Category: Human Rights

Posted on

Child Exploitation, And Other Private Members’ Bills

Private Member’s Bill C-219, introduced by John Nater, would have raised the criminal penalties for child sexual exploitation, and sexual exploitation of a child with a disability. This is one of several interesting bills pending before Parliament.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Mandatory Minimums For Child Exploitation

Criminal Code
1 Paragraph 153(1.‍1)‍(b) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.
.
2 Paragraphs 153.‍1(1)‍(a) and (b) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.
.
3 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 286.‍1:
Aggravating circumstance — person with a disability
286.‍11 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence referred to in subsection 286.‍1(1) or (2), it shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the victim of the offence is a person with a mental or physical disability.

This bill, if passed, would have amended the criminal code, and made sexual exploitation an offence with a mandatory 1 year minimum jail sentence, even if it was tried summarily. Furthermore, it would have added a 1 year minimum to exploitation (summarily or by indictment), if the victim had a disability.

While 1 year is still very lenient, it would at least be a step in the right direction. Bills from Private Members often go nowhere, but this should be an issue everyone can agree on.

Interestingly, this bill was brought up in the last Parliament — Bill C-424 — but never got past first reading. Again, it should be something that everyone can agree is beneficial to society.

3. Property Rights From Expropriation

Expropriation Act
1 Section 10 of the Expropriation Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (11):
Exception
(11.‍1) Subsection (11) does not apply if the interest or right to which the notice of intention relates is intended to be expropriated by the Crown for the purpose of restoring historical natural habitats or addressing, directly or indirectly, climate variability, regardless of whether or not that purpose is referred to in the notice or described in the notice as the primary purpose of the intended expropriation.
.
2 Section 19 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
Exception
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the interest or right to which the notice of confirmation relates is intended to be expropriated by the Crown for the purpose of restoring historical natural habitats or addressing, directly or indirectly, climate variability, regardless of whether or not that purpose is referred to in the notice of intention or described in the notice of intention as the primary purpose of the intended expropriation.

Bill C-222 was introduced by Cheryl Gallant, and would prevent the Canadian Government from forcibly taking your land in order to turn it into a heritage site, or in some convoluted effort to fight climate change. It would amend the Expropriation Act to prevent exactly that.

Gallant was also the only MP to vote against the Liberal Motion to formally adopt the Paris Accord. She voted no, while “conservative” either voted for it, or abstained.

4. Quebec Multiculturalism Exemption

Bloc Quebecois MP Luc Theriault introduced Bill C-226, to exempt Quebec from the Multiculturalism Act. Now there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect your own heritage and culture. However, Quebec is rather hypocritical in simultaneously pushing theirs on other people.

5. Addressing Environmental Racism

Bill C-230 is to address environmental racism.
I have no words for this Bill by Lenore Zann.

6. Social Justice In Pension Plan

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act
1 Section 35 of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act is renumbered as subsection 35(1) and is amended by adding the following:
Considerations
(2) The investment policies, standards and procedures, taking into account environmental, social and governance factors, shall provide that no investment may be made or held in an entity if there are reasons to believe that the entity has performed acts or carried out work contrary to ethical business practices, including
(a) the commission of human, labour or environmental rights violations;
(b) the production of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war prohibited under international law; and
(c) the ordering, controlling or otherwise directing of acts of corruption under any of sections 119 to 121 of the Criminal Code or sections 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

Bill C-231, from Alistair MacGregor, would have cut off CPPIB (the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board), from investing in areas where any of the above are breached. This is a good idea in principle, even if the details are sparse.

7. Ban On Sex-Selective Abortion

cpc.policy.declaration

Bill C-233, from Cathay Wagantall, would make it illegal to abort children because of sex. In short, this means targeting female babies. However, it isn’t clear how this would work. Article 70 in the policy declaration says there will be no attempt to pass any abortion legislation, and Article 73 says that foreign aid shouldn’t be given to provide for abortion.

So killing children is okay, as long as it’s done in Canada, and the gender of the baby is not a factor. Makes sense to me.

8. Lowered Voting Age, Conversion Therapy

There are currently two bills: C-240, and S-219, which would lower the voting age to 16. Aside from being a bad idea, this seems a little redundant. There is also S-202, to ban conversion therapy. So, we want 16 year olds to be able to vote, and decide what gender they want to be.

9. National School Food Program

If you want the school to become more of a parent, there is Bill C-201 by Don Davies to do exactly that. It was previously Bill C-446. Now, let’s look at some non-Canadian content.

10. California Lowering Penalties For Anal

https://twitter.com/Scott_Wiener/status/1291406895878553600

San Francisco – Today, Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced Senate Bill 145 to end blatant discrimination against LGBT young people regarding California’s sex offender registry. Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age, “sexual intercourse” (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not require the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge decides based on the facts of the case whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.

This distinction in the law — which is irrational, at best — disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration, since LGBT people usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse. For example, if an 18 year old straight man has vaginal intercourse with his 17 year old girlfriend, he is guilty of a crime, but he is not automatically required to register as a sex offender; instead, the judge will decide based on the facts of the case whether registration is warranted. By contrast, if an 18 year old gay man has sex with his 17 year old boyfriend, the judge *must* place him on the sex offender registry, no matter what the circumstances.

Until recently, that sex offender registration was for life, even though the sex was consensual. Under 2017 legislation authored by Senator Wiener, registration. Is for a minimum of 10 years, still a harsh repercussion for consensual sex.

SB 145 does not change whether or not particular behavior is a crime and does not change the potential sentence for having sex with an underage person. Rather, the bill simply gives judges the ability to evaluate whether or not to require registration as a sex offender. To be clear, this judicial discretion for sex offender registration is *already* the law for vaginal intercourse between a 15-17 year old and someone up to 10 years older. SB 145 simply extends that discretion to other forms of intercourse. A judge will still be able to place someone on the registry if the behavior at issue was predatory or otherwise egregious. This change will treat straight and LGBT young people equally, end the discrimination against LGBT people, and ensure that California stops stigmatizing LGBT sexual relationships.

California State Senator Scott Wiener, in 2019 introduced Senate Bill SB 145, to stop men who have sex with 15, 16, and 17 year old boys from automatically becoming registered sex offenders. Here is the text of the bill.

The Bill has predictably received plenty of backlash. Criticism of it, however, has been dismissed as homophobia and anti-Semitism. Of course, a better alternative might be to RAISE the age of consent to 18 all around. That would do more to protect children.

If this seems familiar, it should. In 2016, Trudeau introduced Bill C-32, to lower the age of consent for anal sex. Eventually, it was slipped into Bill C-75, which not only reduced the penalties for many child sex crimes, but for terrorism offences as well.

11. New Zealand Loosens Abortion Laws

While New Zealand claimed to be in the middle of a pandemic, Parliament figured now is a good time to have easier access to abortion, even up to the moment of birth. Some really conflicting views on life. See Bill 310-1. Also, their “internet harm” bill seems like a threat to free speech.

Of course, that is not all that New Zealand has been up to lately. There is also taking people to quarantine camps, and denying them leave if they don’t consent to being tested. Yet, the PM thinks that critics are “conspiracy theorists”.

12. Know What Is Really Going On

Yes, this article was a bit scattered, but meant to bring awareness to some of the issues going on behind the scenes. The mainstream media (in most countries) will not cover important issues in any meaningful way. As such, people need to spend the time researching for themselves.

Bill introduced privately can actually be more interesting than what Governments typically put forward. Though they often don’t pass, they are still worth looking at.

Posted on

DNA Testing For Spotting Fake Refugee Families

Regardless of what a person feels about letting high levels of refugees into their country, most people will agree on one fact: they want the “family units” who enter to actually be made up of related family members.

However, as is being seen more and more, particularly in the United States, this is not the case. Adults are coming with children they claim are “their” children, but DNA testing is proving that false. In a U.S. pilot program, nearly 1/3 of professed families were not blood relatives.

Obvious questions have to be asked. Who are these children? Who are the supposed parents? Are the children being used to simply help adults along, or are they being trafficked? How are these arrangements being set up, and where? Those are just a few that need to be answered.

Bizarrely though, migrant rights groups and civil liberties groups don’t seem so concerned about those questions. Instead, they focus on what will happen to the DNA sample afterwards.

1. UN High Commission On Testing

IV. DNA testing to establish family relationships in the refugee context
.
12. …. Thus, interviewing family members should normally be undertaken as the primary means of establishing family relationships. Where documents are available, they should be used as corroborative evidence. Care should however be taken to prevent that, because of pressure to produce such documents, refugees are driven to take risky actions. These may include, for instance, desperate measures to sneak back home and/or approach the authorities of the country of origin, which could place them at risk of arrest, detention or other inordinate consequences.

13. In line with the above, UNHCR considers that DNA testing to verify family relationships may be resorted to only where serious doubts remain after all other types of proof have been examined, or, where there are strong indications of fraudulent intent and DNA testing is considered as the only reliable recourse to prove or disprove fraud.

14. Even if the existence of a blood link is not established, this may not necessarily imply an intention to commit fraud. Cultural and social dimensions of ascribing family relationships should be considered. In the refugee context, the nature of ascribing family relationships should be understood based on the refugee’s social and cultural background. UNHCR also believes that individuals will be less inclined to misrepresent non-existing blood ties if they are confident that persons whom they have always treated and considered as part of the family and with whom they have developed strong personal bonds, or where there is mutual dependency, will be considered as part of the family for purposes of family reunification.

refugee.dna.testing.unchr.1
While it does pay lip service to the idea that nations need to be secure in who they allow to enter their borders, it becomes clear that the UN High Commission on Refugees sees DNA testing as a last resort. Even in cases where there is no biological link, the UNHCR recommends “looking at the culture” of the people anyway.

2. Canadian Policy On Testing

When to do DNA testing
An applicant may be given the option of undergoing DNA testing in cases in which documentary evidence has been examined and there are still doubts about the authenticity of a parent-child genetic relationship or when it is not possible to obtain satisfactory relationship documents. A DNA test to prove a genetic relationship should be suggested by IRCC only as a last resort.

For citizenship purposes, it is only necessary to establish one parent-child relationship with a Canadian citizen parent. However, it is preferable to take samples of genetic material from both parents as it facilitates the testing process.

A relative or family member’s DNA can be useful to DNA test results for immigration purposes, even if that person is not specifically involved with the sponsorship application. In such cases, the processing office needs to be satisfied that the person is a blood relative of the sponsor and that the person’s DNA sample is collected in accordance with these guidelines.

The IRCC does require DNA testing to prove a genetic relationship, but does so only as a last resort, when family ties cannot be proven otherwise. While this may not be a huge problem for people coming in many streams, it should be required for those coming via refugee channels, especially those coming illegally.

3. CBSA Checking Ancestry Sites

Immigration officials are using DNA testing and ancestry websites to try to establish the nationality of migrants, the Canada Border Services Agency said on Friday.

CBSA spokesperson Jayden Robertson said the agency uses DNA testing to determine identity of “longer-term detainees” when other techniques have been exhausted.

“DNA testing assists the CBSA in determining identity by providing indicators of nationality thereby enabling us to focus further lines of investigation on particular countries,” Robertson said in an email.

But the process raises concerns about privacy of data held by ancestry websites, and highlights political pressure over the handling of migrants by Canada’s Liberal government. More than 30,000 would-be refugees have crossed the U.S.-Canada border since January 2017, many saying they were fleeing U.S. President Donald Trump’s immigration policies.

Again, the DNA testing appears to be a last resort to verify identity, rather than a main one. Moreover, it’s sickening how people living in the U.S. illegally are able to enter Canada and try to claim asylum. The rules aren’t meant to allow for asylum shopping.

4. Fraud Longstanding Problem In U.S.

Q: Why did the US decide to conduct DNA testing of some nationality groups applying for resettlement in the US?
.
A: PRM and DHS/USCIS jointly decided to test a sample of refugee cases due to reported fraud in the P-3 program, particularly in Kenya. This pilot program later expanded to test applicants in other parts of Africa. (See questions and answers below.)
.
Q: What rate of fraud did you discover?
.
A: The rate of fraud varied among nationalities and from country to country, and is difficult to establish definitively as many individuals refused to agree to DNA testing.
.
We were, however, only able to confirm all claimed biological relationships in fewer than 20% of cases (family units). In the remaining cases, at least one negative result (fraudulent relationship) was identified, or the individuals refused to be tested.
.
Q: Which refugees are being tested? From which countries?
.
A: We initially tested a sample of some 500 refugees (primarily Somali and Ethiopian) in Nairobi, Kenya under consideration for U.S. resettlement through the P-3 program. After that sample suggested high rates of fraud, we expanded testing to Ethiopia, Uganda, Ghana, Guinea, Gambia and Cote d’Ivoire. Most of the approximately 3,000 refugees tested are from Somalia, Ethiopia, and Liberia, as these nationalities make up the vast majority of P-3 cases.
.
It is important to note that the initial DNA testing was limited to members of families applying for the P-3 program, and not between the applicants and the anchor relative in the United States.

Even in late 2008, the U.S. State Department was reporting that on DNA testing for refugee families had interesting results. Less than 20% of cases were confirmed to be actual families. Others failed testing, or simply refused to undergo it.

Also in that same page, the State Department stated that they stopped accepting affidavits of relationship for people coming from all countries. It stopped accepting the documents and has looked for other ways to verify identity and relationships.

5. How Prevalent Is It?

Relevant part starts at about 8:00 mark in video. Conversation gets to child separation, and that entire families end up getting released. In pilot program, 30% of “families” were made up of unrelated people. Children are in fact being recycled and used to help multiple families.

The National Sentinel reported that U.S. border guards are finding a very high number of so-called families entering the U.S. illegally from Mexico, who aren’t related at all. From the Washington Examiner:

In a pilot program, approximately 30% of rapid DNA tests of immigrant adults who were suspected of arriving at the southern border with children who weren’t theirs revealed the adults were not related to the children, an official involved in the system’s temporary rollout who asked to be anonymous in order to speak freely told the Washington Examiner Friday.

“There’s been some concern about, ‘Are they stepfathers or adopted fathers?'” the official said. “Those were not the case. In these cases, they are misrepresented as family members.”

In some incidents where Immigration and Customs Enforcement told the adults they would have to take a cheek swab to verify a relationship with a minor, several admitted the child was not related and did not take the DNA test, which was designed by a U.S. company.

Nearly a third of the families coming into the U.S. as refugees aren’t in fact related. Okay, who are they really? What exactly are the children being used for? Smuggling aids for adults? Are they being recycled? Are they being trafficked? Has any money changed hands to make these arrangements happen?

6. Civil Liberties Groups Oppose Testing

The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit earlier this year to stop family separation and to require the immediate reunion of all separated children and parents. On June 29, a federal judge issued a national injunction in our class-action lawsuit, requiring the reunification of thousands. Now, we must ensure the administration heeds the court’s ruling and the policy of family separation ends once and for all. The government deported hundreds of parents without their children — without a plan for how they would be ever be found. The ACLU is working to locate every separated parent and advise them of their rights to be reunited.

We are in the courts, streets, and in Congress to hold the Trump administration accountable for the irreparable damage it has done to these young lives. We need you in this fight.

One has to wonder why, if the U.S. was such a horrible place, would people come by the tens of thousands to go there? Why would people travel for thousands of miles just to end up on concentration camps?

The tortured logic is also on display here. The ACLU wants DNA testing to be done only as a last resort, and took the Government to court on that issue. However, they also oppose separating children from parents (or at least people who “claim” to be families).

In short, the ACLU wants children and adults to remain together, and be promptly released into the United States. Yet, they oppose the one measure which would determine if they are in fact related by blood.

The ACLU is far from the only organization that opposes DNA testing, while trying to get “families” released into the mainland. It would seem logical to at least ensure that the children are with family members, but that doesn’t seem to be a concern. The priority with opposing DNA testing seems to be to keep it out of criminal databases.

Who knows how many of these children are being trafficked by their so-called parents? What about the human rights and civil liberties of the children involved? However, groups like the ACLU don’t address that.

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/refugee.dna_.testing.unchr_.1.pdf
(2) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-border-agency-migrants-dna-1.4765487
(3) http://archive.is/3qYE8
(4) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/standard-requirements/dna-testing.html
(5) http://archive.is/mD5JB
(6) https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/prm/refadm/rls/fs/2008/112760.htm
(7) http://archive.is/tzAoK
(8) https://www.thenationalsentinel.com/2019/07/15/cruz-graham-dna-testing-at-border-finds-that-nearly-one-third-of-migrant-families-are-fraudulent/
(9) http://archive.is/dEASk
(10) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/dna-tests-reveal-30-of-suspected-fraudulent-migrant-families-were-unrelated
(11) http://archive.is/fZdHY
(12) https://www.theepochtimes.com/30-percent-of-suspected-illegal-alien-families-were-unrelated-dna-tests-show_2928316.html
(13) http://archive.is/de9tr
(14) https://www.aclu.org/families-belong-together
(15) http://archive.is/7Wx0G
(16) https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention/reunify-families-dna-testing-should-be-last
(17) http://archive.is/tnSRQ

Posted on

Catherine McKenna: Co-Founder Of NGO, Canadian Lawyers Abroad

1. Important Links

(1) http://catherinemckenna.liberal.ca/biography/
(2) http://catherinemckenna.ca/site/2013/09/exciting-times-canadian-lawyers-abroad/
(3) http://archive.is/DYoQg
(4) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/
(5) http://archive.is/fqUPW
(6) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/author/canadianlawyersabroad/
(7) http://archive.is/UOSKe
(8) https://leveljustice.org/news
(9) http://archive.is/zWgkW
(10) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/canadian-lawyers-abroad-goes-next-level-with-new-name-and-new-look/
(11) http://archive.is/OlXub

Some Posts Written By McKenna
(1) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/so-whats-up-with-canadian-lawyers-abroad/
(2) http://archive.is/UdqBw
(3) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/is-law-school-a-losing-game-in-canada-who-knows/
(4) http://archive.is/GbQ7q
(5) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/revisiting-yet-again-the-question-of-what-to-do-with-articling/
(6) http://archive.is/A61RA
(7) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/so-you-want-to-be-an-international-lawyer-part-1/
(8) http://archive.is/zzC2I
(9) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/so-you-want-to-be-an-international-lawyer-part-2/
(10) http://archive.is/FwR2w
(11) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/were-failing-our-children/
(12) http://archive.is/6D4ky
(13) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/articling-and-the-2011-lsuc-bencher-election/
(14) http://archive.is/VBZ4U
(15) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/canadian-lawyers-abroads-rights-of-spring-the-lowdown/
(16) http://archive.is/enUho

2. Context For This Article

When a person steps into public office, such as being a Member of Parliament, it is expected that they will have no other associations or obligations that will interfere with this role. They are expected to have no conflict of interest. For Ottawa MP Catherine McKenna, however, that is not the case.

She co-founded an NGO called Canadian Lawyers Abroad in 2006, which was aimed at getting Canadian law graduates to take on international matters. McKenna remained a director of this organization until the day of the 2015 election.

What does this group (whatever its name is) actually do? Looking at its profile, under the name Level Justice, it seems to focus on social justice and indoctrination for aspiring lawyers. Think of it as a sort of brainwashing movement, promoting a more globalist, or internationalist approach.

It also operates a student internship, where law students and graduates take on work abroad. This amounts to a summer or so or volunteer work abroad, working for NGOs. An interesting situation: even while running for office, Catherine McKenna was a director at an NGO, which tried to get law students to go work for other NGOs abroad. The annual reports do list where people have gone, but more information would have been nice on the work they do.

But looking at the reports issued, it seemed that this global internship was not the biggest focus. More efforts were spent on local initiatives.

3. “Candidate” McKenna Stayed On CLA Board

Today was a big week in the history of Canadian Lawyers Abroad. On Monday, Brittany Twiss came on board as our new Executive Director. The torch had officially passed from Yasmin Shaker and me, the CLA co-founders, to the next generation!

It is bittersweet to be leaving as ED of CLA (although I will still be on the board). I realize how lucky I have been to work with so many passionate and committed lawyers and law students who live up to CLA’s motto of using law to improve lives. We are lucky to count among our boosters (and my mentors) amazing leaders in the legal community including Allan Rock and Nathalie Des Rosiers (who very kindly gave us our first office at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law), Bill Graham, Antonio Lamer, Ed Waitzer, Bob Rae, Greg Kane and Armand de Mestral. We also have thousands of law students who have come through our Student Chapter and Student Internship Programs who are now using their law degrees to build the rule of law and promote human rights in Canada and around the world.

McKenna remained on the Board of Canadian Lawyers Abroad, even though she was campaigning to become a Member of Parliament in the 2015 election. That page is from 2013, but it has to be asked: did McKenna remain on the Board after getting elected? Is she on the Board today? Is she using her position as an MP to push CLA’s agenda?

4. McKenna’s Posts On CLA Blog

About Catherine
I am a Co-Founder, former Executive Director and current Board Member of Canadian Lawyers Abroad. I am Executive Director of the Banff Forum and a lecturer at the Munk School of Global Affairs in Toronto.

Here, Catherine McKenna describes in broad strokes what her organization is, and what it’s goals are. Again, she remained a board member while running for public office, which is a huge conflict of interest.

How? In two ways. First, we run a Student Program that brings together law students from across the country who are passionate about using their law degree to make positive changes around the world. CLA provides a forum for discussion and debate and, through our Summer Internship Program, we offer students the possibility of gaining practical experience with our amazing partners in developing countries and Canada’s north.

Second, we develop innovative projects with our partners that will lead to positive, long-term changes in their communities. For example, we’re helping the KNUST Faculty of Law in Ghana set up a university legal clinic. University legal clinics have been a very successful model in Canada and Canadian lawyers and law students are well-placed to provide assistance. This project will give KNUST law students practical, real-life training and provide marginalized groups, in particular women and youth, access to desperately needed legal information and services. In the long-term, by promoting the rule of law and protecting human rights, this project will help reduce poverty and promote economic development in Ghana. We plan on replicating this pilot project with other partners around the world.

This all sounds great, but when you are an elected MP in Ottawa (or any riding) your allegiance is to the people of that riding. Remaining part of this organization makes McKenna look compromised.

In another article, McKenna outlines how law school is becoming a losing game, as there are more graduates than positions in articling available. She actually has a valid point, and the situation in the United States is much worse. Could this be a way of swaying more lawyers to her cause?

5. CDN Lawyers Abroad A.K.A. Level Justice

In September 2015, Canadian Lawyers Abroad underwent a name change and overhauled its website. However, its indoctrination agenda seems to be pretty much the same, so the changes are more cosmetic.

Level.Justice.Change.Of.Name
Level.Justice.2.Certificate.Of.Continuance.
Level.Justice.3.Bylaws.For.Organization
Level.Justice.4.Director.List.In.2014
Level.Justice.5.Change.Of.Corporate.Address
Level.Justice.6.Director.Change.October.2015.McKenna.Out

Looking at the corporate documents, it seems that Canadian Lawyers Abroad was renamed to LEVEL. CHANGING LIVES THROUGH LAW. It also looks like Catherine McKenna remained a Director at the organization until October 19, 2015. This was the day of the election which put her into office. Since there is no time listed, she may have only resigned after having won her seat.

6. CLA/Level Is Registered Charity

This is a bit confusing. McKenna stepped down as Executive Director in 2013. So, was she not considered a Director (according to the CRA) until this happened?

For Period Ending December 31, 2015
Receipted donations $82,191.00 (48.34%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $81,039.00 (47.66%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $6,788.00 (3.99%)
Total revenue: $170,018.00

Charitable programs $97,086.00 (79.87%)
Management and administration $0.00 (0.00%)
Fundraising $8,868.00 (7.30%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $15,597.00 (12.83%)
Total expenses: $121,551.00

Professional and consulting fees
$61,966.00

Note: There is no compensation listed for employees

For Period Ending December 31, 2016
Receipted donations $10,600.00 (7.54%)
Non-receipted donations $78,864.00 (56.07%)
Gifts from other registered charities $43,000.00 (30.57%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $8,200.00 (5.83%)
Total revenue: $140,664.00

Charitable programs $116,887.00 (90.23%)
Management and administration $12,652.00 (9.77%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $129,539.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$72,746.00

Full-time employees (1)
Part-time employees (4)

Professional and consulting fees
$8,633.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (1)

For Period Ending August 31, 2017
Receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Non-receipted donations $110,300.00 (85.31%)
Gifts from other registered charities $18,992.00 (14.69%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $0.00 (0.00%)
Total revenue: $129,292.00

Expenses are listed as $163,006

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$96,529.00

Full-time employees (3)

Professional and consulting fees
$5,861.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$1 to $39,999 (2)
$40,000 to $79,999 (1)

For Period Ending August 31, 2018
Receipted donations $6,790.00 (1.71%)
Non-receipted donations $260,938.00 (65.58%)
Gifts from other registered charities $130,131.00 (32.71%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $28.00 (0.01%)
Total revenue: $397,887.00

Charitable programs $288,133.00 (91.80%)
Management and administration $25,747.00 (8.20%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $313,880.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$220,568.00

Full-time employees (3)

Professional and consulting fees
$12,006.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (1)
$80,000 to $119,999 (2)

For Period Ending August 31, 2019
Receipted donations $10,000.00 (2.96%)
Non-receipted donations $156,492.00 (46.30%)
Gifts from other registered charities $171,448.00 (50.73%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $25.00 (0.01%)
Total revenue: $337,965.00

Charitable programs $220,726.00 (89.76%)
Management and administration $25,171.00 (10.24%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $245,897.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$168,747.00

Full-time employees (3)

Professional and consulting fees
$13,524.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (3)

7. Little Info On Elections Canada Site

A quick search into the financing section of Elections Canada shows very little. In fact, as of the time of writing this, there are 21 donations total with McKenna’s name on them. Most are for a few hundred dollars. So McKenna hasn’t been getting large donations from various groups.

8. Global Internship Program

In summer 2016, Level placed 20 student interns with NGOs in Canada, the US, Ghana, Namibia, Kenya, Thailand, India and Bangladesh, where they gained practical human rights research and advocacy experience. While Level has made the difficult decision this year to shift its focus to local and remote internship opportunities, we are proud to have facilitated international internships for over 220 students since 2005. I would like to take this opportunity to thank  our amazing partners for their support of our student initiatives, and their commitment to making justice a reality for some of the world’s most vulnerable populations.

Focused on an annual theme, Level’s Chapters organize community events, host conferences and panel discussions, and contribute research papers to an annual human rights journal. In 2016-17, our Chapters advanced awareness of women’s human rights both in Canada and abroad, and encouraged their peers to think critically about how they can use their budding legal skills to make a positive impact in their communities.

Through our Global Internship Program, 20 passionate and talented JD/LLB students spent the summer working for NGOs in Canada or overseas supporting grassroots efforts to increase access to justice and combat poverty, inequality and exploitation. Since 2005, over 220 students have advanced the mission of 45 organizations in 15 countries, while at the same time developing practical skills to advance their careers.

The quotes are from the annual 2016 report.
LJ.2014.annual.report
LJ.2015.annual.report
LJ.2016.annual.report
LJ.2018.annual.report

2014 through 2018 are available currently on the website.
On a serious note: one has to wonder how effective these students and new graduates would actually be. Not only would they have little to no experience in Canada, how could they contribute in countries where the culture and language are very different? How would they be able to operate in areas that might be highly suspicious of Westerners?

9. What This Group Does

From the looks of things, Canadian Lawyers Abroad, now called “Level Changing Lives Through The law”, or as “Level Justice”, runs a bunch of advocacy programs in Canada. The focus is on a social justice approach on crime, law, and access to representation.

The group has a “global internship program” which encourages law students and/or law school graduates to go abroad working for NGOs of other organizations. While the places are listed, it would be nice to know more about what these aspiring lawyers are in fact doing.

However, it appears that the bulk of the work has to do with domestic initiatives within Canada. That may explain the name change, as “Canadian Lawyers Abroad” left the impression that it was the bulk of their work.

Within Canada, it does seem to be focused on pitching the notion that poverty, racism and intolerance is what keeps people from getting access to justice. On the surface, this group seems to be noble and benevolent, though it views everything through the social justice lens.

Posted on

CV #10: Pharma Lobbying Of AB Gov’t; Wellington Advocacy; Counsel Public Affairs; Others

Some of the lobbying at the Federal level has been published in earlier pieces on this site. However, this is not true at the Provincial level. The question that has to be asked is whether lobbying is playing a role in getting various Premiers to support the vaccination agenda.

The answer is yes, or at least it certainly looks like it. This article will focus on Alberta, now headed by Jason Kenney. Others will be addressed subsequently. Kenney is blatantly pro-vaxx, and people have to ask who is pulling the strings for this agenda.

Clearly, Wellington Advocacy and Counsel Public Affairs are not the only 2 groups lobbying the Alberta Government. But they are both very prominent.

Also noteworthy is that Kenney is a former Cabinet Minister in Stephen Harper’s Government. He is a twice-attendee of the Bilderberg meetings. Kenney has powerful connections.

1. Jason Kenney Wants Mass Vaccination

(From March 30, 2020 public announcement)

Jason Kenney, like the Federal Government, and other Premiers, supports the agenda for mass vaccination. Unlike the Feds, though, Kenney hasn’t (so far) said that it will be mandatory, but we will have to see what becomes of it.

EDMONTON — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau defended his government Tuesday after Alberta’s premier suggested Ottawa is dragging its feet on approving potential screening devices and treatments for COVID-19.

On Sunday, Jason Kenney tweeted that he had directed staff to consider using tests, vaccines or medications “that have been approved by the high standards of at least one credible peer country’s drug agency.”

That of course is just a clip from a broader article. Point is, Kenney seems on board with vaccinations. He doesn’t want Ottawa potentially slowing it down.

2. Wellington Advocacy, ex-PMO Staffers

What we do
Wellington Advocacy helps you build, run and win campaigns.
.
After a decade of working alongside Stephen Harper on the campaign trail and in office, our team is uniquely positioned to help you build government relations strategies, digital campaigns, stakeholder coalitions and blueprints to run.
.
Government Relations
Our team will work with you to build and deliver a concise and compelling presentation to government. Drawing on vast public policy and government experience, we ensure the right people hear your message at the right time.
.
Digital
Finding and winning over an audience is central to any successful campaign. We know how to identify and engage audiences and will help you build a bespoke digital strategy to capture the attention you need to deliver your message.

This lobbying firm was with Stephen Harper for more than a decade, and even played a role in the PMO (Prime Minister’s Office). They brag about having influence. Now, they lobby (current) Alberta Premier Jason Kenney. Keep in mind, that Kenney was Immigration Minister for much of his time in Harper’s Government. All of this reeks of a conflict-of-interest.

Wellington.1.Registered.Office.and.Directors
wellington.2.articles.of.incorporation
Wellington.3.change.to.director.information
Wellington.4.notice.of.return.filed

According to the Lobbying Registry of Alberta, Wellington Advocacy has lobbied the Alberta Government 53 times since May 2019. While certainly not all of their clients are drug companies, several of as late, are.

DATE
LOBBYIST
CLIENT
SENIOR OFFICER

23-Apr-2020
Wellington Advocacy Inc.
Triple M Housing
Nick Koolsberge

23-Apr-2020
Wellington Advocacy Inc.
Spartan Bioscience Inc
Nick Koolsbergen

19-Apr-2020
Wellington Advocacy Inc.
AMD Medicom Inc
Nick Koolsbergen

22-Mar-2020
Wellington Advocacy Inc.
Bayshore Healthcare LTD
Nick Koolsbergen

22-Mar-2020
Wellington Advocacy Inc.
Shoppers Drug Mart
Nick Koolsbergen

3. Counsel Public Affairs, Inc.

Healthcare
Our team has extensive experience working across the health care sector, from hospital operations and broader health care industry governance, to service providers and product manufacturers, and to the regulated health professionals who support the system. Counsel has advocated on behalf of doctors, nurses, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, pharmacies, medical device manufacturers, healthcare associations and patient groups on a wide range of mandates.

LOBBYING
Engaging decision makers with a powerful, persuasive and fact-based position is the key to success. With decades of experience working at all levels of government, we know how to effectively bridge the gap between those inside and outside of the political sphere to find solutions for your most important issues.
.
POLICY DEVELOPMENT
We know how government weighs options, evaluates impacts, and makes choices. We understand the policy process and how your organization can intervene effectively. We’ll help to ensure the facts are laid out, your case gets in front of the right people, and the policy implications are clear.
.
STAKEHOLDER AND INFLUENCER ENGAGEMENT
Skilled and targeted stakeholder management involves both recruiting allies and minimizing opposition. We can help you identify, track, and influence stakeholders.

Their LinkedIn page is filled with countless examples of Counsel Public Affairs attempting to control political narratives. Members have ties to many political parties, so they really are playing all sides.

11-Apr-2020
Counsel Public Affairs Inc.
Emergent BioSolutions Canada Inc. (formerly Adapt Pharma Canada Ltd.)
Philip Dew

Counsel does have offices in other provinces, and connections to many political parties.

4. Registered Lobbying Reports

24-Apr-2020
AstraZeneca Canada Inc.
Jane Chung

23-Apr-2020
Wellington Advocacy Inc.
Triple M Housing
Nick Koolsbergen

22-Apr-2020
Stosic & Associates Ltd.
Mint Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Aleksandar Stosic

16-Apr-2020
Becton Dickinson Canada Inc
Gregory Miziolek

16-Apr-2020
Hill + Knowlton Strategies
3M Canada Company
Sheila Wisniewski

15-Apr-2020
Global Public Affairs
Applied Pharmaceutical Innovation
Randy Pettipas

15-Apr-2020
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc.
Christian Macher

11-Apr-2020
Counsel Public Affairs Inc.
Emergent BioSolutions Canada Inc. (formerly Adapt Pharma Canada Ltd.)
Philip Dewan

09-Apr-2020
Lundbeck Canada Inc.
Peter Anastasiou

09-Apr-2020
Rothmans, Benson, & Hedges
Peter Luongo

07-Apr-2020
Pfizer Canada ULC
Cole Pinnow

07-Apr-2020
Merck Canada Inc.
Anna Van Acker

06-Apr-2020
Alberta Pharmacists’ Association
Margaret Wing

01-Apr-2020
Janssen Inc.
Jorge Bartolome

This is of course not an exhaustive list of who has been lobbying the Government in Alberta. Nor is health the only topic that gets lobbied for.

But it is interesting to see how many interested parties are coming forward. And “interested” refers to those who will be able to make money off such a vaccine or other remedy. When there is a lot of money at stake, people must always be wondering who is possibly pulling the strings.

One thing seems clear though: the Alberta Government won’t be waiting around for Ottawa to make a decision. Whether AB ultimately decides to go the route of mass vaccinations is unknown. However, there are companies who would profit greatly from it.

It also can’t be understated the conflict of interest that arises when lobbyists — many of whom have ties to government officials — start lobbying those officials on matters that are not in the best interests of the people. Much like Crestview Strategy and many more, Wellington Alliance and Counsel Public Affairs rely on their personal connections to pass initiatives that their clients pay for.

(1) https://www.wellingtonadvocacy.com/
(2) http://archive.is/0x8cN
(3) https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachel-curran-a99258109/
(4) http://archive.is/lchjs
(5) https://counselpa.com/strategic-communications/
(6) http://archive.is/tBPaJ
(7) https://www.linkedin.com/company/counsel-public-affairs-inc-toronto-ontario/
(8) http://archive.is/r5Qg6
(9) https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/we-won-t-wait-kenney-says-alberta-may-use-covid-19-tests-treatments-approved-by-other-countries-1.4896121?cache=yes%3FclipId%3D89680%3FclipId%3D373266%3FclipId%3D89680%2F5-things-to-know-for-thursday-october-31-2019-1.4663743
(10) http://archive.is/M1FOy
(11) https://www.albertalobbyistregistry.ca

Posted on

CV#7: M-132 And International Pharma Research Grants In Canada

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

CLICK HERE, for #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying.
CLICK HERE, for #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines.
CLICK HERE, for #4: Gates using proxies to push vaxx agenda.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Crestview Strategy, GAVI’s lobbying firm.
CLICK HERE, for #6: people GAVI/Crestview lobbied follow Gates.

http://www.lobbycanada.gc.ca

2. HESA Submissions, Evidence, Reports

Submissions Lodged
hesa.Structural.Genomics.Consortium.submission
hesa.Medicines.Patent.Pool.2018
hesa.Doctors.Without.Borders.2018
hesa.Canadian.Institutes.Of.Health.Research.2018
hesa.Fowke.Keith.University.Manitoba.2018
hesa.University.College.London.drug.prices.2018
hesa.Drugs.For.Neglected.Diseases.Initiative.2018
hesa.Moon.Suerie.2018
hesa.Yusuf.Salim.mcmaster
hesa.FIND.tb.alliance.gates.gavi.unitaid
hesa.Vlassoff.Carol.2018
hesa.Universities.Allied.For.Essential.Medecines.2018
hesa.Bruyere.Research.Institute.2018
hesa.Molyneux.David.2018

LINK To Parliamentary Study Main Page

3. Federally Funded Health Research: M-132

For a speech on passing M-132.
The text is below

Motion Text
That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to undertake a study on ways of increasing benefits to the public resulting from federally funded health research, with the goals of lowering drugs costs and increasing access to medicines, both in Canada and globally; and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House no later than one year from the time this motion is adopted.

4. Parliamentary Committee Meetings

Dates Of Meetings
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Hesa.2018.September.27.evidence.transcript

Tuesday, October 2, 2018
Hesa.2018.October.2.evidence.transcript

Thursday, October 4, 2018
Hesa.2018.October.4.evidence.transcript

Tuesday, October 16, 2018
Hesa.2018.October.16.evidence.transcript

Thursday, October 18, 2018
Hesa.2018.October.18th.evidence.transcript

Tuesday, October 23, 2018
Hesa.2018.October.23.evidence.transcript

Thursday, October 25, 2018
Hesa.2018.October.25.evidence.transcript

5. Reports Released To The Commons

In Canada and around the world, there is rising concern that innovative drugs produced by pharmaceutical companies are no longer affordable and are placing increasing strain on health care budgets. Policy makers have begun to examine ways that public funding for pharmaceutical research and development could address this issue. On 8 November 2017, the House of Commons adopted Private Members’ Business M-132, which requested that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (the Committee) “undertake a study on ways of increasing benefits to the public resulting from federally funded research, with the goals of lowering drug costs and increasing access to medicines, both in Canada and globally.”

On 16 and 18 October 2018, the Committee held two meetings as part of this study and heard from a range of witnesses including health researchers, health research funding organizations, patient groups and civil society organizations. Drawing on witness testimony and written submissions, this report examines the role the federal government can play in fostering pharmaceutical research and development both in Canada and globally to ensure that pharmaceutical drugs are accessible and affordable.

Note: Recommendations can be found starting at page 20 in the 2018 report released to the House of Commons.

HOUSE OF COMMONS STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH CALLS ON THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO FOSTER PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOTH IN CANADA AND GLOBALLY THROUGH OPEN SCIENCE
Ottawa, November 26, 2018 –

Bill Casey, Chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, presented the Committee’s twentieth report today entitled, Towards Open Science: Promoting Innovation in Pharmaceutical Research and Development and Access to Affordable Medications both in Canada and Abroad.

The Committee’s study is in response to Member of Parliament Raj Saini’s Private Members’ Motion M-132, which requested that the Committee, “undertake a study on ways of increasing benefits to the public resulting from federally funded research, with the goals of lowering drug costs and increasing access to medicines, both in Canada and globally.”

In presenting the report to the House, Chair Bill Casey highlighted that “in our testimony, we heard loud and clear that more needs to be done to strengthen research and innovation in Canada. I thank Mr. Saini for bringing forth M-132, and for his efforts in ensuring that the Health Committee can hear why Canada must continue to be a leader in this field.”

Drawing on witness testimony heard over the course of two meetings held on 16 and 18 October 2018 and on 23 written submissions, the Committee’s report examines how increased federal investment in health research, across the continuum from fundamental to clinical research, would support the development of new medicines. However, witnesses also emphasized the importance of ensuring that federal funding in pharmaceutical research and development must also result in the creation of drugs that are affordable in Canada and abroad. Witnesses suggested that this could be achieved by fostering the creation of innovative models of pharmaceutical research that prioritize open science in both the development of new drugs and the repurposing of existing drugs. Witnesses explained that the Government of Canada could lead the way by developing a framework that sets priorities for pharmaceutical research and development and promotes open science through collaboration and leveraging of funding across governments, universities, health charities and private industry.

The Committee agrees with these findings and has included in its report nine recommendations that it believes will support the transformation of pharmaceutical research and development in Canada.

The announcement of the press release is here

Recommendation 1
That the Government of Canada create a specific funding mechanism for the development of clinical trial research and infrastructure in Canada through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
.
Recommendation 2
That the Government of Canada increase its funding for clinical trial research and infrastructure in Canada to 10% of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s budget to be on par with jurisdictions leading in this area, such as the United Kingdom and the United States.
.
Recommendation 3
That the Government of Canada explore ways to incentivize clinical trial research in Canada for pharmaceutical drugs and incentivize and support the production of those drugs in Canada at an advantaged price for Canada and provide venture capital for the proponent.
.
Recommendation 4
That the Canadian Institutes of Health Research attach a Global Access Licensing requirement to recipients of its research funding that wish to commercialize their research findings.
.
Recommendation 5
That the Canadian Institutes of Health Research include in its existing research and development programs support for the development of open science models of drug discovery.
.
Recommendation 6
That the Canadian Institutes of Health Research develop a framework for open science that supports collaboration and the leveraging of research funding among different partners in pharmaceutical research and development, including health charities, universities, governments, and private industry.
.
Recommendation 7
That Health Canada develop regulatory incentives for pharmaceutical companies that commit to open access to their research data and affordable prices for their products.
.
Recommendation 8
That the Government of Canada undertake a strategic review of its health-related research funding priorities across departments and agencies to enhance coordination, including Health Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Global Affairs Canada, and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.
.
Recommendation 9
That the Government of Canada explore the feasibility of the public manufacturing of generic medicines.

In the follow-up report, the recommendations were formally adopted.

REPORTS TO PARLIAMENT
hesa.november.2018.report.to.parliament
hesa.government.response.march.2019

6. Committee Members

As provided by the report, these are the names and ranks of the Committee.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

CHAIR

  • Bill Casey

VICE-CHAIRS

  • Marilyn Gladu (lobbied by GAVI)
  • Don Davies

    • MEMBERS

    • Ramez Ayoub
    • Doug Eyolfson
    • Raj Grewal
    • Ben Lobb
    • Ron McKinnon
    • John Oliver (Parliamentary Secretary — Non-Voting Member)
    • Sonia Sidhu
    • Len Webber

    OTHER MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT WHO PARTICIPATED

    • Randy Boissonnault
    • Terry Duguid
    • Randy Hoback
    • Tom Kmiec
    • Christine Moore
    • Raj Saini (lobbied by GAVI)
    • Dave Van Kesteren

    CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE

    • Marie-Hélène Sauvé

    Why is the list of the Committee Members here? Well, once you see who some of the connections are, it will likely make the report findings a lot more suspicious.

    7. Committee Members & Pharma Lobbying

    The above screenshots came from information provided in the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner of Canada. These are far from exhaustive, but show a snapshot at the lobbying that is going on in Canada. Members of this Parliamentary Committee are being lobbied by various drug companies. It’s not difficult to see that this is done in order to influence them.

    8. Conflict Of Interest Here

    The same committee members who are recommending that Canada undertake more research for pharmaceuticals are the same ones who are being lobbied by pharmaceutical companies. It’s not difficult to piece it together.

    Posted on

    Canada Already Endorsed IHRA Definition, Making It A Hate Crime To Criticise Jews

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for Ontario’s Bill 168, IHRA definition.
    CLICK HERE, for previous piece on UN digital cooperation.
    CLICK HERE, for piece on Richard Lee and UN internet governance.

    CLICK HERE, for Canada’s anti-racism strategy.
    http://archive.is/MuIex
    CLICK HERE, for Canada’s anti-racism report.
    ARS-Report-EN-2019-2022
    CLICK HERE, for the Digital Charter.
    Digital Charter PDF

    CLICK HERE, for the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.

    2. Context For This Article

    About the last piece (Ontario’s Bill 168) which would label criticism of Jews as hate speech, things are actually much worse. Things have been that way since May 2019. See this publication from the Federal Government.

    To get this out of the way: I don’t know if this endorsement has any legal effect, and can be the basis for charging someone criminally or with hate crimes. Nonetheless, it is pretty chilling that any government which values freedom would entertain the idea of curtailing free speech to appease the never ending demands of this group.

    We hear so often that something is “symbolic”, or not to worry because it’s “non-binding”. What then is the point of enacting or endorsing something with no real effect?

    Iqra Khalid continues to be mocked (and rightfully so) for introducing M-103, the so-called blasphemy motion. This would ban Islamophobia, but without actually defining it. Yet, the Israeli lobby successfully advocates to have criticism of Jews banned as anti-Semitism — and the media says nothing. The double standard is obvious.

    It’s hard to tell how much of this “anti-racism” strategy is throwing money around and virtue signalling, and how much will actually result in concrete action.

    3. Anti-Racism Strategy Is Giant Slush Fund

    In reading through the posted strategy, we come across the following figures. Note, there doesn’t seem to be any sign for how the spending of this money will be accountable to the public.

    • $40B for national housing strategy
    • $319M for Indigenous housing
    • $671M for criminal legal aid
    • $141.7M for youth in conflict with the law
    • $19M for black youths
    • $9M for Indigenous post secondary schooling
    • $20M/year for “sector initiatives”
    • $21M for foreign credential recognition
    • $900M more for workplace developments
    • $705M for social finance fund
    • $50M for Indigenous Growth Fund
    • $12.1M (for now) for poverty reduction
    • $25M/year union training and innovation
    • $46M (5 years) for skilled trades awareness
    • $38M for pathways to education
    • $400M/year for Aboriginal employment
    • $50M skills and partnership fund
    • $25M/year literacy training
    • $90M/year youth employment strategies
    • $12M/year for refugee and immigrant legal aid
    • $45M/year for postsecondary support
    • $40M/year on reserve income assistance
    • $10M/year for Indigenous urban programming
    • $5M/year to help Indigenous be self sufficient
    • $8M/year for family violence prevention
    • $10M/year for sports in Indigenous communities
    • $4M for arts and culture
    • $1.4M for arts training fund
    • $4M for cultural spaces fund
    • $11M/year for multiculturalism program
    • $5M/year for court challenges
    • $13M/year reintegrate Aboriginal offenders
    • $54M/year in crime prevention
    • $10M/year for violence prevention
    • $0.5M/year for cultural competency training
    • $0.3M/year for youth leadership
    • $1.2M/year for inclusivity statistics

    Plenty of pork being thrown around in the 2019 anti-racism strategy. But don’t worry, everyone except whites will be able to have a victim complex.

    4. IHRA Definition Adopted

    Under the section of “TERMINOLOGY”, the document lists a bunch of different terms, including anti-Semitism. It comes directly from the IHRA definition of Anti-Semitism. (It is footnote #2).

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

    And at the bottom of the page, it specifically lists the IHRA working definition as the source.

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

    5. IHRA Definition Of Anti-Semitism

    On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:
    .
    Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
    .
    “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

    Don’t worry. While this sounds pretty vague, it is about to get much, MUCH more detailed in what exactly counts as anti-Semitism.

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

    Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

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

    • Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
    • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
    • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
    • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
    • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
    • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
    • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
    • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
    • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
    • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
    • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

    Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
    .
    Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
    .
    Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

    Just reading the definition provided, it has to be asked: what DOESN’T make the list? What ISN’T anti-Semitism according to these people?

    When it refers to anti-Semitic acts as criminal, is that in indication that criminalization of “anti-Semitism” is where they intend to go with this?

    6. Jewish Media Celebrates Adoption Of IHRA Def.

    The Canadian Jewish News covered the story.

    The Center for Israel & Jewish Affairs covered it.

    The Jerusalem Post covered it.

    The Times of Israel covered it. Also note: Shimon Fogel is the President and CEO of CIJA, the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

    This is of course, just a sample of what is out there. But the point is that the Israeli and Jewish presses are on top of this story (which actually happened in the Spring of 2019). Mainstream media has chosen not to cover it, but mock Muslims for THEIR efforts to limit free speech.

    7. Online Censorship Coming?

    From the anti-racism report issued, the topic on online policing of “hate”, whatever that may be, is addressed.

    Through our engagement with communities and people with lived experiences, we heard that Black Canadians, Muslims and Jewish communities are some of the groups who experience hate crimes disproportionately. There are also growing national and international concerns around the spread of online hate speech. We have even seen its impacts here at home when six lives were lost and many others injured during a horrific shooting at a mosque in Quebec City.

    Interestingly, no mention of the rampant, anti-White racism that exists in today’s society. Whites are the only racial group that it is legal to discriminate against. But do go on.

    Online platforms have increasingly become a tool to incite, publish and promote terrorism, violence and hatred. The March 2019 terror attack in Christchurch, New Zealand was a harrowing reminder that we need to take coordinated action to prevent social media and other online platforms from being used in these ways. That is why Canada joined the Christchurch Call to Action – a global pledge to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online. Through the Christchurch Call, governments and online services provider are making voluntary, collective commitments to combat online hate.

    On some level it seems harmless enough. But how exactly do we make sure that these new powers won’t be abused to silence those who simply express unpopular opinions?

    On a related note, internet regulation has long been proposed by the United Nations, and by a former Liberal candidate, long before the digital charter.

    8. What Is The Actual Effect?

    I don’t know. It’s unclear whether this is just pandering and symbolic, or whether there will be some real teeth in the measure. We won’t know until someone is fined or charged under it, and fights back.

    *Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress