UN permanently, and completely.
In December 2018, Canada signed the UN Global Migration Compact in Morocco. This “non-binding” agreement was to set new guidelines in managing mass migration, including some 258 million people now. The prelude to this was the New York Declaration, signed in 2016. These agreements were to confer new rights upon migrants, even those coming illegally. They were also to establish the UN as the global manager of migration.
Note: Canada signs many “non-binding” agreements. Many have been domestically implemented by Governments in Canada, meaning they are not so “non-binding” after all.
However, the Global Migration Compact is a soft target, and obscures the ongoing problem. the push by the UN for almost unending immigration from the 3rd world to the 1st predates that by far. As early back as the 1970s (and likely much longer), the UN has hosted conferences on “replacement migration” in the West. Their solution is never to boost the birth rates of the West. Rather, the solution is always more immigration, regardless of cultural compatibility.
This flies in the face of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People. That 2008 agreement “Recogniz[ed] the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources.” Few, if any, Indigenous groups have supported the mass importation of peoples and cultures which are very different from their own.
While the text of the agreement seems fine on the surface, there is a conflict with other UN goals. How exactly are these Indigenous Peoples going to have those rights preserved in the face of mass migration? Consider that many nations govern by majority. By importing large numbers of immigrants with different goals and interests than the Indigenous ones, how will that help? How will diluting their numbers, political and voting power (via mass migration), aid Indigenous Peoples?
UNDRIP raises 2 other questions: (I) Is it only those Indigenous Peoples who have the right to a unique culture and identity, or do others get one as well? (II) Will any industrial or developmental projects be subject to veto power under the agreement? Unfortunately, it answers neither.
While claiming to respect border security and national sovereignty, the actions of the UN speak differently. This includes efforts to facilitate efforts of illegal aliens to enter countries, such as financing and organizing. This is done KNOWING that the host countries do not want illegal entry. In short, the UN aids in invasions of sovereign nations. Furthermore, little to no efforts are made to prevent smuggling or trafficking of people.
3 examples of this include: (a) crossing into Canada via a loophole in the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement; (b) caravans trying to enter the US via the border with Mexico; and (c) entering Southern Europe, typically through Greece, Italy, France or Spain.
Interestingly, the UN violates its own Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article II prohibits acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. It specifically lists:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The UN encourages people in Western nations to have less children, and gives reasons such as preventing climate change. This leads to a lower birth rate. The UN also facilitates mass migration from the 3rd World to the 1st, effectively bringing about rapid demographic change. The UN directly and indirectly attempts to circumvent borders and valid immigration restrictions. Naturally, the UN promotes multiculturalism and tolerance, instead of respecting the host nations.
It can also be plausibly argued that UN efforts to censor criticism of Islam (and the dangers it poses) amount to aiding and abetting with the destruction of religious groups.
And no, this is not sarcasm. Mass migration and replacement migration efforts by the UN bring about the same demographic changes that its Convention on Genocide specifically prohibits. It isn’t necessary to go out and execute a group of people to partake in genocide.
Speaking of criticizing Islam, one alarming initiative is the push to ban so-called religious defamation. Officially, it is to prevent discrimination and harm based on religious affiliation. Despite its harmless sounding name, this is an initiative to ban criticism of Islam on a global scale. Non-binding motions have passed, but have never been implemented, primarily due to free speech concerns. The truth behind the facade is that Islam is an extremely political religion, if it even is a religion. Banning legitimate concerns from being addressed helps those political goals. Much easier to advance an agenda if critics are forcibly silenced.
Canada signed Paris Agreement (a.k.a Paris Accord), again touted as “non-binding”. This agreement would restrict the levels of so-called greenhouse gases a nation is allowed to emit. The developed and developing world would be held to different standards, making the agreement inherently unfair. Note: Carbon Dioxide is plant food, not pollution. Conservative Premiers in Canada have challenged the jurisdiction of the Carbon taxes, while going along with the scam in principle.
While touted as a way to prevent a global catastrophe, the Paris Agreement is really just a revenue generating tool for the UN. Article 9 goes into depth about the “financial mechanisms” and the “financial flow”. The money generated would then be funnelled to the UN, and used to generate trillions more in the commodities market, via Green Bonds. In short, these taxes are used to create a slush fund for the UN IPCC and their allies to generate more wealth.
Aside from the Paris Accord, the UN has many schemes in mind for raising revenue. From the 2012 guide on New Development Financing, here is an estimate of their plans. This chapter would go through these plans, as well as where the money is intended to be spent.
SDR (or special drawing rights), from IMF $150B-$270B
Carbon taxes, $240B
Leveraging SDR, $90B
Financial transaction tax, $10B-70B
Billionaire tax, $90B
Currency trading tax, $30B
EU emissions trading scheme, $5B
Air passenger levy, $10B
Certified emission reduction tax, $2B
Current ODA Flow, $120B
These are just some of the schemes which are being dreamed up, but the list is hardly exhaustive.
Of course, why should your pension be any different? The UN Principles for Responsible Investing were wholeheartedly adopted by the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board. This means that the ESG factors, (Environmental, Social, Governance) must be considered in every transaction, in every investment the Board makes. One would think that the Canadian Government would want to invest the funds into Canadian industries. Or at least most of them. After all, why not promote and encourage local development? Instead, 85% of the money CPPIB invests is done in foreign companies and projects. While this may lead to higher returns in some cases, it does little to boost Canadian development.
The Canadian Pension Plan is hardly the only one that is being used to finance UN agendas abroad. And it is done without the consent (and knowledge, in most cases) of the pension holders themselves. While this comes across as virtuous, the Government is risking the pensions of its people in those foreign ventures.
Canada signed Agenda 2030 in September 2015. It was basically an expanded version of Agenda 21, which had been ratified in June 1992. Agenda 2030 aimed to put the “Sustainable Development Agenda” into every aspect of modern life. Furthermore, it would not be restricted to being a UN project. Nations, and even cities are encouraged to draw up their UN-compliant plans. The 17 SDA goals are to be implemented in all aspects of life.
It would not be restricted to the environment either. Irrelevant issues like gender, youth, people with disabilities, racial justice and abortion were to considered in every project. There is much more of a social justice focus being pushed.
The UN has an odd position on the right to abortion. They have a philosophy about the right to life. There are many noble goals such as: humane treatment of prisoners, due process in court proceedings, trying to prevent suicide, and banning torture. Those are all fine. What is strange is that abortion is considered a human right. Article 6 of the “Right To Life” outlines many beliefs, but promotes the idea that abortion is a human right, not the child that is killed in the process.
Paragraph 9 of Article 6 goes through what steps should be taken to ensure that getting abortions are not too difficult, or too dangerous. Furthermore, States should take steps to ensure that abortion is readily available to prevent women from undertaking abortions in a dangerous manner. These guidelines also apply to adolescent girls.
Interestingly, there is no mention of trying to discourage abortions, or promoting adoption services. Nor does the UN call a spade a spade: abortion is killing a baby. However, it is cloaked as “reproductive care”. The mother has the right to abortions, but the unborn babies have no rights themselves.
Perhaps this attitude is a population control measure.
They say that whoever controls the education system controls the youth, and hence, the future. That is what UNESCO, the UN Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization seeks to do. It proclaims education to be a human right, as goal #4 of the Sustainable Development Agenda. The group wants to provide universal education to everyone. This encompasses pre-school, to higher education and beyond.
This sounds great, except that UNESCO wants to push “its” version of education on everyone else. It is a global citizenship focus, where people are part of a world community. The UN has its agenda for world domination (as outlined elsewhere in the essay). Much of the education focus will be promoting this narrative.
This is not to say there aren’t societal benefits to increasing the literacy rate, and providing basic education in math and science. There certainly are. It would be naïve, though, to think that this is entirely altruistic. A UN focused curriculum would certainly reinforce the dangers of climate change, the divisiveness of borders, and promote the benefits of mass migration, multiculturalism, sustainable development, speech and internet regulation.
The global citizen education agenda has already leaked into schools in Canada. Not only are the ideas creeping in, but some places, such as Manitoba, openly teach from UNESCO principles. The one-world vision is being promoted to our students.
Beyond formal education, the youth movement is becoming and increasingly important part of the UN agenda. Why? Because children are more impressionable. It is far easier to convince a young person of the dangers of climate change and the need for drastic action. Furthermore, few people would bluntly call them out openly on it. Most older people have been exposed to many hoaxes in their lives, and hence are wise to the scams.
It also explains (at least partly) the drive to drastically lower the voting age form 18 to 16, or 14, or even 8. Young children are viewed not as wise people, but as a voting block to be manipulated. If youth are convinced that the UN is the only hope humanity has, they can vote as a group to prevent this. Certainly, this can alter elections, or at least change the outcome in close ridings or districts.
Finally, there is a push for a UN Parliamentary Assembly. This is a movement to establish an actual world government, able to making binding legislation. In essence, it would be a scaled up version of the European Union, where member states would send representatives to the global body. This is still in the theoretical stages, as it is unclear how this would properly represent national rights. One need only look at the problems of the EU to be turned off to a UNPA.
Although informal talks have been ongoing for a long time, the UN Parliament campaign officially launched in June 2007. That year, Canada’s Foreign Affairs Committee approved the idea in principle. Canada’s current Federal Government claims it has the power to sign “this treaty”, if it ever came to pass.
These issues are hardly exhaustive, but should provide a good outline of what is wrong with being part of the UN. National sovereignty is compromised with every agreement that gets signed. It is not just Canadian autonomy that is eroded, but all nations.
The UN promotes mass migration, and gives little thought to borders or sovereignty. Forced migration leads to cultural tension, and breaks down social cohesion. The UN has many schemes to enrich itself, with the Paris Accord being just one of them. Our pensions are not safe either. Free speech is in danger if a global body were to regulate internet usage, and the ability to criticize ideas such as Islam. Sustainable Development Agendas, such as Agenda 2030 are designed to regulate nearly every type of activity in society. The right to life is enshrined, unless it means life of unborn children — in which case killing him/her is a human right. Children are being brainwashed by global citizen education, and ever worse, they become “useful idiots” for their causes. And the ultimate goal is a world government.
You think your interests aren’t being represented now? Will that improve if your nation became just one of 195 voices? Probably not.
Of course, there is one final insult to add: some of the great human rights abusers sit on the UN Human Rights Council. Some of the nations in which women have no rights are on the UN Women’s Council. This would be a parody if it wasn’t serious.
There is only one sensible solution: leave the UN completely.
(Temporary Foreign Workers can become Permanent Residents)
(One option for college, university graduates is the Provincial Nominee Program. Its name varies slightly by Province)
(Brooks, AB, and cheap foreign labour)
1. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for a previous article on the subject. CLICK HERE, for Canada’s immigration rate: 1 million/year. CLICK HERE, for previous article on CANZUK. CLICK HERE, for the Conservative Party and globalism.
CLICK HERE, for fastest/cheapest ways to come to Canada
CLICK HERE, for Northern and Rural Pilot Program. CLICK HERE, for new program, path to permanent residence specifically for agriculture workers.
CLICK HERE, for getting a temporary residence permit in the case of domestic violence CLICK HERE, for applying for permanent residence based on domestic violence. CLICK HERE, for Calgary research into shelters: 40% of domestic abuses cases involve Muslim families.
CLICK HERE, for CPC Policy Guidelines (Article 139(ii)).
2. The Rule From Before
If a Conservative or Nationalist isn’t willing to talk about the FULL SCALE of immigration into the country, there’s no reason to trust anything they say on the subject.
Disclaimer: If any program has been missed, please contact and it will be promptly added.
3. Faith Goldy Drops Truth Bombs
Faith Goldy does a livestream here, discussing the full scope of mass migration into Canada. She correctly points out that public debate is limited (Permanent + Refugees), while other categories are not discussed in the political sphere. She also points out the elephant in the room: politicians focus on replacing citizens with foreigners rather than promoting higher birth rates within Canada. The name “replacement migration” fits perfectly. Great video. Watch and subscribe.
Honourable mentions: YouTuber Rants Derek also points out some hard truths. (See 1:10-1:50). Another channel worth subscribing too, as he covers difficult and important topics. Also see this article by Spencer Fernando.
4. National Citizens Alliance Addresses It
The video is of NCA founder, Stephen Garvey. It’s nice to finally have a political party in Canada address the problem in an honest manner. No low-balling here.
Also worth noting, 525,000 people got their citizenship in a 12 month period. This is despite the “backlog”, and only taking ~350,000 people into Canada.
Source: StatsCan population data.
Remember: This table only covers “temporary” entrants (workers and students), and is outside what politicians typically declare. While these programs are officially marketed as temporary, there are a number of avenues to stay longer and become a permanent resident.
Now, combine the 2017 “temporary” totals with the approximately 350,000 permanent and refugees that the government declares and you get this. Note: the report itself lists slightly lower actual entry (330K) under Permanent and Refugee totals, but 350K is the stated goal.
However, the only heading being debated is the 350K at the top (permanent and refugee). Very disingenuous to not include the entire amount.
Canadians are deceived, as most are likely not aware of the actual intake. The P+R categories only represent about a third of total immigration. And this doesn’t even cover the illegal entries.
6. Temporary Foreign Worker Program
This should be self explanatory, but let’s get some more information on this. Is temporary really temporary? Not really. From the factsheet which is freely available online.
Advantages to Employers
For employers who have been unable to recruit Canadian citizens or permanent residents for job openings, the TFWP makes it possible to hire workers from abroad. Employers might also find a qualified foreign worker already in Canada, such as a foreign worker who is about to complete a job contract with another employer or a foreign national holding an open work permit that allows the employee to work for any employer in Canada.
While most temporary foreign workers will be hired to address a specific, short-term labour need, some temporary foreign workers who initially came to fill a temporary vacancy can transition to permanent residence if they meet certain requirements. For example, the Canadian Experience Class is open to foreign nationals who have been working full-time in Canada as trades people or in managerial or professional occupations and meet certain other requirements. Other foreign workers may qualify through the Provincial Nominee Program for permanent residence in Canada. These routes exist to ensure that workers who have shown that their skills are in continuing demand and that they have already adapted well to life in Canada can build a future here.
Source is here.
While this is called the “Temporary” Foreign Worker Program, the wording makes it very clear. The pathway to Permanent Resident is built in intentionally. This absolutely is a pathway to PR, and from there, citizenship. Extremely misleading to the public.
Not only that, there is no requirement to attempt to hire a Canadian worker. An employer can just hire a foreigner who happens to already be in Canada.
7. Agriculture Specific PR Path
Thousands of temporary foreign workers in greenhouses, mushroom farms and meat processing plants will soon be given a path to permanent residency.
Under the three-year “Agri-Food Immigration Pilot,” 2,750 workers and their families will be able to apply for permanent residency each year. The federal government says it could mean up to 16,500 new permanent residents.
From this article, a pilot program set up to fast track people in agriculture to Permanent Resident status. It was created specifically for this industry.
Working in meat processing plants? Kind of like how things went in Brooks, Alberta, after Jason (Bilderberg) Kenney brought in cheap foreign labour? Those Somali Muslims?
Another boutique program to greenlight permanent residence to people coming into Canada.
8. Northern And Rural Program
The Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot is a community-driven program. It’s designed to spread the benefits of economic immigration to smaller communities by creating a path to permanent residence for skilled foreign workers who want to work and live in 1 of the participating communities.
This new initiative aims to get more immigration to smaller towns under the pretext of “economic development”.
In reality, it will likely make such small towns unrecognizable by inducing rapid demographic shifts. Want to get away from all the diversity in big cities? Now you won’t be able to, bigot.
Take for example, Brooks, AB, which was culturally enriched by then Immigration Minister Jason Kenney bringing in Somali Muslims to fill jobs at a meat packing plant.
9. Student Visas
Information is from here. Rather than rehashing it, here is the actual quote. It outlines a number of benefits to studying in Canada. They include
(1) International students in Canada can work for up to 20 hours per week during semester, and on a full-time basis during school breaks.
(2) The tuition fees to study in Canada, even for international students, are usually lower than in other countries.
(3) The spouse or common-law partner of an international student may accompany the student in Canada. Not only that, spouses and partners may obtain an open work permit, allowing them to work any hours they wish and for any employer.
(4) International students in Canada can bring their children to Canada, and the kids can attend one of Canada’s public elementary or secondary schools without needing their own study permit.
(5) Canada’s largest cities are ranked among the best student cities by the QS World University Rankings, with Montreal ranked the best student city in the world and Vancouver and Toronto not far behind.
Graduates can work in Canada for up to three years on an open post-graduation work permit (see below under ‘Earn’).
(6) Rather than closing the door on graduates who complete their studies in Canada or making things incredibly difficult, as some countries may do, Canada actively sets out to provide permanent residence pathways to students and graduates (see below under ‘Stay’).
(7) Canada’s liberal citizenship naturalization process allows international students to count time spent on a study permit towards citizenship residency days requirements.
The Provincial Nominee Program is a common, but not only, option for graduates looking to stay.
Not much I can add to this. Comparatively lax standards, and easy to move to Permanent Residence. Upon graduation, you are given 3 years. Also your time studying counts.
Canada’s international student population is surging, even as domestic student count is falling. Why is this? Different motivations. More and more Canadians realize that university, (and to a degree college), is useless for employment. However, foreigners looking to immigrate to Canada see college as a stepping stone to do so.
Will all students stay after graduating? No, but a lot will.
10. Students, Bring Your Families
This was alluded to earlier. Canada not only takes in lots of students, but allows them to bring a spouse and children. For everyone, time in Canada counts towards obtaining permanent residency.
Not just one person gaining time towards Permanent Resident status, but the family. Let that sink in.
In 2017, Canada issued 317,000 student visas. Theoretically, every one of those people would be able to bring a spouse and children, if they had any.
It is not the education that is the real value. Even STEM degrees don’t guarantee employment. Rather, student visas are used as a stepping stone to permanent immigration into Canada.
11. International Mobility Programme
Also known as the Youth Mobility Program, this allows foreign workers to come to Canada for 1-2 years for casual work, schooling, or travel. There is an age limit of 35. In 2017, Canada admitted 224,000 people under the International Mobility Programme
While this is sold to the public as a “temporary” visa, that is not the full story. Is a person is resourceful, they will likely be able to find another way to stay in the country. This would be by lining up another visa, making further education arrangements, getting married, or pursuing another method.
There absolutely are ways around the “temporary” nature.
True, many people will go back to their home countries after that 1 or 2 year period is up. But it is also true that creative people can get around the intent of the program.
Research by her organization found some shelter providers in Calgary found up to 40 per cent of women seeking help were visible Muslims. Many are new immigrants and refugees and can be socially isolated with few friends and no family in Canada.
And what does that translate to overall? Calgary’s Muslim population is about 3% of Calgary’s overall population. So let’s do an apples to apples comparison.
Let’s do some math: suppose you have a city with 1,000,000 citizens, which would mean 30,000 muslims, and 970,000 non-muslims. Now, suppose there are 1,000 incidents of domestic violence in a year. That means that 400 of those incidents would involve muslims, and 600 would involve non-muslims.
Now, those 30,000 muslims would have been involved in 400 domestic violence incidents, or about 1333 per 100,000 people. The 970,000 non-muslims would have been involved in 600 domestic violence incidents or about 62 per 100,000 people. Comparing the two groups of 1333 and 62 per 100,000, we divide and (1333/62=21.5). We get about a magnitude of 21 or 22.
That’s right. Per capita (assuming the research is correct), Muslim families engage in domestic violence at more than 20 times the rate of non-Muslim families. Let that sink in.
That is likely to get a lot worse, though not for the reasons you might be thinking.
Beginning July 26, newcomers who are victims of domestic violence can apply for a free temporary resident permit that will give them legal immigration status in Canada. That will include a work permit and health-care coverage. In “urgent” situations of family violence, the government will expedite the process by allowing people to apply for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
According to the CBC, people leaving domestic abuse situations can apply for a temporary residence permit. That can then become permanent residence based on compassionate grounds.
Get ready for more claims. Furthermore, it doesn’t specifically limit one spouse per person.
13. CANZUK Will Erase Borders
(The CPC strongly supports CANZUK)
(CPC policy is to give temporary workers permanent residence status wherever it is feasible. From Page 52 of policy guidelines)
The Conservative Party of Canada fully endorses CANZUK. This is the Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK pact which eliminates trade and movement barriers between countries. Plainly said, it erases the borders. While this seems harmless, it must be noted that the agreement explicitly states that other nations may be added later.
Using political, social and economic analysis, CANZUK International’s Research Associate, Luke Fortmann, explores the future possibilities of other countries joining a free movement and trade alliance with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
A useful way to begin is by taking a look at the CANZUK countries’ dependent territories, such as Christmas Island, the Cook Islands and Anguilla, for example, which are dependencies of Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, respectively, as well as the UK’s Crown dependencies (Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man).
Each area would naturally become full members of the new group along with the nations to which they are related. Some advocates claim that these small islands, and their generally sparse populations, are currently under-utilised, and that a CANZUK alliance would offer a tremendous opportunity for their communities to acquire a far more extensive set of rights by becoming equal partners in a union, while shaking off their somewhat colonial tint.
Widening our scope, we arrive at the Commonwealth realms. These realms are sovereign states who are members of the Commonwealth and who currently share Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch, of which, there are 16 including the CANZUK countries.
Additionally, it’s been noted that, particularly concerning the more populous realms such as Jamaica and Papua New Guinea, immediate free movement would generate a rush of emigrants who may be poorly equipped for employment in the CANZUK countries; while at the same time enticing the more skilled minority away from their homeland in search of better-paying positions in the richer nations, ridding schools and hospitals of vital staff.
Instinctively, the next place to turn is to the Commonwealth as a whole. Broadening our vision in this way does present some of the same issues, as well as some new ones. A complete Commonwealth union would of course be dominated by India, with a population of over 1.3 billion, along with Pakistan (193 million), Nigeria (186 million), and Bangladesh (163 million) who would dwarf the CANZUK countries in terms of inhabitants, rendering them merely minor players.
Does that scare you yet? India, Pakistan, Nigeria and Bangladesh have a combined population of almost 2 billion people. Imagine erasing the border between them and Canada. It would be a population overrun, if even 10% of those people came here.
What does the (potential) CANZUK list look like?
Isle of Mann
Papua New Guinea
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
CANZUK is a trojan horse. It is “marketed” to the public as a loosening of borders between only Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. However, the group makes it explicit that other countries joining is entirely possible.
If, for example 50 million Indians were to come to Canada (just 4% of their population), Canada would double in size, and the voting results would be altered forever. This is demographic replacement.
14. Global Migration Compact Implemented
While officially “non-binding”, that is not really the case. They can become the basis for court decisions at later dates. For reviews, see here, see here, and see here.
This was signed by the Liberals on December 10, 2018. While the People’s Party, and now the Conservative Party, claim to oppose the Compact, how serious are they? Both “conservative” parties support mass migration and give little thought to protectionist measures.
“Conservative” parties value immigration for growth in terms of population and GDP. They care little, if at all, of ensuring cultural compatibility. Furthermore, conservatives never focus on boosting births within their nations. It is always more immigration.
15. Focus On Raising Local Birthrates
(Russia on boosting birthrates)
(Hungary: No income tax for women with 4+ children)
Thailand is encouraging more children. Italy is doing a land giveaway for married couples.
Why do Canada’s politicians not do this? Why is the solution always immigration? The exact methods and incentives are totally up for debate, sure. But governments should be encouraging their own citizens to have more children if they need more growth, or even just to reverse a decline.
Guess what, when you try to replace with migration, you eventually replace your population. Having more Canadian children here, and raising them as Canadians is far preferable to importing replacement cultures.
16. Canadians Need To Know The Truth
Yes, some of these topics have been covered before. But the truth still needs to be told, and needs to be made clear.
Canada’s politicians are lying about the scale of mass migration and replacement migration in Canada. The “debate” is limited to a few categories, while others are ignored. In fact, it is those “ignored” topics that actually comprise the bulk of immigration in Canada
Canada’s annual immigration rate is not around 300,000 to 350,000. All told, it is more like a million a year. The public is lied to about this.
Not only is the full scale lied about, but globalist politicians in Canada want to erase borders with agreements like CANZUK and the Global Migration Compact.
If more people are needed, then they should come from within. Boost the birthrate of Canadians, and grow the country organically.
WE NEED CANADIAN CHILDREN, NOT REPLACEMENT MIGRATION
Please spread the truth, and make other people aware.
CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda #2, Europe Needs Open Borders. CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda #8, Border Walls Are Useless.
CLICK HERE, for UN supports migrant caravan invasion into USA. CLICK HERE, for more on US invasion through Mexico. CLICK HERE, for UN page on NGOs. CLICK HERE, for UN Refugee Agency, and NGO/Civil Societies. CLICK HERE, for UN New York Declaration (2016). CLICK HERE, for previous coverage of New York Declaration CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact (2018) CLICK HERE, for UN book on people smuggling.
CLICK HERE, for Interpol and human smuggling. CLICK HERE, for UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto.
At least one organization, Advocates Abroad, is openly committing fraud in trying to get bogus “refugees” into Europe. This is done by concocting convincing stories with specific details in hopes of duping refugee agencies.
Ariel Ricker, the executive director of Advocates Abroad, a major non-profit NGO which provides legal aid to migrants, has been caught on tape openly discussing how she teaches refugees to lie to border agents. The video was released by Canadian right-wing activist, author and internet personality, Lauren Southern, and will be a part of her new documentary film project ‘Borderless,’ which takes on the European migration crisis.
One method she teaches migrants is to exploit the presumed Christian sympathies of the predominantly Eastern Orthodox Greece by pretending to have been persecuted for being Christian. She even describes telling them how to pray during interviews, ironically because doing so reflects “honesty.”
Advocates Abroad claim the video was selectively edited and manipulated to serve a particular agenda.
Interesting that Canada signed the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto.
The Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, adopted by General Assembly resolution 55/25, entered into force on 28 January 2004. It deals with the growing problem of organized criminal groups who smuggle migrants, often at high risk to the migrants and at great profit for the offenders. A major achievement of the Protocol was that, for the first time in a global international instrument, a definition of smuggling of migrants was developed and agreed upon. The Protocol aims at preventing and combating the smuggling of migrants, as well as promoting cooperation among States parties, while protecting the rights of smuggled migrants and preventing the worst forms of their exploitation which often characterize the smuggling process.
Canada claims to be against human smuggling. Yet we sign treaties (like the New York Declaration and Global Migration Compact), which facilitate human smuggling.
4. Interpol’s Take On Human Smuggling
For centuries, people have left their homes in search of better lives. In the last decade, the process of globalization has caused an unprecedented amount of migration from the least developed countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe to Western Europe, Australia and North America.
With this, we have seen an increase in the activities of organized criminal networks who facilitate irregular migration. By providing fake identification documents, organizing transport, and bypassing official border controls, criminals are making huge profits.
People smuggling syndicates are run like businesses, drawn by the high profit margins and low risks. They benefit from weak legislation and a relatively low risk of detection, prosecution and arrest compared to other activities of transnational organized crime.
Smuggling networks can be extensive and complex, and can include people who carry out a number of different roles:
A report published jointly by Europol and INTERPOL in May 2016 estimates that more than 90% of the migrants coming to the European Union are facilitated, mostly by members of a criminal network.
Worth pointing out: that while Interpol cites the UN’s policies against human smuggling, it neglects to mention that the UN’s policies around “rights” for illegals go a long way towards incentivizing mass illegal immigration.
It also neglects to point out the underhanded means which host countries have these forced on their populations by politicians.
5. Media Pussyfoots Around Illegal Immigration
(From a CBC article)
“Desperate migrants are choosing ever more dangerous sea routes to Europe and using smaller and less seaworthy boats, causing a sharp increase in drowning deaths, warns the International Organization for Migration.”
“Meanwhile in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is ratcheting up his attacks on the European Union, calling it a “transport agency” for migrants that hands out funds and “anonymous bank cards” to “terrorists and criminals.”
“This is the kind of slippery slope which could again lead to a broken Europe,” Orbán declared today in an interview on Hungarian public radio.
The author of this trash deliberately and repeatedly skirted the main issue here: these hoards of “migrants” trying to get into Europe were doing so ILLEGALLY. Hence places like Hungary have every right to secure their borders.
(From one CBC interview)
“AMT: We all remember the Berlin Wall coming down. In fact it was 30 years ago this year. I’ve got a clip here that I’d like you to hear. These are two Germans talking about what it felt like to stand on top of the Berlin Wall after the crowds started streaming across the border.
AMT: Elisabeth Vallet, how did the fall of that iconic wall affect our ideas around the usefulness or function of walls?
ELISABETH VALLET: Well actually if you remember in 1989 it opened a almost a hippie era of international relations, where we believed that it was the end of borders me. Maybe even the end of state sovereignty or even the fading sovereignty of the state. We believed that peace would be dominating and that conflicts would be solved by the international community. It actually showed the good the positive aspects of globalization. And we overlooked the negative aspects of globalization. And when 9/11 arrived, it’s as if that negative aspect of globalization showed its face. And that’s when the only solution to that, governments came up with the one only solution which was building border fences, because there is no way to retain globalization, to contain globalization.”
In this garbage, the “expert” compares the Berlin Wall to border walls in general. The Berlin wall was built in the 1960s to keep Germans from fleeing, and in fact kept them prisoner. This is conflated with building walls to stop illegal immigration.
The above are just 2 examples of how media outlets (like the CBC) try to shade and distort the truth by downplaying how serious and criminal these actions actually are. They play to emotion and selectively avoid hard truths.
6. UN Openly Aids And Abets Refugee Fraud
(UN supports ongoing efforts to undermine US/Mexico border)
It involves some serious mental gymnastics to explain how the UN can both:
Support mass, uncontrolled entry into other countries
Oppose circumventing laws to get migrants into other countries
San Jose – The UN Migration Agency, IOM, continues to provide support and assistance to migrants who have joined the migrant caravans crossing Central America and opted to seek asylum in Mexico or return to their countries of origin.
In the Siglo XXI Migratory Station of Tapachula, managed by the National Institute for Migration (INM) of Mexico, IOM and the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs (SRE) have been supplying food and basic hygiene kits to over 1,500 migrants from the caravans seeking asylum in Mexico.
“IOM maintains its position that the human rights and basic needs of all migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status,” says Christopher Gascon, IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico. “In coordination with UNHCR we will continue to monitor the situation of the caravan counting on field staff, the Mexican Office of Assistance for Migrants and Refugees (DAPMyR), and partner NGOs, providing information regarding alternatives for regular and safe migration, as well as options for voluntary returns.”
“The caravan phenomenon in Central America is another expression of a migration process that the region has been facing for quite some time,” explains Marcelo Pisani, IOM Regional Director for Central America, North America, and the Caribbean. “It is a mixed migration flow, driven by economic factors, family reunification, violence and the search for international protection, among others.
That’s right. The UN admits that many of these cases are not refugees.
The United Nations willingly aids and abets efforts to overwhelm the US/Mexico border. Even knowing that the bulk of the asylum claims are bogus, the UN sees nothing immoral about perpetrating a fraud. Nor is there anything immoral about the burden dumped on the American public.
What is eerie is how coordinated these “refreshment aid packages” are delivered. Almost as if the UN planned this invasion from the beginning.
7. UN Erasing Borders With New York Declaration (2016) and Global Migration Compact (2018)
The New York Declaration (2016) was covered here previously.
5. We reaffirm the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. We reaffirm also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recall the core international human rights treaties. We reaffirm and will fully protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants, regardless of status; all are rights holders. Our response will demonstrate full respect for international law and international human rights law and, where applicable, international refugee law and international humanitarian law.
49. We commit to strengthening global governance of migration. We therefore warmly support and welcome the agreement to bring the International Organization for Migration, an organization regarded by its Member States as the global lead agency on migration, into a closer legal and working relationship with the United Nations as a related organization. We look forward to the implementation of this agreement, which will assist and protect migrants more comprehensively, help States to address migration issues and promote better coherence between migration and related policy domains.
56. We affirm that children should not be criminalized or subject to punitive measures because of their migration status or that of their parents.
77. We intend to expand the number and range of legal pathways available for refugees to be admitted to or resettled in third countries. In addition to easing the plight of refugees, this has benefits for countries that host large refugee populations and for third countries that receive refugees.
The UN Global Migration Compact (2018) was covered here, and again here. Sorry, but I don’t believe Michelle Rempel’s half-assed “rejection” of the Compact.
OBJECTIVE 5: Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
21. We commit to adapt options and pathways for regular migration in a manner that facilitates labour mobility and decent work reflecting demographic and labour market realities, optimizes education opportunities, upholds the right to family life, and responds to the needs of migrants in a situation of vulnerability, with a view to expanding and diversifying availability of pathways for safe, orderly and regular migration
OBJECTIVE 11: Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner 27. We commit to manage our national borders in a coordinated manner, promoting bilateral and regional cooperation, ensuring security for States, communities and migrants, and facilitating safe and regular cross-border movements of people while preventing irregular migration. We further commit to implement border management policies that respect national sovereignty, the rule of law, obligations under international law, human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status, and are non-discriminatory, gender-responsive and child-sensitive.
OBJECTIVE 13: Use immigration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
29. We commit to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality and individual assessments, is carried out by authorized officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective of whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. We further commit to prioritize noncustodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.
OBJECTIVE 15: Provide access to basic services for migrants
31. We commit to ensure that all migrants, regardless of their migration status, can exercise their human rights through safe access to basic services. We further commit to strengthen migrant inclusive service delivery systems, notwithstanding that nationals and regular migrants may be entitled to more comprehensive service provision, while ensuring that any differential treatment must be based on law, proportionate, pursue a legitimate aim, in accordance with international human rights law.
OBJECTIVE 17(c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internetbased information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media
The United Nations is fully on board with erasing borders with their mass migration policies. The 2016 and 2018 agreements leave no doubt of that.
Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), or Civil Societies, are involved in bringing large numbers of people from the third world over to the first. Some do it out of guilt or conscience, while others do it for money.
Obvious question: Do these NGOs and the UN work together?
8. Many NGOs (Civil Societies) Work With UN
(NGO Branch Department of Economic and Social Affairs of UN)
(The UN “directly” collaborates with NGOs/Civil Societies)
Faced with many complex challenges in recent years, UNHCR has redoubled its efforts to strengthen its partnerships with UN organizations and NGOs, both international and national, seeking to maximise complementarity and sustainability in its work for refugees and others of concern.
Today, UNHCR works with more than 900 funded, operational and advocacy partners to ensure that the rights and needs of populations of concern are met. UNHCR continues to give high priority to its relations with partners, and strives to strengthen strategic and operational collaboration at global, regional and country levels.
The main goal of the organization’s vast network of partnerships is to ensure better outcomes for persons of concern by combining and leveraging complementary resources and working together in a transparent, respectful and mutually beneficial way. These partnerships also underpin UNHCR’s engagement in inter-agency fora and processes, where mutual understanding and strong alliances help ensure that refugees, IDPs and stateless persons are adequately prioritised.
(Page 8) Salt and Stein suggested treating international migration as a global business that has both legitimate and illegitimate sides. The migration business is conceived as a system of institutionalized networks with complex profit and loss accounts, including a set of institutions, agents and individuals each of which stands to make a commercial gain.
The model conceives trafficking and smuggling as an intermediary part of the global migration business facilitating movement of people between origin and destination countries. The model is divided into three stages: the mobilization and recruitment of migrants; their movement en route; and their insertion and integration into labour markets and host societies in destination countries. Salt and Stein conclude their theory by citing the need to look at immigration controls in a new way, placing sharper focus on the institutions and vested interests involved rather than on the migrants themselves.
Aranowitz puts forward a similar view and claims that smuggling could not have grown to such proportions if it were not supported by powerful market forces. Furthermore, Aranowitz argues that smugglers exhibit entrepreneur-like behaviour and circumvent legal requirements through corruption, deceit and threats. They specialize either in smuggling or in trafficking services, and the profit generated varies accordingly.
Interesting. The UN absolutely does recognize the “business” element of human trafficking, and likens it to any other type of business. It is driven by high demand.
However, the elephant in the room must be pointed out. The UN itself helps to drive such demand with its “one world” policies. By arranging accords (like New York or Global Migration Compact), the UN helps create these conditions. If it becomes mandatory that a host country MUST provide basic services, regardless of legal status, then people will flock to those countries. The UN also tries to facilitate housing and other social services at the expense of taxpayers.
To add insult to injury, these accords limit the ability of host Governments to jail illegals, and attempt to shut down legitimate criticism.
About the fake addresses, the video talks about 50 people using the same address (as one example) to claim residency.
The Rebel video makes a great point: If this Ministry can’t be bothered to properly follow up on obvious cases of citizenship fraud, how can Canadians expect them to properly screen and select “refugees” for entry into Canada?
The report shows that several people and possibly dozens managed to be accepted as Canadian citizens through fraud that went undetected, or through lax controls.
The report noted cases of people with serious criminal records who were accepted as citizens. It also found that between 2008 and 2015, 50 different applicants used the same single address on their citizenship applications during overlapping time periods during which time seven of the applicants became Canadian citizens. It took seven years before the scheme was found during an investigation.
The report also noted that in some 49 similar cases where an address anomaly had been detected, citizenship officials failed to follow-up on 18 of the cases to see if the applicants actually met residency requirements.
The report indicated that citizenship officers did not consistently apply their own standards to identify and deal with suspicious immigration documents including checking travel documents against the department’s database of lost, stolen and fraudulent documents.
Disclaimer: political parties lie all the time, so take this with a grain of salt.
The CPC claims it will focus on “UN selected” refugee claimants, while the PPC claims that “Civil Society Groups” should be making the selections instead. However, this omits several important facts:
First, neither party will address the corruption and fraud that goes on both within the UN and with Civil Societies. Finding corruption within the process is a very quick and easy thing to do.
Neither will acknowledge that the vast majority of these “refugees” will likely be Islamic, an ideology which is completely incompatible with Western society. There is this MINOR problem of Muslims trying to take over the world.
This United Nations v.s. Civil Societies is a false distinction, as many Civil Societies work with the UN.
Canadians don’t want, nor were ever asked if they would support hordes of refugees being shipped into Canada.
Trudeau and the Liberals are an easy target for criticism for lack of proper screening. However, PPC and CPC fail to indicate how they would properly screen to protect Canadians.
Another question they won’t address: will these “refugees” be expected to work and contribute at some point, or will they be permanent welfare cases?
However, it would be fair to point out that Stephen Harper, in 2015, suggested focusing on Christians and Yazidis refugees. This would have been a considerable improvement over importing more Islam (and hence more Islamic violence), into Canada.
12. Little Difference In NGO v.s. UN Selection
Just an opinion, but there doesn’t seem to be much of a difference between the 2 ideas.
Considering how many Civil Societies (NGOs) work with the UN, it seems an exercise in futility to try to separate them.
And given the rampant corruption, and total lack of respect for national sovereignty, BOTH seem like very bad options.
CLICK HERE, for the case R. v. Morris,  O.J. No. 4631. CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Criminal Code, robbery section. CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Criminal Code, firearms section. CLICK HERE, for a National Post article covering a case where an Ontario criminal court judge wants to expand “Gladue” to include blacks. CLICK HERE, for a similar article. CLICK HERE, for a University of Toronto research paper on race, crime and incarceration.
CLICK HERE, for race-based discounts in criminal court. CLICK HERE, for child-killer Terri McClintic going to a “healing lodge”. CLICK HERE, for incarceration rates among Aboriginals.
2. Quotes From Ruling
In a way this is not surprising at all. The 1997/1999 Gladue rulings created essentially a “discount” for Aboriginal offenders specifically on the basis of “historical oppression”.
Now, there is a case that is pending before the Ontario Court of Appeals, which could see the same provisions apply to blacks as well. This is a (potential) expansion of a horrible idea: race-based-discounts in the criminal justice system.
People should be outraged by this. Your crime, seriousness, and past (if any) criminal record should impact your sentence. Not your race, ethnicity, or skin colour. It is the anti-thesis of equality under the law.
 A jury found you guilty of a number of offences. I convicted you of possession of an unauthorized firearm, possession of a prohibited firearm with ammunition, and carrying a concealed weapon. The jury acquitted you of assaulting a peace officer with intent to resist arrest.
 The basic facts of your crime are straightforward. On December 13, 2014, the police received a call about a home invasion in Scarborough. As the police officers sent to investigate drove to the scene, they came upon four Black males walking in the parking lot. The officers were in plainclothes and drove unmarked police cars. One officer stopped the young men. You were one of them. You ran. As you ran, D.C. Moorcroft, who was not the officer who stopped you but was also driving into the lot, accelerated to stop you.
Police were responding to a home invasion. When they arrived, there just happened to be 4 black men in the area, and the defendant took off.
Of course, it is just a coincidence that he had a gun on him. Now it is apparently a charter violation that a police car was used to stop him.
 I must now sentence you for your offences. Let me go over what the Crown and your defence lawyers said should be the sentence. These positions were pretty far apart. The Crown asked for 4 to 4.5 years in jail. Your lawyers argued that the sentence should be 1 year before credit was given for the Charter breaches.
There is something here we are not being told. The Crown (supposedly) wants 4 to 4.5 years for gun possession for a first time offender? What else went on that is not included?
 Let me briefly explain to you what I did in Jackson. I began my judgment in that case by saying sentencing is a very individual process. The criminal law has recognized that there are cases where, in order to determine a fit and proportionate sentence, consideration must be given to an individual’s systemic and social circumstances. These circumstances may extend beyond a person who is being sentenced to include factors such a systemic discrimination and historical injustice. This has been recognized by the criminal courts, particularly in the case of Indigenous offenders. While the distinct history of colonial violence endured by Indigenous peoples cannot simply be analogized to Black Canadians, I found that the ability to consider social context in a sentencing decision is extended to all under section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. This allowed me to consider the unique social history of Black Canadians in sentencing Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson was a Black male offender not too much older than you, who pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of a prohibited gun. His lawyers presented a great deal of evidence to me on systemic anti-Black racism and its role in Mr. Jackson’s life. I took note of this evidence. I also took judicial notice, independently of these materials, of the history of colonialism, slavery, policies and practices of segregation, intergenerational trauma, and both overt and systemic racism that continue to affect Black Canadians today. With an understanding of these social factors I was able to better appreciate the circumstances that led Mr. Jackson to come before me. I sentenced him accordingly.
Gladue was horrible for exactly this reason. Instead of holding people accountable to as similar a standard as possible, some get to play the “oppression card” and get much lighter sentences. It stands the idea of equality before the law completely on its head.
The ruling would then go on to quote some social worker at length about the struggles that blacks face, and how its circumstances must be considered.
 Giving your acts a contextual analysis in light of the wealth of evidence provided to me on this sentencing, I do not find this to be a weighty aggravating factor in your case. I appreciate that accused people should not flee from police. Especially carrying a loaded firearm. But it is understandable to me that you ran. It was not a coldly calculated act to escape but one based upon emotion and a state of mind that has been shaped both generally and specifically by the historical racism suffered by Blacks and by you. In other words, not every flight from the police should be treated the same. Here there is a connection in the evidence between your act of flight and the systemic factors. I find it would be wrong to punish you more severely for this. When I view how anti-Black racism and historical injustices have contributed to your actions, the needs of general deterrence and denunciation normally raised by this act of flight is tempered. Given that the choice you made to do so was affected by these factors, the moral blameworthiness of your actions is also lessened.
 In addition, in assessing the seriousness of the offences, when I look at potential aggravating factors that often exist in the case law, here, there is no evidence that your possession of the gun is connected with other crimes such as crimes of violence or drug trafficking.
 There are also some very traditional mitigating factors. You are a first offender. You were young when you committed these crimes. You were 22 years old. You have supportive family and friends. There is a side of you that speaks well to your rehabilitation. I have mentioned them before. Your warmth, kindness, and respectfulness.
Being a young, first time offender is a legitimate reason to cut someone a break. No argument on that point.
But that is where the agreement ends. All this nonsense about historical racism and systemic factors (repeated throughout the ruling), was nauseating to read.
 Sentencing must always be an individual process. In these cases judges gave sentences of 1 year, 15 months, 18 months, just under 2 years. Some of these sentences were permitted to be served in the community rather than in jail. The cases are: R. v. Ishmael, 2014 ONCJ 136; R. v. Garton, 2018 ONSC 544; R. v. Rutledge, 2015 ONSC 6625; R. v. Shunmuganathan, 2016 ONCJ 519;
R. v. Nuttley, 2013 ONCJ 727;
R. v. Kelsy,  O.J. No. 3879;
R. v. Cadienhead,  O.J. No. 3125;
R. v. Williams,  O.J. No. 3352 (S.C.J.);
R. v. Brown,  O.J. No. 4681 (S.C.J.);
R. v. Carranza,  O.J. No. 6041 (S.C.J.)
Fair enough. The Judge was looking for a little consistency.
82 Now I want to talk about that elephant in the room. I know you are in custody on other charges. What those charges are were not explained to me by either the Crown or your lawyers. However, I do know from some of the materials filed what the charges are said to be. Of course, there is a charge of breaching your bail. There are also some other offences. But they are not gun offences. Your surety surrendered your bail so you are in custody on the charges I am sentencing you for. To someone hearing this, I am sure they will say you have not behaved well while on bail. They may be right. But you are presumed innocent of these alleged new offences. I am sentencing you as a first offender. Someone without a criminal record. The new charges do not change that. The presumption of innocence is the foundation of our criminal justice system. While it may be hard for many to understand, I cannot let that foundation be eroded or chipped away by taking into account the new charges.
So, “first-timer” comes with a few caveats: Morris breached his bail, and is facing additional charges. However, the Judge has decided to ignore this in sentencing him as a first-timer.
It would be nice to know how exactly bail was breached, and what exactly the other charges are. But they are not mentioned.
 I also find that the anti-Black racism evidence presented on the sentencing is relevant in assessing the weight I should give this. Racism can operate very subtly. It can be there lurking in the background of people’s minds, unconsciously influencing their judgment and making them act in certain ways towards certain people.
 I want to be clear that I am not painting the police with the brush of overt racism in this case. I do not have the evidence to support that. But I am troubled. If I asked myself: If it was someone other than a young Black man running away from the police that night, would D.C. Moorcroft have driven in the aggressive way that he did? Would Mr. Morris and the car have collided? I am troubled because in all honesty, I cannot conclude it would have happened in the same way.
So, racism happens, but I have no evidence that there was any in this case. Therefore, I will still bring it up as a mitigating factor.
This Judge talks in circles about how there is all this systemic racism, and how it can be very subtle. Yet he notes that there is no proof that there was racism in this case. So what is the point then?
 After mitigation for the Charter violations, I have sentenced you to a jail sentence of 12 months. You have done a lot of dead time. The sentence will be based upon the credit you will receive for that dead time. I will credit you 1.5 to 1 for that pre-trial custody. The evidence shows that you received no real programming, had a difficult time in jail, and at times experienced physical discomfort in jail due to your medical conditions. You also did not receive consideration for parole or remission while in pre-trial custody. I find it right to give this enhanced credit. Therefore, 243 days of pre-trial custody will be used up. You will be sentenced to a further 1 day in jail on each charge concurrently. I also made a DNA order, s. 109 weapons prohibition, and the forfeiture order.
So not even a year. Just 8 months.
3. University of Toronto Article On Race & Crime
Although not specific to this case, this article by Akwasi Owusu-Bempah is an interesting read. If nothing else, it shows the extent that this academic will go to avoid the obvious conclusion:
SOME GROUPS JUST COMMIT MORE CRIME
Yes, that’s it. Groups are not equal when it comes to committing crime. That is the hard truth that lawyers, judges, politicians, academics and social workers refuse to address.
On the topic of “disparity”, it’s worth noting that males make up over 90% of prison inmates. However, there is no push claiming discrimination against them. Oh, the double standards.
Instead, he will talk in circles. Owusu-Bempah will blame mistrust, victimization in black and Aboriginal neighbourhoods, racial bias (without proving it), and Court discrimination (again, without proving it). Although the author touches the topic of crime rates, he avoids making any definitive statements. It’s like he is deliberately avoiding the obvious answer.
Abstract and Keywords Canada effectively bans systematic collection and dissemination of racially disaggregated criminal justice statistics. A significant proportion of Canada’s racial minority populations perceive bias in the criminal justice system, especially on the part of police. Aboriginal and black Canadians are grossly overrepresented in Canada’s correctional institutions. Some evidence suggests that both Aboriginal and black populations are overrepresented with respect to violent offending and victimization. Social conditions in which Aboriginal and black Canadians live are at least partially to blame for their possibly elevated rates of violent offending. Evidence indicates that racial bias exists in the administration of Canadian criminal justice. At times, this discrimination has been supported by court decisions. Discrimination and disparity are at times acknowledged by government, but they are seldom wholeheartedly addressed. There is a lack of political will to address issues of racial minority overrepresentation in relation to manifestations of racial discrimination or to the societal conditions that lead to criminal offending.
Oh, the mental gymnastics of the author are blatant:
Minorities “perceive” bias against them
There is overrepresentation
Bias in administration
Government acknowledges disparity
No political will to address overrepresentation
Societal conditions lead to offending
The author mentions overrepresentation regarding offending, but immediately lumps it in with “victimization”, as if to muddy the waters
Lack of available objective data, yet we are able to make conclusions based on much more subjective things, such as perceived bias
Right, not elevated rates, but “possibly” elevated rates
Connections among race, crime, and criminal justice are often portrayed in Canadian media images and are captured in the popular imagination. Yet, in comparison to the United States and Great Britain, these phenomena receive relatively little attention from Canadian academics and policy makers. A lack of readily available criminal justice data disaggregated by race makes it particularly difficult for researchers to examine the nature of these racial differences. Thus, we are unable to determine the extent to which higher rates of offending among certain racial groups and discrimination in the administration of criminal justice contribute to the apparent overrepresentation
There’s a lack of data, but this author will still make claims about bias and discrimination, without actually proving it. He will also tap-dance around the obvious: If a group commits crime at a much higher rate, doesn’t that justify higher incarceration rates?
Nonetheless, available evidence indicates that a significant proportion of Canada’s racial minority populations and a sizable proportion of the white population perceive bias in the criminal justice system. These public perceptions are supported by data that show that certain racial minority groups, particularly Aboriginal and black Canadians, are grossly overrepresented in Canada’s correctional institutions. Further evidence indicates that racial bias does exist in the administration of Canadian criminal justice, and, at times, this discrimination has been supported by court decisions. We cannot discount, however, the probability that increased rates of offending among certain racialized groups contributes to their overrepresentation in correctional statistics. As we show in this essay, research suggests that Aboriginal and black Canadians are overrepresented with respect to violent offending and victimization. The Canadian federal government itself has pointed out that the social conditions in which Aboriginals live is at least partially to blame for their rates of violent offending (Department of Justice 2009). We have previously made the same connection with respect to black Canadians (Wortley and Owusu-Bempah2011a).
Owusu-Bempah contradicts himself here. He claims there is “perceived” bias from many people. Not “actual” bias, but perceived bias. He then goes on to say that there is overrepresentation among certain groups.
He then offers a perfectly reasonable explanation for the higher incarceration rate: increased offending.
Just a thought. If a certain group commits crime at a higher rate, then it is not bias or discrimination that there would be more of them involved with the courts.
Unfortunately, there is an apparent lack of political will to address issues of racial minority overrepresentation in the Canadian criminal justice system. Ambivalence to address these issues relates both to the manifestations of racial discrimination in the system, as well as to the societal conditions that lead to criminal offending. Discrimination and disparity may be at times acknowledged, but they are seldom wholeheartedly addressed. When addressed, the means are seldom thoroughly evaluated for effectiveness, and, when evaluated, the results are rarely made public.
Difficult to believe, but this is just the next paragraph. Owusu-Bempah claims there is no political will to address racial minority overrepresentation. Yet, he previously commented that there was a higher rate of offending.
This seems like a solution in search of a problem.
Many have argued that relatively high rates of homicide and gun crime among African Canadians and Aboriginals in Canada are reflective of their overrepresentation in street gangs. Unfortunately, official police statistics on Canadian gangs are almost nonexistent
Yeah, good job.
Canada’s reluctance to acknowledge and document race is most evident in the operation of its criminal justice system and in its criminal justice policies. Unlike in the United States and the United Kingdom, where race-based criminal justice statistics are readily available to the public and researchers alike, the Canadian criminal justice system does not systematically collect or publish statistics on the race of individuals processed through the system. The debate over the collection of racial data from the criminal justice sector in Canada can be traced back as far as 1929 (Roberts 1992). Discussions about the collection, or more accurately, the public release of these data have emerged more recently in the context of broader debates about race, crime, and the administration of criminal justice—particularly related to the circumstances of Aboriginal and black Canadians (Hatt 1994; Johnston 1994; Gabor 1994; Roberts 1994; Wortley 1999; Owusu-Bempah and Millar 2010). On the one hand, allegations of racial discrimination have been leveled against the justice system to explain the overrepresentation of certain racial minority groups in the few available sources of police and correctional data. On the other hand, it has been suggested that racial minorities are disproportionately involved in criminal activity, which accounts for their disproportionate involvement with the criminal justice system as reflected in the data. Unfortunately, our ability to test either of these claims is limited by the absence of available data, despite numerous calls for its collection. Several major attempts have been made in Canada to collect racial and ethnic data, particularly in the policing sector (Fine 1990; Wortley and Marshall 2005; Leclair InfoCom 2009); these attempts, however, have not paved the way for systematic data collection
The author addresses crime rates, but gives a wishy washy answer. There’s not enough data to tell one way or another whether it is: (a) discrimination; or (b) actual crime, that results in the disparities. Yet, feelings about perceived bias and virtue signalling bureaucrats apologizing are apparently good evidence.
There is an interesting point to be taken from this: if there was concrete data on race and crime rates, then the debate could be put to bed once and for all.
The article keeps repeating the same idea and muddying the waters: we don’t have data, so we can’t be sure what causes discrepancies in the representation.
If the author wanted a reference point, why not check the data from the US and UK? After all, he knows it is there.
There were 698,737 arrests in 2017/18, a fall of 8% on the previous year – both years’ figures exclude Lancashire Police (see ‘Things you need to know’)
-Black people were over 3 times as likely to be arrested as White people – there were 35 arrests for every 1,000 —Black people, and 11 arrests for every 1,000 White people
-overall, men were over 5 times as likely to be arrested as women – there were 22 arrests for every 1,000 men, and -4 arrests for every 1,000 women
-Black women were more than twice as likely to be arrested as White women – there were 7 arrests for every 1,000 —Black women, and 3 arrests for every 1,000 White women
And a few pages later,
there were 698,737 arrests in England and Wales in 2017/18 (excluding the Lancashire police force area), at a rate of 13 arrests per 1,000 people
there were 62,501 fewer arrests in 2017/18 compared with the previous year, a fall of 8% (excluding Lancashire Police from both years)
Black people were over 3 times as likely to be arrested as White people – there were 35 arrests for every 1,000 Black people, and 11 arrests for every 1,000 White people
people with Mixed ethnicity were over twice as likely to be arrested as White people – there were 25 arrests for every 1,000 people with Mixed ethnicity, and 11 arrests for every 1,000 White people
So the UK Government is willing to be quite open and blunt about the disparities in race and offending. And what about the US.
5. Crime Data From US FBI
CLICK HERE, for FBI Uniform Crime Reporting, Table 21. This is compiled from 2016, though the stats over the years don’t change much.
Looking at Table 21C (people aged 18 or over)
Worth noting the US black population is about 13% commits:
52% of homicides
28% of rapes
51% of robberies
32% of aggravated assault
36% of violent crime
41% of weapons carrying
30% buying stolen property
…. and so on.
Are blacks greatly overrepresented in US prisons? Absolutely. And for a very good reason — disproportionate amount of violent and serious crime.
Are US sentences in general too harsh? A fair point, but a topic for another day. This post concerns treating people equally.
6. Gladue 2.0 Addresses Wrong Problem
With this proposed change, the scope of Gladue will be broadened. This means that it will not be restricted to Aboriginals.
The claim is that this will reduce overrepresentation in the courts and prison system. Problem is: it focuses on making prisons look like a random sample of society, rather than a reflection of who is actually committing the most serious crime.
It’s what liberals do not want to acknowledge:
SOME GROUPS JUST COMMIT MORE CRIME
It is not necessarily due to “oppression” or “systemic bias”, or any other such nonsense. It is caused by these groups, on average, behaving differently. While it is obviously desirable for society to reduce crime and their prison populations, this is a backwards approach.
Should the Ontario Court of Appeals (and possibly the Supreme Court of Canada) confirm this nonsense, racial equality dies. Your skin colour will determine your punishment, not your crime. Though arguably that was the case with Gladue.
Keep in mind, it is the Supreme Court of Canada that upheld Gladue in the first place (appealed from BC). There is nothing to indicated they wouldn’t extend their ruling to this.
CLICK HERE, for China Tribunal. CLICK HERE, for China Tribunal, forced harvesting of organs from China’s political prisoners. CLICK HERE, from China Tribunal’s December 2018 findings. CLICK HERE, for firstthings.com, and then US Vice President Joe Biden’s attitude to what went on in China. CLICK HERE, for 2015 on China’s organ trafficking. CLICK HERE, for Lifesite article on China. CLICK HERE, for NBC article, China promises to phase out practice. CLICK HERE, for an NBC article on China’s practice.
In This Series CLICK HERE, for Part 1, New York and Virginia. CLICK HERE, for Part 2, Kill The Survivors. CLICK HERE, for Part 3, UN Endorses Abortion As Human Right. CLICK HERE, for Part 4, Fallout and Pushback. CLICK HERE, for Part 5, ONCA ruling doctors “must” provide referrals if they are not willing to do the work themselves. CLICK HERE, for Part 6, 9th Circuit Rules Against Planned Parenthood Federal Funding,
2. China Tribunal’s Findings
From the December 2018 interim report:
“The Tribunal’s members are certain – unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt – that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”
That was part of the interim report. But now the final report goes on even further:
The Tribunal has considered evidence, in its many forms, and dealt with individual issues according to the evidence relating to each issue and nothing else and thereby reached a series of conclusions that are free of any influence caused by the PRC’s reputation or other potential causes of prejudice.
These were as follows;
• That there were extraordinarily short waiting times (promised by PRC doctors and hospitals) for organs to be available for transplantation;
• That there was torture of Falun Gong and Uyghurs;
• That there was accumulated numerical evidence (excluding spurious PRC data) which indicated:
o the number of transplant operations performed, and
o the impossibility of there being anything like sufficient ‘eligible donors’ under the recently formed PRC voluntary donor scheme for that number of transplant operations;
• That there was a massive infrastructure development of facilities and medical personnel for organ transplant operations, often started before any voluntary donor system was even planned; That there was direct and indirect evidence of forced organ harvesting.
And this led to the conclusion that:
forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale and that Falun Gong practitioners have been one – and probably the main – source of organ supply. The concerted persecution and medical testing of the Uyghurs is more recent and it may be that evidence of forced organ harvesting of this group may emerge in due course. The Tribunal has had no evidence that the significant infrastructure associated with China’s transplantation industry has been dismantled and absent a satisfactory explanation as to the source of readily available organs concludes that forced organ harvesting continues till today.
However, on the topic of “genocide” China Tribunal pussyfoots around the issue and says they cannot conclude there is intent for genocide. This despite stating that the actions met the other elements.
The Tribunal considered whether this constituted a crime of Genocide; The Falun Gong and the Uyghurs in the PRC each qualify as a ‘group’ for purposes of the crime of Genocide. For the Falun Gong, the following elements of the crime of Genocide are clearly established:
• Killing members of the group;
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
Thus, bar one element of the crime, Genocide is, on the basis of legal advice received, clearly proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. The remaining element required to prove the crime is the very specific intent for Genocide. Accepting legal advice about proving this intent, the Tribunal cannot be certain that the requisite intent is proved and thus cannot be certain that Genocide itself is proved.
That’s right. Due to legal advice, China Tribunal cannot actually conclude there is intent to commit genocide, despite the prolonged actions that would justify the claims.
China Tribunal then “appears” to condemn what happens to Falun Gong and the Uyghurs, but waters down the language to “criminality”, despite the included detail. The tribunal claims the “elements have been met for crimes against humanity”.
Commission of Crimes Against Humanity against the Falun Gong and Uyghurs has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by proof of one or more of the following, legally required component acts:
• imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
• rape or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
• persecution on racial, national, ethnic, cultural or religious grounds that are universally recognised as impermissible under international law ;
• enforced disappearance
in the course of a widespread and systematic attack or attacks against the Falun Gong and Uyghurs.
This seems to be splitting hairs. It meets the criteria for crimes against humanity. Yet China Tribunal, on advice from their lawyers, refuse to state there is intent to qualify as “genocide”.
The report ends with a very interesting comment about the power of media and citizen journalists.
Governments and international bodies must do their duty not only in regard to the possible charge of Genocide but also in regard to Crimes against Humanity, which the Tribunal does not allow to be any less heinous. Assuming they do not do their duty, the usually powerless citizen is, in the internet age, more powerful than s/he may recognise. Criminality of this order may allow individuals from around the world to act jointly in pressurising governments so that those governments and other international bodies are unable not to act.
The China Tribunal has no power to actually do anything. However, it seems to believe that by spreading word online it can put pressure on governments to act.
But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable. So hopefully we can act in a way on a problem that’s much less severe than yours, and maybe we can learn together from how we can do that.
In order to maintain the 1-child policy, China has had to result to extreme and inhuman measures:
sex-selective abortions against girls
Biden seemed critical that the declining birth rate would be able to sustain the retired population. However he seemed to have no concern over the mass aborting and sterilizations that went on.
In 2014, state media reported that China would phase out the practice of taking organs from executed prisoners and said it would rely instead on a national organ donation system.
The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday was not immediately available to comment on the tribunal’s findings.
In a statement released alongside the final judgment, the tribunal said many of those affected were practitioners of Falun Gong, a spiritual discipline that China banned in the 1990s and has called an “evil cult.” The tribunal added that it was possible that Uighur Muslims — an ethnic minority who are currently being detained in vast numbers in western China — were also being targeted.
China had been promising for years to end this practice, but it doesn’t seem to have happened.
5. Lifesite Take On The Situation
Still, there has been too much reporting for too long about this profound human-rights abuse to ethically continue to look the other way. The question thus becomes: Will the U.S. specifically outlaw traveling to China for the purpose of buying an organ — just as we do participating in pedophilia tourism overseas? (Spain, Israel, Italy, and Taiwan have passed such laws already.) I can’t think of one argument against pursuing such a course.
If we don’t at least do what we can, it seems to me that we make ourselves complicit in allowing the demand for black-market organs forcibly harvested from murdered prisoners to continue unimpeded — and the blood of the slaughtered victims will also be on us.
(Lifesite article here) This echoes what China Tribunal has been saying: that political pressure is needed to put a stop to this practice.
6. My Take On This Story
If the allegations are true, and they seem to be, then this is abhorrent.
At some level this is no different that what abortion industries like Planned Parenthood do: snuff out lives in order to obtain a commodity, their organs. If we subscribe to the idea that life is valuable, then this is little — though more heinous — than a common murder and robbery.
While donation of organs (for after death), should be encouraged, this is an entirely different matter. This is premeditated mass murder in order to steal those parts. The practice is barbaric.
Consider the flack Canada has taken over the Government’s genocide claims over Indigenous women and girls. Most of the deaths and disappearances (at least where it is known) were at the hands of Indigenous men they knew. That is apparently a “genocide”. Yet what is going on in China is not really worth the attention apparently.
CLICK HERE, for an article on Planned Parenthood. PP would stand to lose $50-$60 million a year from defunding.
CLICK HERE, for PP suing Idaho over new reporting requirements. CLICK HERE, for Idaho’s House Bill 638.
CLICK HERE, for a Politico article which covers ongoing cases CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood & Ohio. CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood challenging a ban on aborting fetuses with Down’s Syndrome. CLICK HERE, for Kentucky banning abortions based on race, sex or disability, which Planned Parenthood and ACLU plan to challenge. CLICK HERE, for Ohio Senate Bill 23 “Heartbeat Bill”. (Hearts beat 45 days into pregnancy). CLICK HERE, for Ohio Senate Bill 27, Medical Tissue Disposal Bill. CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood challenging Indiana law requiring the remains of aborted babies to be either cremated or buried. CLICK HERE, for an article on selling aborted baby parts. CLICK HERE, for David Daleiden fined $195,000. CLICK HERE, for Daleiden charged for illegal recordings.
In This Series CLICK HERE, for Part 1, New York and Virginia. CLICK HERE, for Part 2, Kill The Survivors. CLICK HERE, for Part 3, UN Endorses Abortion As Human Right. CLICK HERE, for Part 4, Fallout and Pushback. CLICK HERE, for Part 5, ONCA ruling doctors “must” provide referrals if they are not willing to do the work themselves.
2. Quotes From Ruling
In 1970, Congress enacted Title X of the Public Health Service Act (“Title X”) to create a limited grant program for certain types of pre-pregnancy family planning services. See Pub. L. No. 91-572, 84 Stat. 1504 (1970). Section 1008 of Title X, which has remained unchanged since its enactment, is titled “Prohibition of Abortion,” and provides: None of the funds appropriated under this subchapter shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.
Pretty straightforward. Title X was never meant to be a means which to funnel money to fund abortions.
In ruling on a stay motion, we are guided by four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although review of a district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction is for abuse of discretion, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2003), “[a] district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law,” Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996).
This is the 4 part test to decide on a motion to stay a ruling. Is the applicant likely to succeed? Is there public interest? What harm will come to the parties?
As a threshold matter, we note that the Final Rule is a reasonable interpretation of § 1008. Congress enacted § 1008 to ensure that “[n]one of the funds appropriated under this subchapter shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” 42 U.S.C. § 300a-6. If a program promotes, encourages, or advocates abortion as a method of family planning, or if the program refers patients to abortion providers for family planning purposes, then that program is logically one “where abortion is a method of family planning.” Accordingly, the Final Rule’s prohibitions on advocating, encouraging, or promoting abortion, as well as on referring patients for abortions, are reasonable and in accord with § 1008. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that § 1008 “plainly allows” such a construction of the statute. Rust, 500 U.S. at 184 (upholding as a reasonable interpretation of § 1008 regulations that (1) prohibited abortion referrals and counseling, (2) required referrals for prenatal care, (3) placed restrictions on referral lists, (4) prohibited promoting, encouraging, or advocating abortion, and (5) mandated financial and physical separation of Title X projects from abortion-related activities). The text of § 1008 has not changed.
This makes a great deal of sense. If abortion was never intended to be covered as “family planning” under Title X, then organizations that openly promote, encourage, or otherwise facilitate it shouldn’t be allowed to receive federal monies. It would do an end run around rules.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not promulgate any regulation that—
(1) creates any unreasonable barriers to the ability of individuals to obtain appropriate medical care;
(2) impedes timely access to health care services;
(3) interferes with communications regarding a full range of treatment options between the patient and the provider;
(4) restricts the ability of health care providers to provide full disclosure of all relevant information to patients making health care decisions;
(5) violates the principles of informed consent and the ethical standards of health care professionals; or
(6) limits the availability of health care treatment for the full duration of a patient’s medical needs.
Pub. L. No. 111-148, title I, § 1554 (42 U.S.C. § 18114) (“§ 1554”). These two provisions could render the Final Rule “not in accordance with law” only by impliedly repealing or amending § 1008, or by directly contravening the Final Rule’s regulatory provisions
So these limitations would not be violate, specifically because § 1008 would need to be repealed or amended. Or the “Final Rule’s” provisions would have to be violated.
Plaintiffs admit that there is no irreconcilable conflict between § 1008 and either the appropriations rider or § 1554 of the ACA. E.g., California State Opposition to Motion for Stay at p. 14; Essential Access Opposition to Motion for Stay at p.14. And we discern no “clear and manifest” intent by Congress to amend or repeal § 1008 via either of these laws—indeed, neither law even refers to § 1008. The appropriations rider mentions abortion only to prohibit appropriated funds from being expended for abortions; and § 1554 of the ACA does not even mention abortion.
The US Congress has no intent to rewrite or amend § 1008. And § 1554 of the ACA (Affordable Care Act) does not even mention abortion. It looks pretty weak to attempt an end run around what the law explicitly forbids.
Although the Final Rule does require the provision of referrals to non-abortion providers, id. at 7788–90, such referrals do not constitute “pregnancy counseling.” First, providing a referral is not “counseling.” HHS has defined “nondirective counseling” as “the meaningful presentation of options where the [medical professional] is not suggesting or advising one option over another,” 84 Fed. Reg. at 7716, whereas a “referral” involves linking a patient to another provider who can give further counseling or treatment, id. at 7748. The Final Rule treats referral and counseling as distinct terms, as has Congress and HHS under previous administrations. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 300z-10; 53 Fed. Reg. at 2923; 2928–38 (1988); 65 Fed. Reg. 41272–75 (2000). We therefore conclude that the Final Rule’s referral requirement is not contrary to the appropriations rider’s nondirective pregnancy counseling mandate.2
It is not “counselling” to refer a woman for abortion procedures. Counselling, as repeatedly held, is explaining options to a person.
Because HHS and the public interest would be irreparably harmed absent a stay, harms to Plaintiffs from a stay will be comparatively minor, and HHS is likely to prevail in its challenge of the preliminary injunction orders before a merits panel of this court (which is set to hear the cases on an expedited basis), we conclude that a stay of the district courts’ preliminary injunction orders pending appeal is proper. The motion for a stay pending appeal is GRANTED.
3. PP Sued Idaho Over Reporting Rules
Chapter 95: Abortions Complications Reporting Act
(f) Abortion and complication reporting do not impose undue burdens on a woman’s right to choose whether she terminates pregnancy. Specifically, the “collection of information” with respect to actual patients is a vital element of medical research, so it cannot be said that the requirements serve no purpose other than to make abortions more difficult.
This raises a valid point. If abortions, or any particular technique were leading to health complications later down the road, then it would be useful to know that information.
Here is Planned Parenthood’s response when filing suit.
This law require providers in the state to report on more than 37 new “complications,” ranging from medical conditions that have no link to abortion, like breast cancer, to the inability to come in for a follow-up appointment, which is not a medical condition. The reporting requirement doesn’t exist for any other medical procedure. The bill was signed into law by Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter in March.
Yet none of this actually prevents abortions from going on. It is a bit confusing. Does PP “not” want the patients (specifically), or the public (generally) to know what kinds of health and follow-up issues are going on?
4. PP Sued Ohio Over Heartbeat Bill
(1) At least twenty-four hours prior to the performance or inducement of the abortion, a physician meets with the pregnant woman in person in an individual, private setting and gives her an adequate opportunity to ask questions about the abortion that will be performed or induced. At this meeting, the physician shall inform the pregnant woman, verbally or, if she is hearing impaired, by other means of communication, of all of the following: (a) The nature and purpose of the particular abortion procedure to be used and the medical risks associated with that procedure; (b) The probable gestational age of the embryo or fetus; (c) The medical risks associated with the pregnant woman carrying the pregnancy to term. The meeting need not occur at the facility where the abortion is to be performed or induced, and the physician involved in the meeting need not be affiliated with that facility or with the physician who is scheduled to perform or induce the abortion.
(3) If it has been determined that the unborn human individual the pregnant woman is carrying has a detectable fetal heartbeat, the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion shall comply with the informed consent requirements in section 2919.192 2919.194 of the Revised Code in addition to complying with the informed consent requirements in divisions (B)(1), (2), (4), and (5) of this section
While “controversial”, this bill (and similar ones) make a very valid point. How is it not “alive” if there is an actual heart beating?
All of this talk about the right to an abortion, but no concern over the life of the unborn child. Why?
Perhaps Senate Bill 27 will explain it. Planned Parenthood not only sues to make abortion “more accessible”, but it opposes efforts to “force the disposal” of the bodies either by burial or by cremation. Those aborted babies are worth a lot of money, if you harvest the organs.
5. Real Reason PP Is So Pro-Abortion
Let’s connect the dots here
PP supports abortion with federal funds.
PP supports aborting babies with Down’s Syndrome.
PP supports abortion based on sex, race, or disability.
PP opposes laws mandating burial or cremation of fetus.
While all of these are troubling, it is the last point that explains it: Planned Parenthood doesn’t want States mandating the disposal of fetal tissue, because there is a lot of money to be made in that.
From the Washington Examiner:
When pro-life activist David Daleiden and his team at the Center for Medical Progress released the tapes in 2015, Planned Parenthood leaned heavily on the defense that the videos were unfairly doctored. This defense was parroted immediately by a servile press, despite that Planned Parenthood never explained what additional context would have exonerated its senior director of medical services saying on tape that the group was “doing a little better than” breaking even for donated organs (it is illegal to profit from the donation of fetal tissue. It is also illegal under federal law to perform partial birth abortions).
From the Christian Post article:
The undercover journalist who in 2015 exposed Planned Parenthood’s baby body parts selling operation is fighting a nearly $200,000 fine amid an ongoing court battle.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear an appeal from David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress last week, an appeal of a $195,000 imposed on him for using video footage which supposedly violated a gag order imposed by a lower court judge.
“The federal judge presiding over related civil lawsuits, District Judge William Orrick, had held that criminal defense counsel’s use of the videos violated a gag order he imposed in one of the federal civil actions. Daleiden and his defense counsel appealed, arguing that Orrick had improperly imposed a criminal contempt penalty without granting the accused due process and that the federal civil injunction should not apply to Daleiden’s state criminal proceeding,” according to a statement from the Thomas More Society, which is representing Daleiden.
While the court proceedings are likely not over, David Daleiden performed a much needed service by exposing what really goes on. Aborted (a.k.a. murdered) children are worth a lot of money dead, as their organs can be harvested and sold.
It also explains why Planned Parenthood has such an unwavering pro-abortion stance. These are not babies, but raw supplies. It further makes clear why PP doesn’t want aborted babies buried or cremated. Not much of a business model if you final products are required to be thrown out.
Aborted babies are essentially in a chop-shop for spare parts. Nothing humane or compassionate about it.
CLICK HERE, for screening link in 2019 Canada Summer Jobs Site. CLICK HERE, for agreement link in 2019 Site. CLICK HERE, for faith groups being excluded for personal beliefs. CLICK HERE, for a Daily Caller article on Al Quds. CLICK HERE, for group that condemns Israel gets grants for years. CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. CLICK HERE, for Canadian Human Rights Code.
From Abortion/Infanticide Series CLICK HERE, for Part 1, New York and Virginia. CLICK HERE, for Part 2, Kill The Survivors. CLICK HERE, for Part 3, UN Endorses Abortion As Human Right. CLICK HERE, for Part 4, Fallout and Pushback. CLICK HERE, for Part 5, Court Says Referrals Are Mandatory.
2. Employer Attestation
12.0 Employer attestation
12.1 The Employer attests that:
I have read, understood and will comply with the Canada Summer Jobs Articles of Agreement;
I have all the necessary authorities, permissions and approvals to submit this application on behalf of myself and my organization;
The job would not be created without the financial assistance provided under a potential contribution agreement;
Any funding under the Canada Summer Jobs program will not be used to undermine or restrict the exercise of rights legally protected in Canada.
3. Screening For Grants
Ineligible projects and job activities:
Projects consisting of activities that take place outside of Canada;
Activities that contribute to the provision of a personal service to the employer;
Partisan political activities;
Fundraising activities to cover salary costs for the youth participant; or
Projects or job activities that:
restrict access to programs, services, or employment, or otherwise discriminate, contrary to applicable laws, on the basis of prohibited grounds, including sex, genetic characteristics, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression;
advocate intolerance, discrimination and/or prejudice; or
actively work to undermine or restrict a woman’s access to sexual and reproductive health services.
Please note the following definitions:
As per section 2.1 of the Canada Summer Jobs Articles of Agreement, “project” means the hiring, administration of, job activities, and organization’s activities as described in the Application Agreement.
To “advocate” means to promote, foster, or actively support intolerance, discrimination, and/or prejudice.
To “undermine or restrict” means to weaken or limit a woman’s ability to access sexual and reproductive health services. The Government of Canada defines sexual and reproductive health services as including comprehensive sexuality education, family planning, prevention and response to sexual and gender-based violence, safe and legal abortion, and post-abortion care.
The way this is worded, it could be interpreted to mean that even expressing views which are pro-life or critical of SOGI agenda could be seen as threatening.
Of course, the overwhelming majority of charities, non-profits, and businesses have absolutely nothing to do with abortion of the gender agenda.
Nonetheless, since the Government of Canada has insisted on this, at least it will be uniformly enforced throughout all of the groups applying for summer grants, right?
Youth for Christ’s chapters across Canada have used the grants for years to fund more than 100 student jobs annually. Toronto City Mission, which runs day camps in impoverished neighbourhoods, received $70,000 last year for 16 positions. Winnipeg’s Centerpoint Church has used the grants for 24 years to hire two summer students; Mill Bay Baptist Church on Vancouver Island used a grant last year to hire a First Nations student. All have seen their applications sent back this year over the attestation.
Your project may have nothing to do with gender or abortion, but if you won’t sign those forms, prepare to have your grant request denied. However, “values” seem to be pretty flexible, depending on the group.
The Trudeau government won’t allow pro-life groups to access the Canada Summer Jobs program without violating their principles, but it is funding an Islamic group with a cleric who was a keynote speaker at the anti-Israel al-Quds day rally in Toronto.
As the Toronto Sun reports, the federal government gave the thumbs-up to the Islamic Humanitarian Service (IHS) based in Kitchener, Ont., to hire summer students with taxpayer money. (RELATED: Trudeau Government Cuts Off Pro-Life And Faith Groups From Jobs Funding)
Yes, you are reading that correctly. The Trudeau Government refused pro-life groups access to the Summer Jobs Program because of their beliefs, even if they were unrelated to the job. Yet it was okay to fund Al Quds, an Islamic, anti-Semitic group, which openly calls for violence against Israel.
It would take some serious mental gymnastics to not see moral inconsistency here. However, it appears to be about politics, not principles.
5. Canadian Charter & Human Rights Code
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
These demands quite clearly violate both 2(a) and 2(b) of the Canadian Charter. The specific religion is irrelevant, but these groups were clearly targeted because of their views. The double standard with Islamic groups makes it more absurd, but is not necessary.
From the Canadian Human Rights Code:
Prohibited grounds of discrimination
3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
Discriminatory policy or practice
10 It is a discriminatory practice for an employer, employee organization or employer organization
(a) to establish or pursue a policy or practice, or
(b) to enter into an agreement affecting recruitment, referral, hiring, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or any other matter relating to employment or prospective employment,
that deprives or tends to deprive an individual or class of individuals of any employment opportunities on a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Section 3 very clearly lists religion as a protected group.
And consider this: if the Government is awarding contracts, is the Government not the employer in this case?
6. Some Interesting Cases
R. v. Lewis, 1996 CanLII 3559 (BC SC) ruled that protesting abortion within a certain “protected area” was an offence, not shielded by freedom of religion. Not really related to the above, but still an interesting read.
BCM International, asking the Federal Court for a review of the decision to turn down a grant. The Attestation is cited as the reason. (Case: T-917-19)
BCM International, asking for another review, on essentially the same grounds (Case: T-918-19)
In the UK as well, a Christian Preacher can be arrested even for behaving peacefully. Yet, Muslims are allowed to preach intolerance openly.
8. Final Thoughts
The Canada Summer Jobs Program discriminates against those who object to being forced to sign onto a political agenda, when it has no relevance to their cause. It has overwhelmingly effected religious groups. While this may seem trivial, it is understandable to object to “bending the knee”.
If abortion and gender are not related to the work that a group is doing, then there is no reason to bring it up. This is just virtue signalling.
There is a double standard with how Christians are treated with how Muslims are treated. The former must cow-tow, while the latter’s views are “more understood”.