Category: Human Rights

Posted on

Ontario’s Bill 168: Doug Ford To Ban Criticism Of Jews Under Guise Of “Anti-Semitism”

1. Important Links

(1) bill.168.antisemitism
(2) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-4.html
(3) https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-1/bill-168
(4) http://archive.is/PPk8V
(5) https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/
(6) http://archive.is/FMY3i
(7) https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
(8) http://archive.is/In7MJ

2. Context For This Article

Free speech is under attack again, and this time it comes from the Zionists, trying to push their version of anti-Semitism laws. Iqra Khalid was heavily criticized for pushing her Islamophobia motion, M103 a few years ago, but this gets a pass from the media and from public scrutiny. Both are horrible pieces of legislation,

3. Criminal Law Exclusively Federal

Under Section 91(27) of the Constitution, criminal law is exclusively the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. This means that the Ford Government couldn’t actually criminalize criticism of Jews, even if they wanted to. Still, it’s pretty chilling to put this on the books in Ontario, even if it is meant to be symbolic.

This is address the elephant in the room: jurisdiction in the event of potential criminal law changes.

4. Text Of Bill 168

Will Bouma and Robin Martin, the sponsors for Bill 168, which was actually a private member’s bill.

Bill 168 2019
An Act to combat antisemitism
Preamble Antisemitism is a multi-faceted problem that requires a multi-faceted strategy, encompassing a range of ministries and agencies. For that reason, it is desirable to require the Government of Ontario to implement a whole-of-government approach in combating antisemitism. As part of that approach, it is desirable to apply a consistent interpretation of Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism. Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:
.
Interpretation
1 In interpreting Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism, the Government of Ontario shall be guided by the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016. Legislation Act, 2006 amendment
.
2 Section 87 of the Legislation Act, 2006 is amended by adding the following definition: “antisemitism” has the meaning set out in the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016; (antisémitisme”) Commencement
.
3 This Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent. Short title
.
4 The short title of this Act is the Combating Antisemitism Act, 2019.
.
______________
.
EXPLANATORY NOTE The Bill requires the Government of Ontario to be guided by the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it, adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016, when it interprets Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism. The Bill also amends the Legislation Act, 2006 to adopt that working definition.

The text is pretty clear. Ontario (if this law passes) is to be guided by the working definition of anti-Semitism as provided by the IHRA. Interestingly, the bill doesn’t say what that definition is. So let’s take a look for ourselves.

What is it exactly that Ontario will be signing up for?

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. Status Of Bill 168

It’s already had its second reading. Not too far to go. Considering Ford has a majority government, he should encounter little resistance in getting Bill 168 passed and signed into law.

7. CIJA Lobbied For Bill 168

CIJA, the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (the Israeli lobby), is found in the Ontario Lobbyist Registry as attempting to influence the Ford Government to pass Bill 168.

8. Double Standard For Islamophobia Motion

A few years back, there was a huge public stink when Iqra Khalid, a Pakistani Muslim and “paper Canadian”, got M-103 passed at the Federal level. This was a (supposedly non binding) motion to combat Islamophobia, but without defining what it actually was.

Why no media outrage over this? Is it because of the Jewish influence and power in the media that the story is buried? I guess that’s anti-Semitism to ask that.

Should this ever come to pass, what’s to stop the Feds (or any court) from using it as a precedent to push binding anti-Semitism laws? This is a scary step to take.

Posted on

TSCE #8(F): Bit Of History, NGOs Trying To Open Canada’s Borders For Decades

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. Why Canadians Should Care

It should worry Canadians greatly when there is a sustained effort to undermine and erode our borders. The overwhelming majority of people don’t know how far back this goes. Although efforts predate these cases, this is where we will start.

On the first attempt, the Canadian Council of Churches went to court to try to get certain new legislation thrown out. This legislation would have made it harder for people to enter Canada from the U.S. and claim asylum. It went to the Supreme Court, but ultimately, it was ruled the group did not have public interest standing.

3. Court History Over The Years

Again, many more attempts have been made in recent decades to erase borders, but this article will only focus on a few of them.

FIRST ATTEMPT: KILL “SAFE COUNTRY” DESIGNATION
(a) Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3

(b) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada,
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534

(c) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236
1992.SCC.Rules.No.Standing

SECOND ATTEMPT: KILL CANADA/US S3CA
(a) 2008 ruling S3CA has no effect
Docket: IMM-7818-05
S3CA Provisions Struck Down

(b) The 2008 ruling is overturned on appeal
Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada, 2008 FCA 229
Appeal granted, S3CA restored

THIRD ATTEMPT: TORONTO CASES TO STRIKE S3CA
(a) 2017, Prothonotary Milczynski considers consolidation
IMM-2229-17, IMM-2977-17, IMM-775-17
Milczynski Considers Consolidation

(b) 2017, CJ Crampton transfers cases to J. Diner
Crampton Transfers Consolidated Cases

(c) 2017, Justice Diner grants public interest standing
Citation: 2017 FC 1131
Amnesty Int’l, CDN Councils of Churches, Refugees

(d) 2018, Justice Diner grants consolidation of 3 cases
Citation: 2018 FC 396
Cases to be consolidated

(e) 2018, Justice Diner allows more witnesses
Citation: 2018 FC 829
2018.Diner.Calling.More.Witnesses

(f) 2019, Justice McDonald says no more witnesses
Citation: 2019 FC 418
2019.McDonald.No.More.Intervenors

4. 1992: SCC Rules No Standing

1992.SCC.Rules.No.Standing
The CanLII link is here.

Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3
.
Rouleau J. dismissed the application. His judgment reflects his concern that there might be no other reasonable, effective or practical manner to bring the constitutional question before the Court. He was particularly disturbed that refugee claimants might be faced with a 72-hour removal order. In his view, such an order would not leave sufficient time for an applicant to attempt either to stay the proceedings or to obtain an injunction restraining the implementation removal order.
.
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534
.
MacGuigan J.A. speaking for a unanimous Court allowed the appeal and set aside all but four aspects of the statement of claim.
.
In his view the real issue was whether or not there was another reasonably effective or practical manner in which the issue could be brought before the Court. He thought there was. He observed that the statute was regulatory in nature and individuals subject to its scheme had, by means of judicial review, already challenged the same provisions impugned by the Council. Thus there was a reasonable and effective alternative manner in which the issue could properly be brought before the Court.
.
He went on to consider in detail the allegations contained in the statement of the claim. He concluded that some were purely hypothetical, had no merit and failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action. He rejected other claims on the grounds that they did not raise a constitutional challenge and others on the basis that they raised issues that had already been resolved by recent decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal.
.
He granted the Council standing on the following matters raised on the statement of claim

Without getting too much into the technical details, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the Canadian Council of Churches, an organization, should be granted public interest standing to strike down all or part of the immigration laws. Ultimately, the ruling was no.

Disposition of the Result
.
In the result I would dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal on the basis that the plaintiff does not satisfy the test for public interest standing. Both the dismissal of the appeal and the allowance of the cross-appeal are to be without costs.
Appeal dismissed and cross-appeal allowed.
.
Solicitors for the appellant: Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto.
.
Solicitor for the respondents: John C. Tait, Ottawa.
.
Solicitors for the interveners The Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped and The Quebec Multi Ethnic Association for the Integration of Handicapped People: Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, Toronto.
.
Solicitors for the intervener League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith Canada: David Matas, Winnipeg, and Dale Streiman and Kurz, Brampton.
.
Solicitors for the interveners Women’s Legal Education and Action (LEAF) and Canadian Disability Rights Council (CDRC): Tory, Tory, DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto and Dulcie McCallum, Victoria.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court thought that a refugee, someone with actual standing (or something at stake) should be the one making the case.

Also worth noting, consider who some of the intervenors are in this case. A lot of people who want to make it easier to get into Canada.

5. 2008: S3CA, Parts Of IRPA Struck Out

S3CA, Parts of IRPA Struck

IT IS ORDERED THAT this application for judicial review is granted and the designation
of the United States of America as a “safe third country” is quashed.

Yes, the Canada/U.S Safe Third Country Agreement was actually declared to have no legal effect. However, this is not the end of it, as we will soon see.

IT IS DECLARED THAT:
.
1. Paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United
States of America are ultra vires and of no legal force and effect.
2. The Governor-in-Council acted unreasonably in concluding that the United States of
America complied with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the
Convention Against Torture.
3. The Governor-in-Council failed to ensure the continuing review of the designation
of the United States of America as a “safe third country” as required by
paragraph 102(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
4. Paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations and the operation of the Safe Third Country Agreement between
Canada and the United States of America violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are not justified under section 1 thereof.

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS are certified as serious questions of general
importance:
.
1. Are paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and
the United States of America ultra vires and of no legal force and effect?
2. What is the appropriate standard of review in respect of the Governor-in-Council’s
decision to designate the United States of America as a “safe third country” pursuant
to s. 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?
3. Does the designation of the United States of America as a “safe third country” alone
or in combination with the ineligibility provision of clause 101(1)(e) of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is such violation justified under section 1?

If the United States is not a safe country, then why do tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people try to apply for asylum there every year?

The Safe Third Country Agreement was meant to prevent “asylum shopping” from taking place, but that is exactly what this ruling would have allowed.

6. 2009: Previous Ruling Overturned

The impugned Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement are not ultra vires the IRPA. Subsection 102(1) of the IRPA gives the GIC the power to promulgate regulations governing the treatment of refugee claims which may include provisions designating countries that comply with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. This is a broad grant of authority intended to give effect to Parliament’s expressed intent that responsibility for the consideration of refugee claims be shared with countries that are respectful of their Convention obligations and human rights. The factors to be considered before designating a country are expressly set out in subsection 102(2) of the IRPA. The applications Judge’s misapprehended concern that the GIC would have the discretion to designate a country that does not comply with the Conventions led him to transform the statutory objective of designating countries “that comply” into a condition precedent.

The applications Judge adopted a hypothetical approach to the respondent organizations’ Charter challenge, i.e. that a class of refugees would be treated a certain way if they were to present themselves at a Canadian land border port of entry. This approach went against the well-established principle that a Charter challenge cannot be mounted in the abstract. There was no evidence that a refugee would have to bring a challenge from outside Canada. The respondent organizations’ ability to bring the Charter challenge depended on John Doe. As the latter never presented himself at the border and therefore never requested a determination regarding his eligibility, there was no factual basis upon which to assess the alleged Charter breaches. The applications Judge thus erred in entertaining the Charter challenge.

[14] On December 29, 2005, the respondents launched an application for leave and judicial review seeking a declaration that the designation of the U.S. under section 102 of the IRPA was ultra vires, that the GIC erred in concluding that the U.S. complied with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and further, that the designation breached sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. For purposes of clarity, it is useful to set out in full the issues set out in the judicial review application filed before the Court:

[130] In short, a declaration of invalidity of the STCA Regulations is not required in order to ensure that they are not applied to claimants for protection at the land border in breach of either Canada’s international obligations not to refoule, or the Charter.
.
D. CONCLUSIONS
.
[131] For these reasons I would allow the appeal

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Lower Court considered a hypothetical scenario, and wrongly applied it to a Charter challenge. Put simply, Charter challenges are supposed to be ground in fact, and not “what if” situations. The ruling was overturned, and the Safe Third Country Agreement was restored.

7. 2017-Present: Toronto Challenge

Chief Justice Paul Crampton transferred 3 related cases to Justice Diner for case management. This is the same CJ Crampton who ruled that private citizens wishing to oppose the destruction of the S3CA don’t have standing.

Justice Diner granted public interest standing to 3 NGOs: Amnesty International, Canadian Council for Refugees, and Canadian Council of Churches.

Justice Diner order the 3 cases to be consolidated and tried together because of the overlapping issues.

Note: also see here, for decisions from the Federal Court in the matter above.

The case is still pending.

8. So Who Are These NGOs?

Amnesty International
ai.01.certificate.of.continuance
ai.02.bylaws
ai.03.changes.in.directors
ai.04.notice.of.financials

B’nai Brith League For Human Rights
bblhr.01.bylaws
bblhr.02.change.registered.office
bblhr.03.amendments
bblhr.04.certificate.of.incorporation
bblhr.05.director.changes

B’nai Brith National Organization
bbno.01.director.changes
bbno.02.certificate.of.incorporation
bbno.03.change.registered.office
bbno.04.notice.of.financials

Bridges, Not Borders
Bridges Not Borders, Mainpage
Bridges Not Borders, About
Bridges Not Borders, Why They Cross
Bridges Not Borders, Media Page
Bridges Not Borders, Pro Asylum Shopping

Canadian Association Of Refugee Lawyers
carl.01.directors
carl.02.change.of.office
carl.03.bylaws.2015
carl.04.notice.of.return
carl.05.certificate.of.continuance

Canadian Council For Refugees
ccr.01.2019.director.changes
ccr.02.bylaws
ccr.03.bylaws.from.2014
ccr.04.certificate.of.continuance
ccr.05.annual.return

Plattsburgh Cares
Plattsburgh Cares Main Page
Plattsburgh Cares, Humanitarian Support

Solidarity Across Borders
Solidarity Across Borders’ Homepage
SAB Supports Illegal Migrant Caravans
SAB Supports Sanctuary Cities For Illegals
SAB Calls To Open Up The Borders

These are of course not the only NGOs working to open up our borders (and other nations’ borders as well), but it does at least provide some insight.

Also, see the above links in Section #1 for other articles published on these NGOs.

9. Look At The Bigger Picture

Last fall, the story made the news that a challenge would be coming to Toronto to the Safe Third Country Agreement.

However, the Canadian media left out important information. Shocking.

First, it didn’t go into any detail on the groups lobbying for this. It wasn’t just some helpless “asylum claimants”, but an organized effort to help erase Canada’s border with the U.S.

Second, the full extent of the NGO meddling is not mentioned. True, some media DO reference the 2007 case, but not further. It doesn’t provide a complete picture of what is going on. Nor does it mention how these groups are pushing similar initiatives elsewhere. Amnesty International, for example, claims to have 7 million members pushing to bring more migrants (primarily) to the West. The Canadian Council for Refugees, as another example, spends considerable time and effort lobbying our Parliament for more refugee friendly laws.

Third, there seems little concern for the Canadian who would have their safety and sovereignty eroded should this pass. Instead, the focus is always on people coming to Canada and what their needs are.

This is lawfare: using our courts and legal system to open our borders.

Posted on

TSCE #8(E): David Berger, Ex-MP, Ex-Israel Ambassador, Now With JRAN, CCR


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. Important Links

(1) https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-berger-20313212/
(2) http://archive.is/8HaiV
(3) http://lornematalon.com/2017/12/04/the-other-side-of-roxham-road-canada-grapples-with-border-refugees/
(4) http://archive.is/pjwr7
(5) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ex-diplomat-takes-refugee-case/article20425189/
(6) archive.is/yvsOx
(7) https://www.ifcj.ca/site/SPageNavigator/ca/work/ca_our_board.html?NONCE_TOKEN=6BB7108F7FAECB5D4C167116DAC88011
(8) http://archive.is/ZqEmK
(9) http://jran.ca/
(10) http://archive.is/HjDov (2017)
(11) http://archive.is/3zwWq (2020)
(12) http://jran.ca/about-us/the-jewish-refugee-connection
(13) http://archive.is/j5RQN
(14) http://jran.ca/jran-members
(15) http://archive.is/ScX9k
(16) http://jran.ca/the-issues
(17) http://archive.is/pQ56M
(18) http://jran.ca/news-events/news/2014/10/20/open-letter-to-prime-minister-harper-from-the-jewish-refugee-action-network-about-syrian-refugees
(19) http://archive.is/fetf1
(20) https://www.canada-immigration-law.com/our-team/
(21) http://archive.is/eSdft
(22) https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-most-african-migrants-in-israel-not-refugees/
(23) http://archive.is/LUS4d

3. From LinkedIn Page

My practice includes many different aspects of immigration, refugee and citizenship law including skilled worker applications, business immigration programs, and work or study permits.
.
I provide counsel to individuals, families and businesses in all facets of an application, notably in identifying the most expeditious manner of obtaining a visa or permit, communications with government officials, and appeals. I also have had particular success with difficult applications where clients faced considerable obstacles in obtaining or maintaining status in Canada.
.
Immigration to Canada represents opportunity but also difficulties and risks. I help clients to minimize the difficulties and risks and ensure the best possible results.

Just from the LinkedIn page we can get lots of information about David Berger. He was a Member of Parliament for several terms, is a former Ambassador to Israel, and now works for the NGO, Canadian Council for refugees.

4. Berger Pushed Asylum For UK “Refugee”

Dr. Khalid, 32, was forced into exile in London in March, along with her husband, but maintains she had always intended to seek asylum in Canada, where her relatives live.

Canada was one of the first countries to include gender-based persecution in its refugee determination process, and should come to the aid of the high-profile victim of violence, said Mr. Berger, a former Quebec Liberal MP (Westmount-St. Henri) who was posted to Israel as ambassador in 1995.

“The U.K. may not be the safest place for her,” said Mr. Berger, a lawyer who has taken Dr. Khalid’s case pro bono.
“It appears for some time Dr. Khalid has indicated she wanted to come to Canada and this is the country where she would be the happiest.”

Two interesting points about this Globe and Mail article. The first is that Mr. Berger sees nothing wrong with asylum shopping, and that refugees should simply be allowed to go where they please.

The other is that he claims the UK is not a safe country. Could this be because of their policy of bringing in huge numbers of Muslim migrants? Now the demographic shift has made the UK unsafe? In that case, why should we bring Muslims to Canada, and turn it into the UK (or essentially the 3rd world)?

5. David Berger Part Of CCR

Immigration lawyer and David Berger is a member of the Canadian Council of Refugees, an NGO that advocates for migrants. Berger is also Canada’s former Ambassador to Israel and a former member of Canada’s Parliament. “We’ve got a backlog today of 30,000 claims whereas about two years ago the backlog was 10 or 15 thousand,” he explained. He said there aren’t enough immigration judges, formally known in Canada as decision makers.

“We believe the government has to appoint more decision makers. 120 decision makers is just not enough,” Berger continued. He added that Canada is a better country for the contributions refugees make. He represents or has represented people with advanced degrees in literature and finance, images that defy stereotypes harbored by some anti-immigrant forces.

David Berger is part of the Canadian Council for Refugees, which, among other things, is working to strike down the Canada/U.S. Safe 3rd Country Agreement. If this is successful (it was initially, but overturned on appeal a decade ago), people from the warzone that is the United States will be free to waltz in and claim they are refugees, regardless of how meritless the claims may be.

6. Jewish Refugee Action Network

Overview of JRAN’s concerns
Since 2012, significant changes have been made to Canada’s treatment of refugees. For decades, Canada’s refugee system worked towards protecting people in danger and other humanitarian goals. The new changes, however, do the following: discriminate between individuals based on their country of origin or how they arrived in Canada; create serious challenges in the refugee determination process, which could lead in some cases to the deportation of individuals to their home countries and a real risk of persecution or worse; and limit certain humanitarian protections. In addition, since 2012, a half century’s old system of providing healthcare coverage to people seeking refugee status has been cut, thereby stranding thousands of people who are lawfully in Canada without emergency or life-saving healthcare.

1. Refugee Determination Process
Since 2012, changes to the refugee determination system make it difficult for many refugee claimants to prove their claims, and limits their ability to get a fair hearing due to severely shortened timelines, restrictions on appeal rights, and restrictions on other legal processes. Without a fair refugee hearing, there is a risk that people will be deported to countries where they face danger to their safety, freedom, or even their lives….

2. “Designated Countries of Origin” (DCOs)
The new Designated Countries of Origin (DCO) scheme creates a new category of refugee claimant. Refugee claimants from designated countries are not entitled to the same legal process as refugee claimants from non-designated countries. Ostensibly created to distinguish between refugee claimants from “safe” countries and claimants from other countries, in reality the DCO scheme creates a two-tiered system that discriminates between refugee claimants based on their country of origin, and limits the ability of claimants to get a fair hearing regarding their individual case….

3. “Designated Foreign Nationals” (DFNs)
Under the new designated foreign national (DFN) scheme, the Minister of Public Safety may “designate” two or more refugee claimants who arrive in Canada without the appropriate Canadian visas or documents, if the Minister believes that they have paid someone to help them enter Canada, or if they lack the papers necessary to prove their identity in what the Minister believes is a “timely manner.” Being identified as a DFN has serious consequences, including mandatory group detention for what may be lengthy periods, restrictions on appeal rights, and restrictions on gaining permanent residence status…

4. Cuts to Refugee Healthcare Coverage
In 2012, the Canadian government made drastic cuts to healthcare coverage for refugee claimants. An Order in Council took away even basic emergency and life-saving medical care from thousands of refugee claimants who have lawfully sought Canada’s protection…

The Jewish Refugee Action Network states that it is concerned about rights and social services for refugees coming into Canada. Interesting that Berger, a several term Member of Parliament, shows far more concern for the well being of foreigners than he does Canadians.

Now let’s get to what JRAN considers the “refugee issue”, and it attempts to give some historical context.

Jews as Refugees – Biblical Connection
The Exodus from Egypt, one of the central stories in Jewish tradition, is a foundation document of Jews as refugees. Having been held slaves under the pharoahs for several hundred years, the Israelites were desperate for their freedom. Their dramatic departure reached its climax at the Red Sea, when the Israelites were finally able to escape Pharoah’s soldiers and Egypt.
.
Jewish law – Spiritual Connection
Jewish texts and laws provide a constant reminder about the Exodus and about the experience of slavery in Egypt. The Exodus is the central experience recounted in the Torah. It is mentioned as part of our weekly Friday night blessings, and is told in far greater detail at our annual Passover seders. At the seder, surrounded by comfort and good food, we are encouraged to remember the story as if we were the ones who had been slaves and refugees.
The experience in Egypt is repeated often in the Torah, with the explicit admonition to treat others with compassion and justice. Our Biblical laws – requiring us to provide for the widow and orphan, to treat workers fairly, and to help the foreigners in our midst – explain that we must do so because we ourselves were foreigners in Egypt. This idea is echoed more than 30 times in the Torah. Here too, we are asked to put ourselves in the position of our ancestors: slaves and foreigners in Egypt.
.
Jews as Refugees – Historical Connections
The Shoah (Holocaust) was another defining moment for the Jewish people. The genocide of six million Jews was a tragedy, heightened by the indifference of those free countries who refused to admit Jews to safety on their shores. Canada is one of several countries who bear the shame of having refused to receive 900 Jewish refugees who had managed to escape Germany aboard the ocean liner St. Louis. Many Canadian Jews remember the treatment of these desperate Jewish refugees.
.
Jews and Roma – Parallel Histories of Persecution
The persecution of Jews in Europe for many centuries, bears certain similarities to that experienced by the Roma people, who also faced restrictions on their employment and permitted living areas, violence, expulsions, and other forms of oppression. The Roma people, like the Jews, were the only other group legally targeted for extermination by the Nazis, and experienced their own genocide known as the Porajmos. Unfortunately, the Roma in Europe continue to suffer many forms of violence, discrimination, at the hands of bigots and fascists with the collusion of some governments.

Clearly, never missing an opportunity to play the victim narrative. David Berger is a Board Member of this group. This is the list.

JRAN Members
Honorary Members

  • Stephen Lewis, Honorary Canadian Co-Chair
  • Michele Landsberg, Honorary Canadian Co-Chair

Board Members

  • Rabbi Arthur Bielfeld, founder of JRAN
  • Ken Rosenberg, Chair
  • Maureen Silcoff
  • Mary Jo Leddy
  • Noa Mendelsohn Aviv
  • Dr. Philip Berger
  • Bernie M Farber
  • Mitchell Goldberg
  • Valerie Hyman
  • Audrey Macklin
  • Anna Porter
  • Gabriela Ramo
  • Avrum Rosensweig
  • Jon Telch
  • Rivka Augenfeld
  • Cynthia Levine-Rasky
  • David Berger
  • Mira Oreck
  • Hesh Troper

7. Berger, JRAN, Lobbied For “Syrian Refugees”

As a wealthy and peaceful country, we have a shared international responsibility to be a safe haven for refugees and to treat them with fairness. As Jewish Canadians, we join other faith groups, legal organizations, and settlement workers in calling on our government to do our share for the vulnerable people fleeing Syria. Specifically:

1. To put in place flexible provisions to allow family members of Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and recognized refugees to enter Canada by issuing Temporary Resident Permits, with the possibility of access to permanent residence later.

2. In close consultation and coordination with sponsorship agreement holders, to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees from refugee camps within the next year. The UNHCR recently requested countries to settle 100,000 Syrian refugees. Canada has traditionally agreed to resettle 10 per cent of UNHCR requests.

3. That all pending applications for Syrian refugees be processed expeditiously, and that in no case should the processing of a refugee claim take more than one year.

4. That processing of Syrians not replace or divert any resources from other refugee or family reunification programs.

Refugees from Syria cannot afford to lose any more time. People are in crisis, and the world is watching. Prime Minister, the government must act now. We would be pleased to meet with you or members of your staff to further discuss this urgent issue.

Yours very truly,
.
Noa Mendelsohn Aviv
Rivka Augenfeld
David Berger, former Ambassador to Israel
Dr. Philip Berger
Rabbi Arthur Bielfeld
Bernie Farber
Mitchell Goldberg
Valerie Hyman
Michele Landsberg, OC
Maureen Silcoff
Jon Telch
Ken Rosenberg

The Jewish Refugee Action Network (which Berger is a Director of) was a major player in lobbying then PM Harper to take in so-called Syrian refugees.

Was Berger “ever” working for Canadians? Even during his several terms as an MP, or his tenure as Ambassador to Israel? Or was he a refugee lobbyist this entire time?

8. David Berger’s Many Roles

  • Canadian Bar Association (Immigration Section)
  • Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
  • Jewish Refugee Action Network
  • associate member of the Canadian Council for Refugees
  • former President of the Canadian Football League
  • former Member of Parliament
  • former Ambassador to Israel

8. David Berger’s Law Practice

David Berger, B.A., B.C.L.
David Berger, B.A. (Toronto) 1971; B.C.L. (McGill) 1975, was admitted to the Barreau du Québec in 1986.
David relies on a unique experience in elective office, diplomacy, business, and law in advising and representing his clients.
.
From 1979 to 1994, David served as a Member of the House of Commons of Canada, representing the constituencies of Laurier and St-Henri-Westmount.
.
From 1995 to 1999, David served as Canadian ambassador to the State of Israel, representative to the Palestinian Authority and High Commissioner to Cyprus.
.
Earlier in his career, from 1975 to 1979, David was executive vice-president of the Montreal Alouette Football Club, Inc. In 1978-1979, he served as President of the Canadian Football League.
David assists people in applications for temporary and permanent residence, including work and study permits and visitor visas, skilled worker applications, business immigration, family sponsorships and humanitarian and compassionate applications.
.
He represents clients in refugee claims, appeals to the Immigration Appeal Division, and judicial review applications to the Federal Court of Canada and the Quebec Superior Court.
David speaks English, French and Spanish.
.
David is a member of AQAADI (L’Association Québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration), the Canadian Bar Association (Immigration Section), the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Jewish Refugee Action Network, and an associate member of the Canadian Council for Refugees.
.
David is a director of several not for profit organizations including the Canada International Scientific Exchange Program (CISEPO), the Jerusalem Foundation of Canada, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (Canada), and the Trevor Williams Kids Foundation.

9. Israel Refuses To Take Refugees

During a solidarity visit to Tel Aviv last Thursday, Netanyahu, Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan and Culture Minister Miri Regev toured south Tel Aviv and vowed that the government would “give back” the neighborhood to its Israeli residents.

Netanyahu has previously said the government would take a three-pronged approach to the issue: a security fence along the Egyptian border, which has already succeeded in significantly reducing the number of migrants who cross into Israel from African countries; increased enforcement against those employ illegal migrants and migrants who break the law; and the ministerial committee, which the prime minister said he will lead himself.

Expulsion to a third country is largely unprecedented in the Western world. Italy and Australia signed similar agreements with third-party countries — Italy with Libya, and Australia with Malaysia — but both proposals were shot down by local courts. In both cases, courts ruled the bills inconsistent with international law and the 1951 UN convention on refugees — to which Israel is also a party.

Interesting. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel claims that the migrants in the country are not refugees, and seems content to deport them. Where is the outrage of people like David Berger? If Canada should do its part to take in people in a vast humanitarian effort, why the outrage at Israel refusing to do the same?

Netanyahu wants to keep Israel a Jewish nation, and he doesn’t want hordes of very different people irreversibly changing the demographics. Yet Berger, and people like him, see nothing wrong with forcibly remaking the west.

Why isn’t the former Ambassador to Israel lobbying for Israel to take refugees and open up its borders? After all, isn’t humanity and compassion supposed to be universal? Why the double standard?

Posted on

TSCE #8(D): Bridges Not Borders, Plattsburgh Cares & Solidarity Across Borders Coordinates Illegal Crossings At Roxham Rd

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. Important Links

(1) http://www.bridgesnotborders.ca/
(2) http://archive.is/SwCTX
(3) http://www.bridgesnotborders.ca/about.html
(4) http://archive.is/n7ci7
(5) http://www.bridgesnotborders.ca/why.html
(6) http://archive.is/sRw1v
(7) http://www.bridgesnotborders.ca/news.html
(8) http://www.bridgesnotborders.ca/info-for-asylum-seekers.html
(9) http://archive.is/D61Wd
(10) irregular-arrivals-at-the-border-background-information-janjul2019-en
(11) https://www.unhcr.ca/newsroom/publications/
(12) http://archive.is/bYe0S
(13) bridges_not_borders_briefing_on_stca_english
(14) stca_legal_challenge
(15) guardian_haiti
(16) https://www.cbc.ca/radio/docproject/as-asylum-seekers-show-up-on-their-doorstep-two-quebec-women-struggle-with-how-to-help-1.4595233
(17) http://archive.is/lYllx
(18) https://www.vpr.org/post/other-side-roxham-road-canada-grapples-border-refugees#stream/0
(19) http://archive.is/DfGzD
(20) https://plattsburghcares.org/
(21) http://archive.is/yWdbn
(22) https://plattsburghcares.org/hestia-front/humanitarian-support/
(23) http://archive.is/a5tI3
(24) https://www.solidarityacrossborders.org/en/
(25) http://archive.is/oGtlX (2018)
(26) http://archive.is/XjrUY (2020)
(27) https://www.solidarityacrossborders.org/en/rally-and-march-in-solidarity-with-the-migrant-caravans-making-their-way-to-the-us-mexican-border
(28) http://archive.is/LeIED
(29) https://www.solidarityacrossborders.org/en/solidarity-city
(30) http://archive.is/0zUKG
(31) https://www.solidarityacrossborders.org/en/call-to-action-open-the-borders
(32) http://archive.is/5uuJN

3. BnB Doesn’t Believe In Borders

Also, the original links for the YouTube videos above are here and here

Earlier in 2017 President Trump signed executive orders that suspended the refugee admission program and allowed for widespread arrest and deportation of undocumented people in the USA. This means that people needing protection can be sent back to their countries of origin where they may face torture, persecution or even loss of life. Yet, this is prohibited under international law.

Trump has also withdrawn Temporary Protected Status from citizens of Haiti, El Salvador and Honduras. This will come into effect in late 2019. The Haitians had fled to the USA following the disastrous earthquake in 2010. Haiti was hit hard again by Hurricane Matthew in 2016 and is still in a very bad state, facing huge problems of homelessness, poverty, illiteracy, violence against women and indentured child labour (see PDF Guardian article below).

For all the above reasons many people no longer feel safe in the USA and want to seek asylum and safety in Canada. But they face a hurdle in the 2002 Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) between Canada and the USA which came into effect in 2004.

The STCA means that, if someone crosses into Canada from the USA at an official border crossing and asks for asylum, they will be sent back to the USA, unless they fall under one of four exceptions to the Agreement. However if they cross the border at an irregular crossing such as Roxham Road, the Agreement does not apply. They can then make a claim for refugee status. That is why many people are choosing that route, so as to not risk being sent back to the USA and being unable to make a refugee claim in Canada in the future.

There are two issues here. The first one is: can the USA really be considered to be a safe country for refugees? The Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Council of Churches and Amnesty International don’t think so and have launched a legal challenge to the STCA (see PDF files below including our Briefing document). The second issue is that of irregular crossings. Given the STCA, most asylum seekers are in a ‘catch 22’ situation: it’s not safe for them to stay in the USA and it’s not safe for them to enter officially. The 1951 Refugee Convention, ratified by Canada, says that states shall not penalize asylum seekers if they enter a country irregularly, providing they present themselves without delay to the authorities. Section 133 of the (Canadian) Immigration and Refugee Protection Act also states that people seeking asylum will not be prosecuted for irregular entry into Canada.

People crossing irregularly are not ‘illegal immigrants’ as has been wrongly asserted. Nor are they ‘queue jumpers’, as refugee claims are treated as received. We believe the STCA should be revoked, so that everyone seeking asylum could enter Canada safely and with dignity at an official border crossing. This is especially important during the winter or any period of extreme weather. During the winters of 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, many people suffered hypothermia and frostbite during irregular crossings into Canada and have lost fingers and toes. Tragically, in spring 2017, a woman from Ghana, Mavis Otuteye, died while trying to cross from Minnesota into Manitoba.

Straight from the horse’s mouth. This group believes that everyone should be allowed to enter Canada, and this includes from the United States. The fact that the U.S. gives asylum to tens of thousands of people each year seems to not matter.

4. BnB Encourages Asylum Shopping

URGENT MESSAGE FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS: If you have applied for asylum in the USA (or in the United Kingdom, New Zealand or Australia) you are no longer entitled to the full independent refugee determination process in Canada. Instead you only have access to a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) hearing conducted by a government official. You will be able to have a lawyer or immigration consultant present with you. You need to be aware that the PRRA is a much less thorough process and has a low success rate. However, if you are successful you will be recognized as either a refugee or a protected person in Canada. Please consider this carefully before deciding to enter Canada either via Roxham Road or at an official Port of Entry.

Why would you publish this information, unless it was to help advise so-called “refugees” to circumvent the process by entering the U.S. under false pretenses, and then come illegally to Canada?

5. BnB Coordinates With “Plattsburgh Cares”

We have close connections with members of Plattsburgh Cares, a group that supports refugees who want to cross into Canada. We’re also in contact with Solidarity Across Borders (Montreal), as well as with various groups, committees, and institutions that support refugees locally and in Montreal (including UNHCR).

That admission came from the about page. As for what Plattsburgh Cares claims to provide:

Let us know what support you can offer. Here’s a partial list of what we need:
-Translation. The refugees who come through the area speak a variety of languages. If you are proficient in any second language and would like to help, let us know.
-Transportation. Individuals may need help getting to the grocery store, doctor’s appointments and so forth.
-Legal advice. The refugees need access to qualified individuals with knowledge of immigration law.
-Short-term temporary housing. Some may need access to safe housing for a night or a week or two.
-Long-term temporary housing. Others may need a place for a longer period.
-Clothing. Some may need clothes, especially during the winter months.
-Educational outreach. We will need help getting educational materials into the hands of refugees coming into our region.

None of these items are bad per se. The problem is that this NGO, like many others, has no concern for whether people are in the country illegally. Moreover, they help facilitate illegal border crossings.

6. BnB Worked With Solidarity Across Borders

Our first group activity in September 2017 was a table at the Roxham Road Woolgathering, for which we had made buttons with the theme ‘Refugees Welcome’. We also provided information explaining how the ‘Safe Third Country Agreement’ between Canada and the USA forces refugees to cross irregularly to prevent being sent back to the USA (see the pages WHY and WHO for this info).

​

Our second activity was to participate in a demonstration at the border crossing at Lacolle which was organized by the Montreal-based group Solidarity Across Borders. This was a response to the presence at the Lacolle border of far right groups opposed to the irregular crossings of asylum seekers. A local artist created the beautiful ‘Bridges not Borders’ wood cut after which we named our group.

This came from the ABOUT section of Bridges Not Borders. Apparently wanting borders makes you a member of the far right. Now, who is “Solidarity Across Borders”?

Let’s just look at one of the demands of Solidarity Across Borders: free services for all illegals. Not joking. Here is the actual text.

We demand that:
.
everyone living here should have access to free health care in clinics, CLSCs and hospitals. Medical facilities should never ask for information on immigration status. Instead, they should work to provide appropriate and respectful care to all users. We want health care to be accessible to all and support efforts to defend the public health care system.
.
everyone living here should be able to attend school free of charge, regardless of their – or their parents – immigration status. We are in favor of universal education for all, from kindergarten to university, and defend accessible education at all levels and for all people.
.
the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) should not have any right to enter and arrest migrants in hospitals, clinics, shelters, schools, or any space providing essential services; ultimately, the CBSA should not be welcome anywhere in our communities.
.
any person living here should have access to social housing, food banks, unemployment benefits and any other social welfare regardless of immigration status.

This is one of the groups that Bridges Not Borders sees no problem in partnering with. Free services and effective amnesty for all illegals. What could possibly go wrong?

7. UNHCR Admits These Claims Are Bogus

CLICK HERE, for UNHCR 2019 data on illegals.
irregular-arrivals-at-the-border-background-information-janjul2019-en

The majority of asylum seekers had valid status in the U.S. at the time of crossing (often a visitor visa) and only transited in the U.S. for a short period with the intention of claiming asylum in Canada, the American visa being reportedly easier to obtain that the Canadian one.

Others had stayed in the U.S. for a number of years, including persons with pending/denied asylum claims and to a lesser extent, persons whose status in the U.S. had expired.

Under the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), individuals in the U.S. cannot make a claim at the Canadian official border post unless they qualify for an exception to the agreement, such as having a close family member in Canada.
.
The STCA does not apply to those who cross the border in-between official border posts, as at the time they claim asylum, there are already in Canada.

8. Completely Undermining Border Security

This is (partly) why borders are so damn hard to enforce. It’s because organizations like: (a) Bridges Not Borders; (b) Plattsburg Cares; and (c) Solidarity Across Borders are doing what they can do undermine it.

Further, efforts are crippled by the UNCHR, who make it clear that they see nothing wrong with illegal crossings, and hamstring local efforts to stop it. Efforts in court are at best mixed, since the “rights” of illegals must be balanced against those of society’s.

Finally, corrupt politicians (both government and controlled opposition), do little to nothing to stop this problem. In short, border security COULD be a very straightforward issue, if the system weren’t rigged to prevent that.

This is disheartening, to say the least.

Posted on

TSCE #8(C): Canadian Council For Refugees, Lobbying To Open Our Borders

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. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for CCR lobbying efforts since 1997.
http://archive.is/pHoQN
CLICK HERE, for CCR Communications Reports filed.
http://archive.is/xSrFC

CLICK HERE, for 2018/2019 tax information.
http://archive.is/FanEL

CLICK HERE, for CNN on DNA testing at US/Mex border.
http://archive.is/Ob6BT

CLICK HERE, for CCR supports Bill C-6, citizenship for terrorists.
http://archive.is/q1Kih

3. Context For This Article

Canadians should have control over their own laws. They should be drafted by and for Canadians. This should not be a difficult or controversial topic.

However, one organization, the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR), is attempting to lobby Canada’s politicians to create more “refugee” friendly laws. This has been going on for over a decade, and seems to have been a long term effort.

Yes, the CCR is one of the groups trying to strike down the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement in the Toronto Federal Court. However, this article will focus more on the political efforts that CCR has undertaken. Indeed, CCR has been busy trying change our laws.

4. CCR Lobbying The Federal Government

Here is an alphabetical list of those who have been lobbied by the Canadian Council for Refugees since 2008.

Gary Anandasangaree, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Sacha Atherly, Policy Advisor | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Matthieu Bélanger, Chief of Staff | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Bill Blair, Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction | Public Safety Canada (PS)
Jacques Cloutier, Vice-President | Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)
Claudette Deschênes, Assistant Deputy Minister | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Dawn Edlund, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Steve Foster, Senior Policy Advisor (specializing in social justice issues) | House of Commons
Ralph Goodale, Minister | Public Safety Canada (PS)
Sadia Groguhé, MP, Deputy Critic Immigration, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism | House of Commons
Alyx Holland, Office of the Minister of Public Safety Canada | Public Safety Canada (PS)
David Hurl, Director of Policy and Parliamentary Affairs | Public Safety Canada (PS)
Ahmed Hussen, Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Jenny Kwan, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Les Linklater, Assistant Deputy Minister | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
David Manicom, Assistant Deputy Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
John McCallum, Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Marta Morgan, Deputy Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Kyle Nicholson, Director of Policy | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Kim Pate, Senator | Senate of Canada
Olga Radchenko, Director of Parliamentary Affairs | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Murray Rankin, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Ali Salam, Chief of Staff | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Oline Twiss, Policy and Stakeholders Relations Officer | House of Commons
Richard Wex, Associate Deputy Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)

Now, let’s take a look at some specific proposals that CCR is advocating for. Sections 4-10 cover the most important ones. But those are by no means all of them.

5. CCR Challenges Canada/US S3CA

US-Canada safe third country agreement – oppose denial of access to refugee determination in Canada on the basis of the Safe Third Country Agreement

The Canadian Council for Refugees is one of the groups aiding a challenge in Toronto to strike down the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement. If this were to be successful, it would mean that (even at official border ports), so called “refugees” from the US could simply stroll in and be legally entitled to a hearing.

6. CCR Opposes DNA Testing

Interestingly, they also oppose DNA testing. (see the last section for the screenshot). Now why would any responsible organization be doing this? Wouldn’t they want to ensure that children are being reunited with their true, biological relatives?

Washington (CNN)The Department of Homeland Security will start a DNA testing pilot program next week to help identify and prosecute individuals posing as families in an effort to target human smuggling, two department officials confirmed to CNN.

The Rapid DNA testing, as it’s known, involves a cheek swab and can, on average, provide results in about 90 minutes, a senior Immigration and Customs Enforcement official said.

The pilot program will run for two to three days in two border locations.

It’s the latest move by the Trump administration to address the swell of migrants, predominantly families and children from Central American countries, at the border using a wide variety of technology and increased resources to fight illegal immigration.

That was an American article, but it also raises an interesting question here. If there is a risk of child smuggling or child trafficking, why WOULDN’T the Canadian Council for Refugees want to ensure that true families are being reunited? Do they want to aid and abet smuggling and trafficking?

7. CCR Against Custody Req’t For Illegals

Immigration detention policies – advocating for the end to the immigration detention of children and families and for reduction in immigration detention, including through the introduction of fair and effective alternatives to detention.

Why should people in the country illegally, or accused of other crimes while not a citizen be locked up for any reason? Perhaps self deportation would be in everyone’s best interests….

8. CCR Challenges Removing Criminally Inadmissible PR

Removals of permanent residents on the basis of criminal inadmissibility, particularly in the wake of amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act made in 2013. CCR’s concern relates to lack of due consideration of humanitarian and compassionate factors in making removals, particularly of long-term residents.

9. CCR Challenges Deportations To Certain Countries

Removals to situations of risk – calling for suspension of removals to countries of generalized risk and policies ensuring individuals at risk have removal deferred.

10. CCR Promotes Amnesty For Illegals

Regularization of persons without status – promoting measures to allow persons in Canada without status to obtain permanent residence, including advocating for regularization of “legacy” claimants, ie. those who made a refugee claim before 15 December 2012.

This is exactly what it sounds like. The Canadian Council for Refugees is lobbying for amnesty-for-illegals, which will create a path to permanent residence, and presumably citizenship at some point.

11. CCR Wants Canadians To Foot The Bill

Availability of legal aid to refugee claimants and other vulnerable migrants, including the role of the federal government in providing adequate funding to provinces to cover the costs of legal aid.

It wouldn’t really be complete without ensuring that Canadians were on the hook paying for these people’s legal costs, now would it?

12. Some Government Funding CCR Gets

  • City of Montreal
  • Canadian Heritage
  • City of Victoria
  • Government of Quebec
  • Federal Government (IRCC)

While CCR undoubtedly has some private donors, it is a recipient of Government aid. Or to be more precise, it receives taxpayer aid.

13. Info From Canada Revenue Tax Filings

Receipted donations $94,255.00 (22.94%)
Non-receipted donations $17,110.00 (4.16%)
Gifts from other registered charities $117,291.00 (28.55%)
Government funding $5,000.00 (1.22%)
All other revenue $177,168.00 (43.13%)
Total revenue: $410,824.00

Receipted donations $80,885.00 (9.85%)
Non-receipted donations $221,686.00 (27.01%)
Gifts from other registered charities $208,696.00 (25.42%)
Government funding $38,086.00 (4.64%)
All other revenue $271,506.00 (33.08%)
Total revenue: $820,859.00

Receipted donations $85,242.00 (12.44%)
Non-receipted donations $47,860.00 (6.99%)
Gifts from other registered charities $103,198.00 (15.06%)
Government funding $142,513.00 (20.80%)
All other revenue $306,250.00 (44.70%)
Total revenue: $685,063.00

Receipted donations $93,961.00 (12.99%)
Non-receipted donations $49,488.00 (6.84%)
Gifts from other registered charities $119,054.00 (16.45%)
Government funding $109,905.00 (15.19%)
All other revenue $351,132.00 (48.53%)
Total revenue: $723,540.00

More detailed information

14. Corporate Documents

ccr.01.2019.director.changes
ccr.02.bylaws
ccr.03.bylaws.from.2014
ccr.04.certificate.of.continuance
ccr.05.annual.return

15. CCR’s Previous Attempt On S3CA

In 2007, the CCR (along with Amnesty International, and the Canadian Council of Churches) were successful in getting the Safe 3rd Country Agreement struck down.
2007.safe.3rd.country.struck.down

However, in 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned that ruling, stating that these groups didn’t have standing to bring it themselves.
2009.fca.appeal.overturns.ruling

Now, the trio (Amnesty International, Canadian Council for Refugees, and Canadian Council of Churches) are at it again. They’ve taken up the cases of “refugees” from the US who want this law struck down.

16. CCR Supported Bill C-6 (Citizenship for Terrorists)

CCR calls for further amendments to Citizenship Act to reduce barriers and make all citizens equal
The Canadian Council for Refugees published today its submission on Bill C-6, welcoming the introduction of amendments to the Citizenship Act and calling for further changes to provide equal access to citizenship and fair process.
.
“We need to bring down barriers to citizenship, especially for already disadvantaged groups such as refugees, the elderly, and women,” said Loly Rico, CCR President. “In line with Canada’s international obligations, we encourage the government to craft a new citizenship regime to which all applicants will have equal access without discrimination.”
.
Bill C-6 mostly reverses changes made under the previous Bill C-24, which took effect in 2015. The CCR welcomes the changes that will give refugees and other newcomers earlier access to citizenship, which will lead to better integration.
.
Bill C-6 also rightly re-affirms the equality of all citizens by eliminating provisions allowing for dual citizens to lose their citizenship in cases of “treason” or “terrorism” and requiring applicants for citizen to have an “intent to reside in Canada”.
.
While Bill C-6 contains many good measures to strengthen citizenship, other changes are also needed to remove barriers and end second class citizenship. The CCR is calling on Parliament to amend the bill to:
Create a right to apply for citizenship for youth under 18 who do not have a parent or legal guardian in Canada.
Create a system to exempt people from citizenship fees if they can’t afford them.
Provide better accommodation for applicants with disabilities.
Prevent long wait times by requiring the government to process applications within a reasonable time.
Stop the use of citizenship applications to launch a process to strip status from former refugees (through cessation).
Provide better procedural rights for loss of citizenship based on fraud or misrepresentation.
Restore Canadian citizenship to second generation born abroad to Canadian citizens. In the alternative, at least give citizenship for those who would be otherwise be stateless.

Yes, the CCR supported Trudeau’s Bill C-6, which would have stripped Canadian citizenship away from dual citizens convicted of terrorism or treason. Way tp pick a winning issue.

17. CCR Is A Political Organization

Despite the presumption that charities or NGOs simply act for a god cause that they represent, this is not really the case here. The Canadian Council for Refugees has a political branch to it, which is trying to change Canadian laws. Let’s summarize a few:

  • Trying to strike down Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement
  • Opposing DNA testing for refugees
  • Removing immigration detention
  • Permanent residence for criminal inadmissibles
  • No deportation to various countries
  • Amnesty/PR for illegals
  • Taxpayer funded court services
  • Citizenship for terrorists

Those are just a few of the things that CCR lobbies for. It is a political organization deliberately lobbying to weaken our borders even more. It’s time to call a spade a spade.

Posted on

The Zionist Roots Of Amnesty International

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. Important Links

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/safe-third-country-agreement/final-text.html
(2) https://nationalpost.com/news/court-to-hear-case-on-whether-asylum-agreement-with-u-s-violates-charter
(3) http://archive.is/R7JvO
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=3766&regId=536906
(5) http://archive.is/6Aaj2
(6) http://pinnaclepublicaffairs.com/experience.htm
(7) http://archive.is/1B3oJ

(8) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Benenson
(9) http://archive.is/0Vzub
(10) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flora_Solomon
(11) http://archive.is/mLYW8
(12) https://www.benensonsociety.org/
(13) http://archive.is/XfPd
(14) https://www.benensonsociety.org/campaign-archives
(15) http://archive.is/lpVwc
(16) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/peter-benenson-13233.html
(17) http://archive.is/w8KjQ
(18) https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/04/my-hero-flora-solomon-ben-macintyre
(19) http://archive.is/plnqO
(20) https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/name/peter-benenson-obituary?pid=3219284
(21) http://archive.is/Z7uql
(22) https://www.nytimes.com/1939/04/06/archives/grigori-benenson-noted-financier-former-owner-of-building-at-165.html
(23) http://archive.is/0FpCR
(24) https://www.jewishpress.com/news/israel/boycott/exposed-amnesty-internationals-obsessive-anti-semitic-anti-israel-hatred/2019/12/22/
(25) http://archive.is/WfdT4

3. Why Should Canadians Care?

Amnesty International operates in countries across the world, including Canada. It is one of the groups attempting to further open Canada’s borders, by getting the Safe Third Country Agreement struck down in Federal Court.

2018.Diner.Cases.To.Be.Consolidated
2018.calling.more.witnesses
do.we.need.more.intervenors
2019.McDonald.No.More.Intervenors

Hypocrisy from Prothonotary Milczynski and Chief Justice Crampton
Milczynski.Consolidates.Cases
Crampton.Transfers.Consolidated.Cases

While that is obviously a very serious case, let’s look at some other instances of Amnesty International trying to weaponize the Canadian Courts. While striking down the S3CA (and effectively allowing open borders) is a huge issues, it is not at all the only things Amnesty does.

4. AI Lawfare In Canadian Courts

Amnesty International Canada v. Canada (Chief of the Defence Staff), 2008 FC 336 (CanLII), [2008] 4 FCR 546

Amnesty International Canada v. Canada (Chief of the Defence Staff), 2008 FCA 401 (CanLII)

Amnesty International Canada v. Canadian Forces, 2007 FC 1147 (CanLII)

Amnesty International Canada v. Canadian Forces, 2008 FC 162 (CanLII)

Canada (Attorney General) v. Amnesty International Canada, 2009 FC 426 (CanLII)

Canada (Attorney General) v. Amnesty International Canada, 2009 FC 918 (CanLII), [2010] 4 FCR 182

Gitxaala Nation v. Canada, 2015 FCA 73 (CanLII)
Choc v. Hudbay Minerals Inc. et al., 2013 ONSC 998 (CanLII)

Choc v Hudbay Minerals Inc., 2013 ONSC 1414 (CanLII)

Garrick v. Amnesty International Canada, 2011 FC 1099 (CanLII), [2013] 3 FCR 146

Isakhani v. Al-Saggaf, 2006 CanLII 42605 (ON SC)

Jacobson v. Atlas Copco Canada Inc., 2015 ONSC 4 (CanLII)

Mohammad v. Tarraf, 2019 ONSC 1701 (CanLII)

Prophet River First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 120 (CanLII)

Tanudjaja v. Attorney General (Canada), 2013 ONSC 1878 (CanLII)

Tanudjaja v. Attorney General (Canada) (Application), 2013 ONSC 5410 (CanLII)

This is of course no where near the entire list, but Amnesty International has been quite busy using Canada’s courts for its own political goals.

Strange that they are granted “public interest standing” to do these things, but ordinary citizens are not. This of course refers to not allowing Canadian citizens standing to close the loophole in the Safe 3rd Country Agreement.

5. Amnesty International Lobbying Efforts

Although it’s record in the Federal lobbying registry is brief, it is there. Amnesty International has been lobbying the Government with respects to the International Convention on Human Rights.

A more interesting story is on the lobbyist Titch Dharamsi:

Titch Dharamsi, Principal
Titch Dharamsi brings over 15 years of senior public sector and government relations experience to your cause. He has served as lead consultant to a number of major national and international organizations in areas as diverse as tax policy, mining, and international trade. He has an established an impressive record of success in meeting client objectives.
.
While in national government, Titch served as the Senior Policy Advisor and Executive Assistant to a senior federal Cabinet Minister. Prior to that he was a consultant in the corporate finance division of an international consulting company, where he advised on public-private partnerships. Titch also served in the Ontario government as an aide to various Ministers and the Premier, and as an Executive Council Member of a provincial agency.
.
Titch concluded his post-graduate studies at Cornell University, where he was appointed a Fellow of the Institute for Public Affairs and where he founded and edited a prominent public policy journal.
Titch has also contributed to numerous community activities. He has served as Chair of Medical Education for South African Blacks (MESAB – Canada), Secretary of the Ontario Liberal Party, and President of the Madope Development Corporation, which established agricultural and human development projects in rural Tanzania.
.
Associates
In delivering the results crucial to your organization, Pinnacle engages senior associates from numerous sectors, including leading economists, international trade consultants, and former senior public officials.

He was an influential member of both the Federal and Ontario Liberal parties. Good to know he is “really” independent from the people he lobbies.

6. Canadian Chapter Corporate Documents

2017 Director Changes
Notice Of Financials
Organization By-Laws
Certificate Of Continuance

Amnesty International does have a legitimate branch registered in Canada. Problem is, Amnesty International Canada isn’t Canadian. Instead, it is part of a globalist organization to help open the borders of other nations.

7. Peter Benenson Founded Amnesty Int’l

The Benenson Society is named after the now deceased man, and claims to be carrying out more humanitarian work. The archives of the society list many causes around the world. And indeed, many of them sound great.

Problem is: Amnesty International (Benenson’s legacy) still is devoted to helping masses of people around the world cross borders, often without much concern as to whether it is legally or illegally.

For some perspective, A foundation started by a Russian Zionist Jew is helping FOREIGNERS enter other nations, and seems to care little about the legality of it.

8. Benenson’s Obituary (UK Independent)

Peter Solomon (Peter Benenson), barrister and human-rights campaigner: born London 31 July 1921; married first Margaret Anderson (two daughters; marriage dissolved 1972), second 1973 Susan Booth (one son, one daughter); died Oxford 25 February 2005.

Peter Benenson founded Amnesty (later Amnesty International) in 1961 and thereby became the creator of a human-rights movement which now counts more than a million members in 150 countries. His warmth and generosity of spirit gained him friends round the globe. His modesty was such that decades later many, even at Amnesty, did not realise he was the founder of the organisation.

The Benensons were a Russian Jewish family and Peter Benenson’s maternal grandfather, Grigori Benenson, earned a fortune in Tsarist times from banking and oil. The family left Russia at the time of the Revolution. In London Grigori’s daughter Flora met and married Harold Solomon, a member of a City stockbroking family who had risen to Brigadier-General in the First World War. Their only child, Peter Solomon, was born in London in 1921.

Despite the family riches, his was not a happy childhood. In 1920 Harold was attached to the staff of Sir Herbert Samuel, High Commissioner in Palestine, and they went to live in Jerusalem, an entrancing development for the passionately Zionist and untiringly party-mad Flora.

Awaiting the demobilisation which eventually came in 1947 Benenson studied law, preparing himself for a career as a barrister. He joined the Labour Party and the Society of Labour Lawyers. Without success, he tried three times to win a seat in the Commons despite the help given by such as Clement Attlee, Roy Jenkins and Anthony Wedgwood Benn.

According to the obituary, Peter Benenson, from his mother’s side, was wealthy due to successes in banking and oil. His mother, Flora, was a proud and unabashed Zionist. The family was made up of Russian Jews.

Interestingly, Peter goes by his mother’s maiden name (Benenson), and not his birth name, Solomon. One has to wonder why that is.

9. Guardian Article On Flora Solomon

The Guardian also pushed a piece, on Flora Solomon, mother of Peter Benenson (Solomon). She was very proud of her Russian roots, and Jewish ancestry.

A legacy.com publication outlines the family heritage and comments that:

Born July 31, 1921, Benenson was the grandson of Grigori Benenson, a Russian-Jewish banker, and the son of Flora Solomon, who raised him alone after the death of her husband, British army Col. John Solomon.

In fact, there are several mainstream outlets and blogs outlining who Peter Benenson’s family really was, and his Russian/Jewish heritage. And several claim that Flora has long been a proud Zionist.

10. Grigori Benenson, Peter’s Maternal Grandfather

Russian-Jewish banker who made his fortune in oil. The family left Russia at the time of the Revolution.
.
«BENENSON. On April 4, 1939, at Quenn’s Gate, London, W.1, Grigori Benenson, beloved father of Flora, Fira and Manya, and much-loved grandfather of Mira.” (The Times (London, England), Thursday, Apr 06, 1939; pg. 1; Issue 48273.)

Source: Find A Grave

The New York Times, of all places has information on Grigori Benenson and his wealth. Unfortunately, all of it is behind a paywall. But Grigori Benenson was a Russian Jew who made a fortune in oil and banking. Hence, Peter Benenson was set to go from the start.

Ancestry confirms that Peter Benenson (or Solomon) is the maternal grandson of Grigori Benenson, and that Flora is Peter’s Mother.

Some of the blogs have written that Grigori Benenson was actually related to the Rothschild Family. While that is possible, and quite likely, I haven’t independently verified it. If true, it would certainly explain at least in part how he initially became wealthy.

11. Amnesty Int’l Blurs The Line: Legal/Illegal

Who is a migrant?
.
There is no internationally accepted legal definition of a migrant. Like most agencies and organizations, we at Amnesty International understand migrants to be people staying outside their country of origin, who are not asylum-seekers or refugees.
.
Some migrants leave their country because they want to work, study or join family, for example. Others feel they must leave because of poverty, political unrest, gang violence, natural disasters or other serious circumstances that exist there.
.
Lots of people don’t fit the legal definition of a refugee but could nevertheless be in danger if they went home. It is important to understand that, just because migrants do not flee persecution, they are still entitled to have all their human rights protected and respected, regardless of the status they have in the country they moved to. Governments must protect all migrants from racist and xenophobic violence, exploitation and forced labour. Migrants should never be detained or forced to return to their countries without a legitimate reason.

Although not explicitly stated, it is implied that Amnesty International sees international migration as a human right. Again, little to no concern over the legality of these measures.

12. Jews Accuse AI Of Anti-Semitism

Talk about “eating your own”. In this submission from JewishPress.com, Amnesty International is accused of anti-Semitism for criticizing Israel’s expansion into Palestine.

However, according to the report titled “Amnesty International – From Bias to Obsession,” Amnesty has employed people with “open pro-terrorist sympathies, crucially relying on them to provide information upstream that shapes opinion.”

One Amnesty consultant was found to be tweeting support for a terrorist group and sharing advice about hiding the truth to protect what he termed as the “resistance,” a euphemism for terrorist organizations. Another was found advising “factions,” another term for terrorist groups, not to publicly identify “martyrs,” terrorists killed in action, as belonging to terrorist groups.

Amnesty Consultant Hind Khoudary referred to two Islamic Jihad terrorists as “heroes”.

Nadine Moawad, MENA Communications Manager for Amnesty International, referred to Israel as the “Zionist entity” and called for a “full disbanding” of the Jewish state.

“Amnesty’s arsenal is turned towards Israel. All of its departments appear to allocate disproportionate resources to attack Israel. The cumulative effect results in what can only be termed as a never-ending obsession,” Collier wrote.

He also notes “the alignment between Amnesty’s anti-Israel campaigns and the aims of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment & Sanction) movement, which leave little room for doubt that it is coordinated rather than coincidental.
The report said that Amnesty “displays a symbiotic relationship with BDS” and thus concludes that “elements within Amnesty International actively seek to promote the destruction of the Jewish state.”

Because there is a religious aspect to some of the Amnesty content detailed in the report, the report concludes that “the cumulative effect of the organization’s unnatural hostility towards Israel is anti-Semitic.”

Perhaps they never got the message who actually founded Amnesty International. But then again, an awful lot of Jews will cry “anti-Semitism” whenever their BEHAVIOUR is criticized. Still, enjoyable to watch. And there are many such articles on this subject.

13. Nothing Grassroots About A.I.

Amnesty International was founded by Peter Benenson, grandson of Grigori Benenson. Grigori was a Russian tycoon due to his successes in oil and banking. Peter’s mother, Flora, was a proud Zionist.

Despite attempts to portray Amnesty as some sort of grassroots campaign funded on very little money, the truth about its founder speaks volumes.

Amnesty is an NGO, whose purpose (among others) is getting “migrants and refugees” from Country A to Country B. From its own website, it appears to blur the line between people entering legally v.s. illegally.

In an amusing twist, Israelis accuse Amnesty of anti-Semitism for its repeated criticism of what goes on in the West Bank. Interestingly, many of the people at AI don’t give Israel a pass for their behaviour.

Amnesty has also been trying for many years to weaponize the Canadian Courts, and is one of the players currently involved in attempting to have the Safe 3rd Country Agreement struck down. It’s yet another example of trying to open OTHER countries’ borders.