Category: Human Rights

Posted on

9th Circuit Pulls Federal Funds Planned Parenthood Uses For Baby Chop-Shop

(David Daleiden Fined $195,000 Exposed PP Selling Aborted Baby Parts)


(Interview With David Daleiden)

Quotes From Ruling

BACKGROUND:
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.

4. Planned Parenthood 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?

Planned Parenthood 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.

Real Reason Planned Parenthood Is So Pro-Abortion

Let’s connect the dots here

  1. PP supports abortion with federal funds.
  2. PP supports aborting babies with Down’s Syndrome.
  3. PP supports abortion based on sex, race, or disability.
  4. PP supports abortion up to (and beyond) birth.
  5. PP opposes abortion complication reporting requirements.
  6. 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.

(1) http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2019/06/20/19-15974%20Order%20granting%20stay.pdf

(2) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/06/9th-us-circuit-court-sides-with-trump-says-president-can-defund-planned-parenthood-almost-60-million-a-year/

(3) https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-great-northwest-hawaiian-islands/newsroom/planned-parenthood-files-lawsuit-against-idaho-over-invasive-abortion-reporting-regulations
(4) https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2018/legislation/H0638.pdf

(5) https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/abortion-cases-up-for-supreme-court-review/
(6) https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/planned-parenthood-advocates-ohio/issues/legislation
(7) https://www.courthousenews.com/ohio-down-syndrome-abortion-law-hits-sixth-circuit/
(8) https://www.nationalreview.com/news/kentucky-governor-signs-law-prohibiting-abortions-based-on-unborns-sex-race-or-disabilities
(9) https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-abortion-indiana-fetal-burial-law-2019-5
(10) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/court-affirms-media-was-wrong-those-videos-of-planned-parenthood-dealing-in-baby-parts-werent-deceptively-edited
(11) https://www.christianpost.com/news/david-daleiden-fined-195000-court-battle-censored-planned-parenthood-footage.html
(12) https://apnews.com/c50e993d047142cf8ca0e8050daf6114

Posted on

Hypocrisy In Canada Summer Jobs Grants Between Religious Groups

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.

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?

Not really.

Double Standard For Christian & Islamic Groups

From the National Post article:

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.

From the Daily Caller article:

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.

Canadian Charter & Human Rights Code

Fundamental freedoms
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?

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)

An article on a pending challenge.

Other Double Standards In Free Speech

In Toronto a Christian Preacher is arrested for disturbing the peace in the Gay Village. However, Muslims condemning gays and Israel is apparently okay.

In the UK as well, a Christian Preacher can be arrested even for behaving peacefully. Yet, Muslims are allowed to preach intolerance openly.

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”.

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/funding/canada-summer-jobs/screening-eligibility.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/funding/canada-summer-jobs/agreement.html
(3) https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/groups-scramble-for-replacement-funding-after-dissenting-on-canada-summer-jobs-abortion-attestation
(4) https://dailycaller.com/2018/06/18/canada-summer-jobs-program-radical-cleric/
(5) https://globalnews.ca/news/4277082/canada-summer-job-grant-islamic-group-peter-braid/
(6) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html
(7) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/

Posted on

Under 1948 UN Convention, Multiculturalism and Replacement Migration Are Genocide

(Trudeau, speaking to the media)

(1948 Convention On Prevention and Punishing Genocide)

(Canadians encouraged to have less children)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Important Links


(1) https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/final-report/
(2) https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Final_Report_Vol_2_Quebec_Report-1.pdf

(3) https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/cbc-propaganda-14-lets-replace-the-canadian-population/
(5) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-18.7/page-1.html#h-3
(6) Dumping Feminism And Multiculturalism
(7) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Iqra-Khalid(88849)/Motions?documentId=8661986%2520
(8) http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_7_19.pdf
(9) https://www.fmreview.org/sites/fmr/files/FMRdownloads/en/FMRpdfs/Human-Rights/cairo.pdf
(10) https://canucklaw.ca/the-cairo-declaration-on-so-called-human-rights/

2. Quotes From UN Convention On Genocide


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

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Replacement Migration


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

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

Here is the contrast from the previous article.

(CBC wants less Canadian children)
(a) https://www.cbc.ca/parents/learning/view/i-have-one-child-its-not-my-husbands-and-were-not-planning-for-another-and
(b) https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-august-20-2018-1.4791395/smaller-families-are-pushing-the-middle-child-into-extinction-study-suggests-1.4793682
(c) https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/chip-joanna-gains-pregnancy-1.4481165
(d) https://www.cbc.ca/parents/learning/view/the-real-reason-i-have-only-one-child
(e) https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-194-tv-news-in-israel-and-gaza-rise-of-the-no-mos-and-more-1.2905673/no-mos-women-who-aren-t-having-children-1.2905664
(f) https://www.cbc.ca/parents/learning/view/im-not-teaching-my-daughter-to-be-polite
(g) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/emissions-reduction-choices-1.4204206

(and in case you think CBC just wants less children in general)
(a) https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-for-february-24-2019-1.5029453/how-did-multiculturalism-become-so-central-to-canada-s-identity-1.5029456
(b) https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-january-24-2019-1.4989844/always-a-way-to-go-around-border-walls-create-insecurity-not-remove-it-says-expert-1.4989854
(c) https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-december-24-2017-1.4451296/why-nothing-will-stop-people-from-migrating-1.4451437
(d) https://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/national-today-newsletter-migrant-deaths-creed-fire-calif-1.4911425
(e) https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hungary-soros-analysis-lawrynuik-1.4725089
(f) https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hungary-orban-parliament-session-1.4651185
(g) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/alexander-scheer-trudeau-un-compact-1.4932698
(h) https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-october-14-2018-1.4858401/canada-s-population-needs-to-be-100-million-by-2100-1.4860172

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

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

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

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

4. 1988 Multiculturalism Act


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Destruction of Religious Groups

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

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

Look familiar?

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

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

6. Erasing Our Heritage


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

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

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

7. Is Multiculturalism & Mass Migration “Genocide”?


Let’s go through the list

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

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

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

8. What Was IN MMIWG Report Anyway?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

(Getting into gay marriage)

(men, women, and non-binary….)

(Every identity group imaginable)

(Yes, forestry is sexist, just like construction)

About this course….

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

What is GBA+ all about?

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

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

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

Whatever happened to treating everyone equally?

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

Kill me now.

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

Doesn’t seem too difficult….

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

Where’s the cyanide when you need it?

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

Taking The Test

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Certificate arrived in about 10 minutes.

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

(1) https://cfc-swc.gc.ca/gba-acs/course-cours-en.html
(2) https://www.un.org/en/gender-inclusive-language/
(3) http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/gender-equality/index.html
(4) http://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/multimedia/2015/12/infographic-human-rights-women
(5) http://www.unwomen.org/en/about-us/about-un-women
(6) http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/post-2015/why-goal-5-matters
(7) “http://www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/partnerships/civil%20society/guiding_principles_civil_society_advisory_groups.pdf?la=en&vs=1445
(8) http://www.unwomen.org/en/csw
(9) https://cfc-swc.gc.ca/gba-acs/index-en.html
(10) https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/cedaw/pages/cedawindex.aspx
(11) http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/declar.htm
(12) https://www.un.int/sites/www.un.int/files/Permanent%20Missions/delegate/17-00102b_gender_strategy_report_13_sept_2017.pdf
(13) http://www.un.org/en/gender-inclusive-language/
(14) http://www.un.org/en/gender-inclusive-language/guidelines.shtml
(15) http://www.un.org/en/gender-inclusive-language/toolbox.shtml

Posted on

Court Of Appeal Rules Doctors Must Provide Abortions/Euthanasia, or Provide Referal

(article from Christian Legal Fellowship)

(Lifesite news also covered this)


The case above is one of Ontario doctors refusing to provide certain “reproductive health services” (a.k.a. abortion), and “medical assistance in dying” MAiD (a.k.a. euthanasia). Not only did they refuse to provide these services, they refused to help with the referrals procedures to others who would.

The Appellants refused on religious grounds. They claimed that requiring them to participate in these “medical services” violated their consciences and religious convictions. To be fair, we are talking about killing unborn children, eldery, and terminal patients. The other extreme would be more disturbing.

Their regulatory body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, says if they won’t perform such “health care services”, then they must help the patients get referred to doctors who will.

The Ontario Divisional Court agreed that this was the case. And now the Ontario Court of Appeals has upheld that ruling. Will this go to the Supreme Court of Canada? We will see.

Court of Appeal Quotes

E. Issues
[57] The appeal raises the following issues:
(1) What is the applicable standard of review and is the Doré/Loyola framework or the Oakes framework applicable to this case?
(2) Do the effective referral requirements of the Policies infringe the appellants’ s. 2(a) freedom of conscience and religion?
(3) Do the effective referral requirements of the Policies infringe the appellants’ s. 15(1) equality rights?
(4) If there is an infringement of the appellants’ Charter rights and/or freedoms, is it justified under s. 1 of the Charter?

Standard Of Review

[59] The normal rules of appellate review of lower court decisions, articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 (CanLII), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, apply on this appeal. Questions of law are reviewed on a correctness standard, and questions of fact and mixed fact and law are reviewed on a standard of palpable and overriding error: Housen, at paras. 8, 10, 36-37. The Divisional Court’s selection and application of the correctness standard to the Policies is a question of law and is accordingly reviewed by this court on a correctness standard.

If it is a question of fact, the standard is “overriding palpable error”. In essence, Appeals Courts tend to “give deference” to the Trial Judge since he/she is in a much better position to actually judge the case.

In questions of law, the standard is the correctness of the law itself.

In questions of mixed law and fact are viewed more towards “overriding palpable error”.

Religious Freedom

[62] In Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32 (CanLII), [2018] 2 S.C.R. 293, at para. 62, the Supreme Court adopted the definition of religious freedom expressed in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at p. 336:

[T]he right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination.

[63] At para. 63, the court set out the requirements of the test:
[F]irst, that he or she sincerely believes in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion; and second, that the impugned state conduct interferes, in a manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial, with his or her ability to act in accordance with that practice or belief.
This was the test applied by the Divisional Court, referring to Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 (CanLII), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551, at para. 56. See also Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567, at para. 32.

[64] The sincerity of belief and interference are conceded. But the College contends that the interference is trivial and insubstantial and does not contravene s. 2(a).

[65] I disagree. To explain my reasons, it is necessary to examine the appellants’ beliefs and their objections to performing or referring patients for the procedures at issue.

All parties agree the beliefs are sincere. The College says it is trivial, while the Panel disagrees.

Section 15 and Equality

[87] The Divisional Court referred to the two-part test for establishing a breach of s. 15(1) articulated in Taypotat, at paras. 19-20: (1) whether, on its face or in its impact, a law creates a distinction on the basis of an enumerated or analogous ground; and (2) whether the impugned law fails to respond to the actual capacities and needs of the members of the group and instead imposes burdens or denies benefits in a manner that has the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating or exacerbating their disadvantage.

[88] The focus of the inquiry is “whether a distinction has the effect of perpetuating arbitrary disadvantage on the claimant because of his or her membership in an enumerated or analogous group” such that it is a “discriminatory distinction”: Taypotat, at paras. 16, 18; and Quebec (Attorney General) v. A., 2013 SCC 5 (CanLII), [2013] 1 S.C.R. 61, at para. 331

[89] Applying this test, the Divisional Court dismissed the appellants’ claim that the Policies infringe their equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter. Without deciding whether the Policies create a distinction on the basis of religion, the Divisional Court held that the Policies do not have the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating or exacerbating a disadvantage or promoting prejudice against religious physicians. Nor do they restrict access to a fundamental social institution or impede full membership in Canadian society.

To put it mildly, the Courts have decided that not all “equality rights” are treated equally. In other words, it is okay to discriminate on the basis of “protected grounds” as long as it falls within certain guidelines.

Allowed Under Section 1?

[97] The onus at this stage is on the College to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the infringement of the appellants’ freedom of religion is a reasonable limit, demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society: Multani, at para. 43.
[98] In Oakes, at pp. 135 and 138-39, Dickson C.J. articulated a framework for the s. 1 analysis, which can be summarized as follows:
(a) the Charter-infringing measure must be “prescribed by law”;
(b) the objective of the impugned measure must be of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom;
(c) the means chosen must be reasonable and demonstrably justified – this is a “form of proportionality test” which will vary in the circumstances, but requires a balancing of the interests of society with the interests of individuals and groups and has three components:
(i) the measure must be rationally connected to the objective – i.e., carefully designed to achieve the objective and not arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations;
(ii) the means chosen should impair the Charter right or freedom as little as possible; and
(iii)there must be proportionality between the salutary and deleterious effects of the measure.

This is a fairly lengthy section, but this lays out the groundwork for determining whether Charter violations can otherwise be “saved”. Are there justifiable public interests in the breaches that are affirmed? Ultimately, the Court of Appeals said yes. These violations were justified on other grounds.

[186] The Fact Sheet identifies options that are clearly acceptable to many objecting physicians. Those who do not find them acceptable may be able to find other practice structures that will insulate them from participation in actions to which they object. If they cannot do so, they will have to seek out other ways in which to use their skills, training and commitment to patient care. I do not underestimate the individual sacrifices this may require. The Divisional Court correctly found, however, that the burden of these sacrifices did not outweigh the harm to vulnerable patients that would be caused by any reasonable alternative. That conclusion is not undermined by the fresh evidence before this court. Even taking the burden imposed on physicians at its most onerous, as framed by the appellants, the salutary effects of the Policies still outweigh the deleterious effects.

[187] As the Divisional Court observed, the appellants have no common law, proprietary or constitutional right to practice medicine. As members of a regulated and publicly-funded profession, they are subject to requirements that focus on the public interest, rather than their interests. In fact, the fiduciary nature of the physician-patient relationship requires physicians to act at all times in their patients’ best interests, and to avoid conflicts between their own interests and their patients’ interests:

Closing Thoughts


This is the heart of the conclusion:
(A) Doctors have other options
(B) Doctors can alter their practice
(C) Public interest comes first
(D) Medicine is a publicly regulated profession.

One thing needs to be pointed out though: just because something is LEGAL, doesn’t make it MORAL. Abortion and euthanasia are killing. Period.

Although both abortion and assisted suicide have no criminal penalties against them, there are still huge scientific and moral arguments against both. This will be a topic for a coming piece.

If a person believes that carrying out just “health care services” amounts to murder, that is okay. But wouldn’t referrals of such procedures make a doctor an accessory to murder? Although one degree removed, the moral objection would be the same.

Bottom line: provide the service, or refer to someone else who will. You’re here to serve the public.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2019/2019onca393/2019onca393.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2018/2018onsc579/2018onsc579.html
(3) CLICK HERE, for R.v. Oakes (balancing test)
(4) CLICK HERE, for Carter v. Canada (struck down assisted suicide laws).
(5) CLICK HERE, for Ontario Human Rights Code.
(6) CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Charter.
(7) CLICK HERE, for some Charter cases.
(8) CLICK HERE, for Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 (standard for review)

Posted on

Digital Charter Coming After “Christchurch Call”

(Trudeau announcing new “Digital Charter”)

(New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern at “Christchurch Call”)

Yes, the Christchurch Call and the UN “digital cooperation” are 2 separate initiatives, but the result is the same: stamping out free speech online.

(The UN High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation)

(Liberal ex-Candidate Richard Lee supports UN regulating internet)

1. Important Links

(1) https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/16-05-2019/the-christchurch-call-full-text/
(2) https://globalnews.ca/news/5283178/trudeau-digital-charter/?utm_medium=Twitter&utm_source=%40globalnews
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/unifor-interview-denies-crawling-into-bed-with-government/
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/economic.update.2018.pdf
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-govt-purges-sunni-shia-from-2019-terrorism-report-bill-c-59/
(6) https://www.blacklocks.ca/feds-to-list-approved-media/
(7) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html

Interesting UN Links from prior article.
(8) http://www.un.org/en/digital-cooperation-panel/
(9) http://www.un.org/en/pdfs/HLP-on-Digital-Cooperation_Press-Release.pdf
(10) https://digitalcooperation.org/
(11) https://www.cepal.org/cgi-bin/getProd.asp?xml=/socinfo/noticias/noticias/4/48074/P48074.xml&xsl=/socinfo/tpl-i/p1f.xsl&base=/socinfo/tpl-i/top-bottom.xsl
(12) https://www.unescwa.org/sites/www.unescwa.org/files/events/files/program.pdf
(13) https://www.unescwa.org/sub-site/arabDIG
(14) https://www.unescwa.org/publications/internet-governance-challenges-and-opportunities-escwa-member-countries
(15) https://canucklaw.ca/un-wants-to-ban-criticism-of-islam-globally/

2. Text Of Christchurch Call

To that end, we, the Governments, commit to:
.
-Counter the drivers of terrorism and violent extremism by strengthening the resilience and inclusiveness of our societies to enable them to resist terrorist and violent extremist ideologies, including through education, building media literacy to help counter distorted terrorist and violent extremist narratives, and the fight against inequality.
-Ensure effective enforcement of applicable laws that prohibit the production or dissemination of terrorist and violent extremist content, in a manner consistent with the rule of law and international human rights law, including freedom of expression.
-Encourage media outlets to apply ethical standards when depicting terrorist events online, to avoid amplifying terrorist and violent extremist content.
–Support frameworks, such as industry standards, to ensure that reporting on terrorist attacks does not amplify terrorist and violent extremist content, without prejudice to responsible coverage of terrorism and violent extremism. Consider appropriate action to prevent the use of online services to disseminate terrorist and violent extremist content, including through collaborative actions, such as:
-Awareness-raising and capacity-building activities aimed at smaller online service providers;
-Development of industry standards or voluntary frameworks;

-Regulatory or policy measures consistent with a free, open and secure internet and international human rights law.

To that end, we, the online service providers, commit to:
.
-Take transparent, specific measures seeking to prevent the upload of terrorist and violent extremist content and to prevent its dissemination on social media and similar content-sharing services, including its immediate and permanent removal, without prejudice to law enforcement and user appeals requirements, in a manner consistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms. Cooperative measures to achieve these outcomes may include technology development, the expansion and use of shared databases of hashes and URLs, and effective notice and takedown procedures.
-Provide greater transparency in the setting of community standards or terms of service, including by:
Outlining and publishing the consequences of sharing terrorist and violent extremist content;
-Describing policies and putting in place procedures for detecting and removing terrorist and violent extremist content. Enforce those community standards or terms of service in a manner consistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms, including by:
-Prioritising moderation of terrorist and violent extremist content, however identified;
Closing accounts where appropriate;
-Providing an efficient complaints and appeals process for those wishing to contest the removal of their content or a decision to decline the upload of their content.
-Implement immediate, effective measures to mitigate the specific risk that terrorist and violent extremist content is disseminated through livestreaming, including identification of content for real-time review.
-Implement regular and transparent public reporting, in a way that is measurable and supported by clear methodology, on the quantity and nature of terrorist and violent extremist content being detected and removed.
-Review the operation of algorithms and other processes that may drive users towards and/or amplify terrorist and violent extremist content to better understand possible intervention points and to implement changes where this occurs. This may include using algorithms and other processes to redirect users from such content or the promotion of credible, positive alternatives or counter-narratives. This may include building appropriate mechanisms for reporting, designed in a multi-stakeholder process and without compromising trade secrets or the effectiveness of service providers’ practices through unnecessary disclosure.
-Work together to ensure cross-industry efforts are coordinated and robust, for instance by investing in and expanding the GIFCT, and by sharing knowledge and expertise.
-To that end, we, Governments and online service providers, commit to work collectively to:
-Work with civil society to promote community-led efforts to counter violent extremism in all its forms, including through the development and promotion of positive alternatives and counter-messaging.
-Develop effective interventions, based on trusted information sharing about the effects of algorithmic and other processes, to redirect users from terrorist and violent extremist content.
Accelerate research into and development of technical solutions to prevent the upload of and to detect and immediately remove terrorist and violent extremist content online, and share these solutions through open channels, drawing on expertise from academia, researchers, and civil society.
-Support research and academic efforts to better understand, prevent and counter terrorist and violent extremist content online, including both the offline and online impacts of this activity.
-Ensure appropriate cooperation with and among law enforcement agencies for the purposes of investigating and prosecuting illegal online activity in regard to detected and/or removed terrorist and violent extremist content, in a manner consistent with rule of law and human rights protections.
–Support smaller platforms as they build capacity to remove terrorist and violent extremist content, including through sharing technical solutions and relevant databases of hashes or other relevant material, such as the GIFCT shared database.
–Collaborate, and support partner countries, in the development and implementation of best practice in preventing the dissemination of terrorist and violent extremist content online, including through operational coordination and trusted information exchanges in accordance with relevant data protection and privacy rules.
-Develop processes allowing governments and online service providers to respond rapidly, effectively and in a coordinated manner to the dissemination of terrorist or violent extremist content following a terrorist event. This may require the development of a shared crisis protocol and information-sharing processes, in a manner consistent with human rights protections.
–Respect, and for Governments protect, human rights, including by avoiding directly or indirectly contributing to adverse human rights impacts through business activities and addressing such impacts where they occur.

Recognise the important role of civil society in supporting work on the issues and commitments in the Call, including through:
.
-Offering expert advice on implementing the commitments in this Call in a manner consistent with a free, open and secure internet and with international human rights law;
–Working, including with governments and online service providers, to increase transparency;
-Where necessary, working to support users through company appeals and complaints processes.
-Affirm our willingness to continue to work together, in existing fora and relevant organizations, institutions, mechanisms and processes to assist one another and to build momentum and widen support for the Call.
-Develop and support a range of practical, non-duplicative initiatives to ensure that this pledge is delivered.
Acknowledge that governments, online service providers, and civil society may wish to take further cooperative action to address a broader range of harmful online content, such as the actions that will be discussed further during the G7 Biarritz Summit, in the G20, the Aqaba Process, the Five Country Ministerial, and a range of other fora.

Signatories:
Australia
Canada
European Commission
France
Germany
Indonesia
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Jordan
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Senegal
Spain
Sweden

3. Some Observations

Some observations:

  1. Combatting extremist ideologies and fighting inequality are lumped together.
  2. This will apparently be done “respecting free speech and human rights”, but aren’t those things already supposed to be protected?
  3. Parties want to “promot[e] positive alternatives and counter-messaging”. Doesn’t that sound like Onjective 17(c) of the UN Global Migration Compact, promote propaganda positive to migration?
  4. Encouraging media to use ethical practices when covering violence? And what, shut them down if they refuse?
  5. Widen support for the call? Collective suicide pact for free speech?
  6. Looking for expert advice in how to implement “the Call” without violating those pesky free speech and human rights laws. Perhaps you need another Jordan Peterson to make it sound nice and fluffy.
  7. Research to spot “ROOT CAUSES” of terrorism.
  8. Look for technical methods to remove terroristic or violent material, (or anything we deem to be violent or terroristic), and share the methods with others.
  9. Collaborate with partner countries, no real concern of whether they support terrorism themselves, as do many Islamic countries.
  10. Mess with algorithms to ensure users not directed to “inappropriate content”.
  11. Regular public reporting, sounds great, except when Governments censor necessary information in the name of not offending anyone, as seen here.
  12. Support INDUSTRY STANDARDS? So the internet “will” be regulated globally.
  13. And all of this misses a VERY IMPORTANT point: what happens when content is shared in Country A, but rules in Country B would render it illegal? Does the content get pulled down because it is offensive to some other nation in the world?

All in all, this is pretty chilling.

4. From Global(ist) News Article

“The platforms are failing their users. And they’re failing our citizens. They have to step up in a major way to counter disinformation, and if they don’t, we will hold them to account and there will be meaningful financial consequences,” he said Thursday.
.
“It’s up to the platforms and governments to take their responsibility seriously and ensure that people are protected online. You don’t have to put the blame on people like Mark Zuckerberg or dismiss the benefits of social platforms to know that we can’t rely exclusively on companies to protect the public interest,” Trudeau continued.
.
He announced that Canada would be launching a digital charter, touching on principles including universal access and transparency and serving as a guide to craft new digital policy.
.
Speaking about Canada’s upcoming federal election, he said the government was taking steps to eliminate fake news and that a new task force had been created in order to identify threats to the election and prevent foreign interference.

5. Remember? $595M Bribe

A New Non-Refundable Tax Credit for Subscriptions to Canadian Digital News Media
.
To support Canadian digital news media organizations in achieving a more financially sustainable business model, the Government intends to introduce a new temporary, non-refundable 15-per-cent tax credit for qualifying subscribers of eligible digital news media.
.
In total, the proposed access to tax incentives for charitable giving, refundable tax credit for labour costs and non-refundable tax credit for subscriptions will cost the federal government an estimated $595 million over the next five years. Additional details on these measures will be provided in Budget 2019.

Not only will the Trudeau Government be cracking down on what it views as “fake news”, it will be subsidizing “friendly” or cooperative media. This is nothing short of propaganda. This is a government propping up dying media outlets financially. Of course, what will be expected in return? favourable coverage?

6. Section 2: Fundamental Freedoms

To summarize so far, our government:
(1) Is a member of the UN, which wants to globally regulate the internet. This is referred to as “DIGITAL COOPERATION”. The same UN wants to globally ban criticism of Islam.
(2) Passes a “non-binding” motion, M-103, to ban Islamophobia.
(3) Passes Bill C-16, to ban criticism of their gender agenda, calling certain language to be hate speech.
(4) Signs the Global Migration Compact, which contains provisions (Objective 17(c)) to sensitise and regulate media.
(5) Announces plans to subsidize “certain” media, the 2018 economic update.
(6) Attends a convention, the Christchurch call, and signs the above resolution.
(7) Announces plans for a “digital charter”

Can Section 2 of the Charter — fundamental freedoms — protect us from this assault on free speech? Let’s hope so:

Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Most court cases have come down on the side of fundamental freedoms. If this digital charter comes to be, then certainly the 2 charters will collide.

7. Doing What UN Never Could?

The UN has for a long time tried to regulate our freedoms for the “global collective” or some other such nonsense.

But now, will we do this to ourselves? Will Western nations engage in their own freedom-suicide pact in order to provide the illusion of security from violent terrorists and extremists?

Western Liberals embrace global rule and regulation. So do “Conservatives”, and fake populists, who are basically globalists in disguise. It will be interesting to see how many will actually stand up for freedom instead of caving to pressure.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress