Category: Human Rights

Posted on

A Case For Tort Reform: “Free-Speech” Grifters Want $5 Million

(Peterson interview after suing)

(Peterson announcing lawsuit to follow Shepherd)

(Pedantic Shepherd, YouTube is beside the point)

(Shepherd sues, then complains about being sued)

Background Information

The details of the Wilfrid Laurier University scandal (Lindsay Shepherd, the 3 staff members, and Jordan Peterson), is old news at this point. The article just focuses on the lawsuits brought against WLU and its staff by Peterson and Shepherd.

It is the opinion here that although the facts alleged are basically true, the claims are fraudulent. They are combined seeking 5 million dollars (Shepherd $3.6, Peterson $1.5M). This is an abuse of the court system, and a way to unjustly enrich themselves.

Keep in mind, Peterson’s only claim to damages was that the tape defamed him (comparing him to Hitler, and other comments). His critics were vilified by the media. He suffered no actual damage, other than being named in a tape that Shepherd released.

Shepherd claims that not only was this 42 minute meeting difficult (surely it was), but that she was never treated the same way again. She cites a few examples, but nothing that would lead a reasonable person to think this would be worth millions in damages. Shepherd claims to be unemployable in academia, but her new love for media probably helped that.

Did WLU staff act like d*****bags? YES
Were inappropriate things said? YES
Was a tape of this leaked to the media? YES
Does any of this amount to millions in damages? NO

Complete Hypocrisy

During the Louder With Crowder interview, Peterson (at 50:20) criticizes the Ontario Human Rights Code for automatically making employers vicariously liable for things employees say. However, he has no issue with USING vicarious liability in order to name the University in his lawsuit.

Peterson claimed that it was libel for Rambukkana to compare him to Hitler, yet Peterson compares trans activists to Communists, who have caused the deaths of millions of people.

Peterson has come to fame claiming to be a free speech champion, but has no issue deplatforming speakers he doesn’t agree with. Faith Goldy is a particularly bad example.

Shepherd and Peterson both claim to be free speech champions, but then sue over words they don’t like.

Karma In All Of This?

In 2018, Shepherd launched a $3.6 million lawsuit against Wilfrid Laurier University and 3 of its staff (Nathan Rambukkana, Herbert Pimlott, and Adria Joel). Although the infamous meeting was cited, there were other problems occurring later which were cited in the statement of defense.

Jordan Peterson filed a $1.5 million lawsuit of his own, claiming that Laurier hadn’t learned its lesson. Peterson claimed that the infamous tape had damaged his reputation.

Regarding Peterson’s claim, the WLU filed a 3rd party claim (Form 29A). It stated that if Peterson actually had suffered damages, he should be suing Lindsay Shepherd, as she made the tape secretly and released it.

Shepherd was outraged. After filing a lawsuit against her university, she is shocked that they would use her as a defence in a related lawsuit. She brought this on herself.

WLU should consider Rule 2.1.01

Some Law On Frivilous Proceedings

Rule 2.1 General Powers to Stay or Dismiss if Vexatious, etc.
.
Stay, Dismissal of frivolous, vexatious, abusive Proceeding
Order to Stay, Dismiss Proceeding
2.1.01 (1) The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1

Although litigation tends to drag on a long time, something like this should be used. The litigation (particularly Peterson’s) is an abuse of process.

Ontario Libel & Slander Act

Definitions
1 (1) In this Act,
“broadcasting” means the dissemination of writing, signs, signals, pictures and sounds of all kinds, intended to be received by the public either directly or through the medium of relay stations, by means of,
.
(a) any form of wireless radioelectric communication utilizing Hertzian waves, including radiotelegraph and radiotelephone, or
(b) cables, wires, fibre-optic linkages or laser beams,
and “broadcast” has a corresponding meaning; (“radiodiffusion ou télédiffusion”, “radiodiffuser ou télédiffuser”)
“newspaper” means a paper containing public news, intelligence, or occurrences, or remarks or observations thereon, or containing only, or principally, advertisements, printed for distribution to the public and published periodically, or in parts or numbers, at least twelve times a year. (“journal”) R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, s. 1 (1).

Wilfrid Laurier and its 3 staff members did not do this. Shepherd did. She released the recording to the media, with the intent of making it widely distributed. So Rambukkana and Pimlott have a valid point. If Peterson did suffer damages, it was caused by Lindsay Shepherd.

Yes, Rambukkana and Pimlott were unprofessional for making the comments in the first place. However, it is clear they never meant to be recorded.

There is also some ambiguity as to the Statute of Limitations, whether it would be 3 months, or 2 years. If it is 3 months, then it has already lapsed.

Some Canadian Cases

Here is Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995), which dropped “actual malice” as a requirement.

Here is Grant v Torstar (2009), which created an exception for responsible journalism.

Here is Crookes v Newton (2011), which ruled that linking, or hyperlinking stories does not count as publishing.

However, all of this may be irrelevant, since it was Shepherd who SECRETLY recorded the meeting, and then chose to publish it WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT of the other parties.

Ontario’s Bill 52

Not sure if this would be relied on in the proceedings, but in 2015, the Ontario Government passed Bill 52 on this subject. Interesting is section 137.1

Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate
Purposes
Rejet d’une instance limitant les débats
Objects
137.1 (1) The purposes of this section and sections 137.2 to 137.5 are,
(a) to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest;
(b) to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest;
(c) to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and
(d) to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action.

Final Thoughts On This

The topic of tort reform is a popular one in recent years, particularly in the United States. Putting a cap on maximum damages, or making it harder to collect on bogus claims is a goal worth pursuing.

Any google or online search of “tort reform” will lead to an almost endless number of matches.

This is not at all to say that a person should “never” go to civil court. If an employer doesn’t pay your wages, or your property is damaged, or bills are not paid, then litigation can be a very valid path. Admittedly, “reasonable” is very subjective. However, most people can agree that one must suffer actual damages to go to court.

However, Shepherd and Peterson have both laid million dollar lawsuits because people said mean things to them. (Shepherd’s claim cites more detail). And hypocritically, both think nothing of mocking their detractors.

These 2 are not the free speech champions they pretend to be. Rather, they support free speech when it is convenient to do so. They are “free-speech grifters”.

Hard to feel sorry for her anymore.

(1) Jordan Peterson On United Nations sustainable Development Agenda
(2) Bill C-16, Gender Identity Bill In Canada
(3) Louder With Crowder interview
(4) Peterson & Cathy Newman
(5) Faith Goldy Deplatformed
(6) Deplatforming Faith Goldy At “Free Speech” Event
(7) https://www.identitygrifting.ca/
(8) Peterson announcing $1.5M lawsuit and WLU University and 3 employees
(9) Peterson Interview On Lawsuit (2:55)
(10) National Post article on WLU 3rd Party Defence
(11) Ontario Human Rights Code
(12) Ontario Court forms index.
(13) Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure
(14) Ontario Libel and Slander Act
(15) Hill v. Church of Scientology, 1995
(16) Ontario Bill 52, protecting expression in matters of public interest

Posted on

Thoughts On Potential Canada-China Free Trade Deal

(Tucker Carlson: Social Costs to Communities Most Important)

1. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

The other posts on outsourcing/offshoring are available here. It focuses on the hidden costs and trade offs society as a whole has to make. Contrary to what many politicians and figures in the media claim, there are always costs to these kinds of agreement. These include: (a) job losses; (b) wages being driven down; (c) undercutting of local companies; (d) legal action by foreign entities; (e) industries being outsourced; and (f) losses to communities when major employers leave. Don’t believe the lies that these agreements are overwhelmingly beneficial to all.

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/consultations/fta-ale.aspx?lang=eng
(2) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/consultations/china-chine/index.aspx?lang=eng
(3) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/consultations/china-chine/toolkit-outils.aspx?lang=eng
(4) https://www.epi.org/publication/the-china-toll-deepens-growth-in-the-bilateral-trade-deficit-between-2001-and-2017-cost-3-4-million-u-s-jobs-with-losses-in-every-state-and-congressional-district/
(5) https://www.forbes.com/sites/charleswallace1/2018/07/21/chinas-currency-manipulation-is-a-response-to-trumps-tariffs/#33295e9a663b
(6) https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/02/11/harper_in_china_free_trade_agreement_with_china_in_canadas_sights.html
(7) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-trudeau-intends-to-work-toward-free-trade-deal-with-china-despite/
(8) https://www.maximebernier.com/canada_china_free_trade_speech
(9) https://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-statement-pms-trade-trip-china
(10) https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/disciplining-chinas-trade-practices-wto-how-wto-complaints-can-help
(11) https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa856.pdf

3. From Archived Pages

There have been many concerns with dealing with China. To name just some of them:

  1. Human rights abuses
  2. No respect for intellectual property
  3. Preferential treatment
  4. Unsafe products entering Canada

To put is bluntly, the answers are not reassuring. They are the political-talk we have come to expect that avoids giving concrete answers.

Canada has robust regulatory requirements and strong enforcement action can be taken on unsafe products entering the country. Regardless of country of origin, if the Canadian government identifies products that do not meet regulatory requirements, enforcement action will be taken. Enforcement action can take a number of forms, including recall.

Canada’s Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) with China works to protect Canadian investments in China, and is among the most ambitious investment agreements China has ever ratified.

A possible FTA could include provisions that would help to mitigate the risk of IP infringements. We would like to hear from you on your experience with IP rights in the context of the Canada-China commercial relationship. Additionally, Canadian firms are encouraged to raise any IP problems they have in China or other overseas market with the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service.

This all sounds lovely, but to a critical person, this seems more like an attempt to emotionally soothe than to persuade with facts.

4. Major Job Losses

Looking at the Economic Policy Institute Study, shown here, from 2001 to 2017, the US lost 3.4 million jobs to China as a result of a growing trade deficit. China can produce much cheaper and in much higher numbers.

Both increased imports and technical products have done a number on the US job market, who simply cannot compete.

While this is an American study, it would be wise to use it as a cautionary tale for Canada as well.

CURRENCY MANIPULATION EXPLAINED


One unfair way to gain an advantage over a foreign competitor is to manipulate the currency. China has been doing this for a long time, and it leads to an economic advantage that few can match. The Forbes article explains it well.

First, a bit of background. The Chinese currency, called the renminbi, is what’s known as a policy currency. That means that unlike the U.S. dollar, which rises and falls in value in free market trading, the currency’s value against the dollar is set by the People’s Bank of China, an arm of the Chinese government.

While the PBOC has gradually tried to make the value of the renminbi more reflective of market forces, setting trading bands in which the renminbi is allowed to fluctuate every day, in the last analysis it is still under government control. Put another way, the value of the renminbi is manipulated by the government and always has been. It’s just that when Beijing was manipulating the value so that the renminbi appreciated against the dollar in the last few years, nobody in Washington complained.

When the Chinese Government manipulates its currency, it does so in order to artificially cheapen the costs of its products, and to gain an advantage over competitors.

In a “free market” world, this sort of thing should never be allowed.

5. CATO Institute Hypocrisy

Note: CATO calls itself a public policy institute, dedicated to free trade, liberalization and free markets. It is based in the US. But its conflicting observations are disturbing. From their website, they post an article which contains these remarks:

The Trump administration believes that the international dispute settlement system of the World Trade Organization (WTO) offers no effective remedy for these practices, and prefers an approach that relies mostly on unilateral tariffs. The administration sees the issue as follows. China’s mercantilist state systematically discriminates against foreign products and foreign producers in China while forcing foreign companies to hand over their intellectual property (IP) as the price of access to China’s large and growing market. China engages in widespread cheating in its trade practices, including not only high tariffs, domestic content requirements, and other traditional forms of protectionism, but also rigged regulations that erect trade barriers by favoring Chinese companies and outright theft of foreign IP. And, Trump and his trade cohorts say repeatedly, there is virtually nothing the United States can do under current WTO rules to stop this predatory Chinese behavior.

Worth noting is that CATO doesn’t dispute the accuracy or factual basis of Donald Trump’s claims. They don’t dispute the one sided advantage that is posed here. However, there is an interesting brochure that CATO released:

Supporting China’s membership in the WTO in 2001 was not a mistake by the United States. All 163 other members of the WTO, including the United States, are much better off because China is inside the rules-based global trading system and has not been left outside it. China has made great strides since 2001 toward full compliance with the rules of the WTO trading system.

An organization which promotes liberalized trade is okay when one of its members blatantly acts against the rules and its principles. Okay.

6. Main Canadian Parties Support This

Despite all the problems outline above, it is:
SUPPORTED, by People’s Party.
SUPPORTED, by the Conservative Party.
SUPPORTED, by the Liberal Party

However, NDP acts <a href=”https://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-statement-pms-trade-trip-china”” rel=”noopener” target=”_blank”>as the voice of reason.

A potential free trade agreement raises many questions that are yet unanswered. China has no free press, torture is widespread, workers do not have a right to collective bargaining, and hundreds of human rights defenders and dissidents have been detained.

Environmental protections, labour standards, and human rights must be at the forefront of any trade and investment discussions, and any trade deal must support Canadian jobs, not just focus on selling Canadian resources to be processed abroad.

The Liberals have failed to take action to address steel dumping by Chinese companies which put Canadian businesses at a dangerous disadvantage. China also has a questionable record on currency manipulation and unfair trade practices, and does not have market economy status, which means it would be very difficult to have a level playing field in a free trade deal.

There are also concerns about protecting the intellectual property of Canadians and the behaviour of state-owned enterprises in China, including through the takeover of Canadian companies that work on sensitive technologies. Before making a decision on whether to begin formal negotiations, the government needs to clearly address all these concerns, and consult with Canadians before rushing into a deal that is against their interests.”

What the hell? Why am I agreeing with the NDP on this? Since when did an openly socialist party become the voice of reason?

The again, a <a href=”https://www.nationalcitizensalliance.ca/NCA-trade-environment-policy-statement/”” rel=”noopener” target=”_blank”>NATIONALIST approach would also conclude free trade with China is a bad idea.

7. Not Worth It

Watch the video with Tucker Carlson, at the top of the article. He explains that it is a better way to ensure stability of communities and jobs than to look at a purely profit motive. Well worth a watch. While the talk relates to automating vehicles — and putting truck drivers out of work — the same rationale can be applied here.

While there may be some benefits to an agreement with China, there are simply too many social costs to Canada that need to be seriously looked at:

  • How many jobs will be lost?
  • What will happen to communities with major job losses?
  • What about environmental protection?
  • Would we be rewarding sweatshop conditions?
  • Can we protect people’s intellectual property?
  • Will we be undercut by currency manipulation?
  • Is getting cheaper products worth the social cost?

It’s not all about GDP, stock prices, or corporate profits. What will a free trade agreement with China do to Canada?

OUR PEOPLE COME FIRST.

Posted on

Mass Migration Summit in Ottawa: May 8-9

1. Open Borders, Mass Migration

There is plenty of information on the open borders movement, as well as local and UN efforts to replace Old-Stock Canadians. Check out those series for much more detail.

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.conferenceboard.ca/
(2) More Information About The Summit
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/cbc-propaganda-14-lets-replace-the-canadian-population
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/destroying-national-borders-the-u-n-global-compact-for-migration/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/new-york-declaration-september-2016-prelude-to-the-global-migration-compact/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/un-conferences-on-replacement-migration-since-1974/

3. Background Info On This Summit

Canadian Immigration Summit 2019 will convene immigration leaders and practitioners from across Canada as they discuss and share insights on how to ensure a strong immigration system for Canada’s future.

Through both plenary and concurrent sessions, delegates from the public and private sectors will explore the most pressing immigration issues facing Canada today. Major stakeholders from government, business, immigration law and consulting, education, and immigrant-serving organizations will feature prominently in the Summit program and will share their expert views in support of a stronger immigration system.

The Summit will provide delegates with ample opportunities to network, find partners, access expert advice, and share their views.

Join us in Ottawa, May 8-9, 2019, to:

  • network with potential partners and collaborators
  • learn from leading international and Canadian experts about domestic and global immigration issues, best practices, and innovative solutions
  • gain unique insights from the latest immigration research and programs
  • access new tools and techniques that will allow you to help empower immigrants and better leverage their skills, talents and connections
  • shape recommendations to help guide the future of the immigration system

Just a hunch, but probably none of these speakers will advocate or call for “less immigration”. Indeed, the tone seems to be that migration is good, and we need more of it. There doesn’t seem to be aby balance in the issue at all.

4. Summit Overview

Summit Overview
How can we plan for tomorrow, today?
The purpose of the 2019 Summit is to explore how Canada can respond proactively to emerging immigration issues in a rapidly changing world.
.
We tend to dwell on the past to tackle today’s challenges and anticipate the ones we will experience tomorrow. Moreover, we are often focused on the short-term, with too little of our time and energy devoted to thinking about how we can plan for the future. However, the world is not standing still, and Canada is no exception. Changes at home and abroad will disrupt Canada’s future immigration system in ways we cannot currently fathom. For example, how many of us five years ago imagined that a wave of populism would take the world by storm?.

Populism is bad, apparently.
People “don’t” want to be replaced in their homelands? Racists.
“Now” they need to make long term plans?

Who is even surprised anymore?

Posted on

Morgane Oger Further Weaponizes Human Rights Codes, $55K Ruling

(BC “Human Rights” Commission Ruling)

(Morgane Oger Foundation)

(Proposed “Hate Map” Across Canada)

1. Important Links

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt58/2019bchrt58.pdf
(2) ttp://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/00_96210_01
(3) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/bill-c-16-adding-gender-identity-to-human-rights-code-and-criminal-code/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/morgane-oger-foundation-wants-to-be-another-doxxing-site/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/weaponizing-the-human-rights-codes-and-refugee-boards/

Some Thoughts

Our favourite “serial-victim” Morgane Oger, is in the news again, this time for getting a $55,000 award ($35K for hurt feelings, and $20K in punitive damages). This was William Whatcott for calling Oger “a man”. (Oger is transgender).

A few interesting observations in reading the ruling:

(1) Morgane Oger seems perfectly content silencing William Whatcott’s free speech and right to religious expression in the name of gender identity.

(2) The BC Tribunal deliberately and repeatedly skirted the truthfulness of Whatcott’s claim that Oger is biologically male. Hormones, surgery and legal paperwork don’t change biology.

(3) The BC Tribunal awarded $35,000 in damages without any damages being proven. How exactly does one prove “hurt feelings and dignity”?

3. BC Human Rights Code

Discrimination and intent
2
Discrimination in contravention of this Code does not require an intention to contravene this Code.

Section 2 makes it very clear: absolutely no intent is required on the part of anyone in order to be found to violate someone’s human rights. For a “quasi-judicial” board, this is very disturbing. However, it seems to be the case with all provinces.

Discriminatory publication
7 (1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or that group or class of persons.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication, a communication intended to be private or a communication related to an activity otherwise permitted by this Code.

Oger claims that the publications were contrary to Section 7(1)(a) and (b) of the code.

Evidence
27.2 (1) A member or panel may receive and accept on oath, by affidavit or otherwise, evidence and information that the member or panel considers necessary and appropriate, whether or not the evidence or information would be admissible in a court of law.
(2) Nothing is admissible in evidence before a member or panel that is inadmissible in a court because of a privilege under the law of evidence.
(3) Despite section 4, subsection (1) of this section does not override an Act expressly limiting the extent to which or purposes for which evidence may be admitted or used in any proceeding.
(4) A member or panel may direct that all or part of the evidence of a witness be heard in private.

(4) flies in the face of an open inquiry, and doesn’t set any guidelines as to “when” it would be appropriate.
One of the problems Whatcott cited was the Commission refusing to hear all the evidence.

Remedies
37 (1) If the member or panel designated to hear a complaint determines that the complaint is not justified, the member or panel must dismiss the complaint.
(2) If the member or panel determines that the complaint is justified, the member or panel
(a) must order the person that contravened this Code to cease the contravention and to refrain from committing the same or a similar contravention,
(b) may make a declaratory order that the conduct complained of, or similar conduct, is discrimination contrary to this Code,
(c) may order the person that contravened this Code to do one or both of the following:
(i) take steps, specified in the order, to ameliorate the effects of the discriminatory practice;
(ii) adopt and implement an employment equity program or other special program to ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups if the evidence at the hearing indicates the person has engaged in a pattern or practice that contravenes this Code, and
(d) if the person discriminated against is a party to the complaint, or is an identifiable member of a group or class on behalf of which a complaint is filed, may order the person that contravened this Code to do one or more of the following:
(i) make available to the person discriminated against the right, opportunity or privilege that, in the opinion of the member or panel, the person was denied contrary to this Code;
(ii) compensate the person discriminated against for all, or a part the member or panel determines, of any wages or salary lost, or expenses incurred, by the contravention;
(iii) pay to the person discriminated against an amount that the member or panel considers appropriate to compensate that person for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect or to any of them.

In short, the BC Human Rights Code can award money if it rules that your feelings were hurt, or your dignity or self respect was hurt. No need to prove “actual” damages.

4. Section 2(b) Of Charter

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

5. From HRT Ruling

William Whatcott identifies himself as a Christian activist. When he learned of Ms. Oger’s candidacy, he resolved to stop her being elected. He was not a member of her riding, nor did he research her platform or the policies which she sought to advance. The sole basis for his campaign against her was that she is a transgender woman and therefore, in his view, unsuitable to hold public office. 

Very interesting choice of words. Whatcott “identifies” as a Christian activist, yet Oger “actually is” a woman.

Mr. Whatcott was not a resident in Ms. Oger’s riding. She came to his attention after he had decided there were no suitable political options within his own riding. He says that he had decided not to vote in the election at all, but then turned to prayer. He asked God how he could help in the election. He started researching the candidates across the province and, in this way, came across Ms. Oger. He learned that she had been active in lobbying for amendments to the Code to add the grounds of “gender identity and expression”, and in promoting education about sexual orientation and gender identity in schools. Most importantly, however, he was upset that the media and public at large were “pretending” that Ms. Oger was a woman. He fundamentally believes that gender is static and derived from the genitalia that a person has at birth. He believes that Ms. Oger is a man. He sees himself as the small boy in the fairy tale about the Emperor with no clothes the only one brave enough to speak the truth about Ms. Oger’s gender. He decided to focus his energies on her campaign. In doing so, he describes Ms. Oger herself as “incidental” and “small” within his larger fight for social order and freedom. 

The first part gets glossed over. Oger is trying help enact 2 policies that Whatcott is bothered by:
(A) Bill C-16, to add “gender identity” to the Criminal Code and Human Rights Code.
(B) Bringing SOGI (sexual orientation & gender identity) into schools and have it taught to young children.

In all fairness, “both” of the above issues rub a lot of people the wrong way.

[53] To the extent that s. 7 is unique, it is because it expressly and exclusively targets speech. Mr. Whatcott argues that, in doing so, it violates his Charter‐guaranteed rights to freedom of religion and expression ss. 2(a) and (b). In his final reply, he added an argument that it violates his right to life, liberty and security of the person, guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter.  

[54]This Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to apply the Charter: Administrative Tribunals Act, s . 45; Code, s. 32(i). I cannot find s. 7 of the Code unconstitutional, or that any of Mr. Whatcott’s Charter rights have been violated in the course of Ms. Oger’s human rights  complaint against him.

 

[55]There is no question, however, that this complaint engages Charter protections. In these circumstances, I must interpret and apply the Code in a manner that proportionately balances its purposes with those protections. The framework for this analysis has been set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in three cases: Doré v. Québec (Tribunal des Professions), 2012 SCC 12 [Doré]; Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12 [Loyola]; and Trinity  Western University v. Law Society of BC, 2018 SCC 32 [TWU]. 

While simultaneously claiming not to be able to apply the Charter, the Tribunal says it will balance the rights of the Charter v.s. the Code.

A. Factual context 
1. Discrimination against transgender people 
. This is a significant time for trans and gender diverse people. Their long fight for equality is bearing some fruit, as society begins to adjust its traditionally static and binary understanding of gender, and its tolerance for people to identify and express their gender authentically. One indicator of this progress is the 2016 amendment to the Code that added the grounds of gender identity and expression. 

[61] However, as this hearing made clear, the journey is far from over. Unlike other groups protected by the Code, transgender people often find their very existence the subject of public debate and condemnation. What flows from this existential denial is, naturally, a view that transpeople are less worthy of dignity, respect, and rights. In the hearing room for this complaint, we were witness to repeated, deliberate, and flagrant attacks on Ms. Oger based on nothing more than a belief that her very existence is an affront. 

(A) The Tribunal actually referred to this section as “factual context”, but then goes on to make a number of straw man arguments.
(B) It is not a fight for equality. That was never the issue.
(C)”Traditionally static and binary understanding of gender”? Actually, there has never been evidence that there are more than 2 genders. Simply passing a law does not erase science. A government could conceivably pass a law saying that dogs are cats, but it would not be based in reality.
(D) Gender identity and expression? Don’t these contradict reality? Merely expressing oneself or identifying oneself a certain way does not make it so.
(E) Questioning the reality of something not based on science is a hate crime now? Got it.

[62] And so, despite some gains, transgender people remain among the most marginalized in our society. Their lives are marked by “disadvantage, prejudice, stereotyping, and vulnerability”: F(C) v. Albert (Vital Statistics), 2014 ABQB 237 at para. 58; see also Rainbow  Committee of Terrace v. City of Terrace, 2002 BCHRT 26 at paras. 47-51. They are stereotyped as “diseased, confused, monsters and freaks”: Nixon v. Vancouver Rape Relief Society, 2002. 
BCHRT 1 at paras. 136137, overturned 2005 BCCA 601 (not on this point). Transpeople face barriers to employment and housing, inequitable access to health care and other vital public services, and heightened risks of targeted harassment and violence. The results include social isolation, as well as higher rates of substance use, poor mental health, suicide, and poverty: XY v. Ontario (Government and Consumer Services), 2012 HRTO 726 at paras. 164-166. For transgender children, antitrans bullying leads to higher rates of absenteeism and poorer educational outcomes, which then has ripple effects for their health and future prospects: Christophe Cornu (2016), “Preventing and addressing homophobic and transphobic bullying in  education; A human-rights based approach using the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child”, Journal of LGBT Youth, 13:1‐2, 6‐17 at pp 7‐8. 

(A) How are they marginalized? They have entire government bodies to fight specifically for their rights.
(B) Substance abuse, suicide, and mental health problems? Doesn’t that signify that there might be something seriously wrong with what they are doing?
(C) Children should not be transitioning. Period.

[64] Mr. Whatcott and the JCCF sought to rely on statistics about the poor health and social outcomes for transgender people as proof that – at best – the merits of being transgender was a matter for ongoing study and debate and – at worst –it was a bad lifestyle choice, whichought to be publicly discouraged. I agree with Ms. Oger that this is an illconceived attempt to “take the data about the consequences of being a victim of oppression, or the consequences of being marginalized, and turn that into the root cause of the issue”.  

[65] The poor health, economic, and social outcomes for many transgender people are not a signal of their inherent worth but rather of the significant degree to which they continue to face marginalization, stigma, and discrimination. They illustrate how much work remains to be done to make the Code’s objective of an equal society into a reality. 

(A) The Tribunal specifically states they will not consider statistical data. How very “scientific and reasoned” of them.
(B) Another straw-man argument. No one is saying these people are not worthy, but that there are very serious mental health issues that need to be addressed. Issues the tribunal has no interest in addressing.

[75] There is no dispute that a decision against Mr. Whatcott would limit his Charter right to freedom of religion. Ms. Oger concedes that Mr. Whatcott has a sincerely held religious belief that it is his duty to spread his views about transgender people: Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 at para. 65. This concession was appropriate. Mr. Whatcott identifies as Christian and describes himself as a “flawed Christian activist”. He says that his theology largely lines up with that of the Lutheran Church. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that Evangelical Christians, and I believe it is fair to count Mr. Whatcott as one, “carry their religious beliefs and values beyond their private lives and into their work, education, and politics”: TWU at para. 67. This is certainly true of Mr. Whatcott. For many years, he has manifested his religious beliefs through activism, beginning with antiabortion activism and then, in more recent years, in activism against the LGBTQ community. His beliefs about transgender people namely that they do not exist and are engaged in a falsehood  stem from his interpretation of the Christian Bible. He believes it is God’s will that he spread the Christian gospel and his views about the “morality” of being transgender. 

(A) Now we get to the heart of it. This would actually limit religious freedom.
(B) The Tribunal knows this, and will act against it anyway.

[77] There is similarly no dispute that a decision against Mr. Whatcott would limit his freedom to publicly express his views about transgender people generally, and Ms. Oger specifically. This engages his right to free expression. As I will discuss below, the scope of freedom of expression, and the significance of any possible infringement, varies according to the type of speech and the extent to which it furthers or detracts from the core values underlying the freedom. However, at this threshold stage, it is sufficient that the Flyer was a form of expression and that any decision restricting Mr. Whatcott’s right to distribute it publicly would limit his expressive rights to some extent. 

[78] With respect to Mr. Whatcott’s s. 7 Charter rights, I agree with the Attorney General that it would not be fair to consider that argument, which was raised for the first time in Mr. Whatcott’s final reply, after the hearing of this complaint had concluded. Regardless, the argument has no merit. A decision by this Tribunal would not restrict Mr. Whatcott’s life, liberty, or security of the person. The remedial jurisdiction conferred by s. 37 of the Code is in no way equivalent to penal consequences. It does not threaten Mr. Whatcott’s life or liberty. While I accept that individuals found to violate the Code may encounter, as a consequence, a degree of stigma and social disapproval, such consequences do not rise to a level of “serious  state imposed psychological stress

(A) No threat to his security? Try not paying the fine and see what happens.
(B) You also say the Commission “will” order the so-called bad behaviour to stop. And if it doesn’t, you’ll fine him again.
(C) Who cares if this is the first time the argument has been brought up?

Now a quote from the Supreme Court of Canada:

First and foremost, free expression is essential to the proper functioning of democratic governance. As Rand J. put it, “government by the free public opinion of an open society . . . demands the condition of a virtually unobstructed access to and diffusion of ideas”: Switzman, at p. 306. 
.
  Second, the free exchange of ideas is an “essential precondition of the  search for truth”: R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697, at p. 803, per  McLachlin J. This rationale, sometimes known as the “marketplace of ideas”, extends beyond the political domain to any areaof debate where truth is sought through the exchange of information and ideas. Information is disseminated and propositions debated. In the course of debate, misconceptions and errors are exposed. What withstands testing  emerges as truth. 
.
  Third, free expression has intrinsic value as an aspect of self‐realization for both speakers and listeners. As the majority observed in Irwin Toy, at p. 976, “the diversity in forms of individual selffulfillment and human flourishing ought to be cultivated in an essentially tolerant, indeed welcoming, environment not only for the sake of those who convey a meaning, uut also for the sake of those to whom it is conveyed”.  Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61 at paras. 4750; see also R v. Keegstra,  [1990] 3 SCR 697 [Keegstra], at paras. 87‐89; 

This is quite laughable, as the Tribunal has no interest in the factual basis of Whatcott’s claim (that Oger is male), nor in the statistical research and evidence regarding transgenders in general.

[119] I reject this proposition in the strongest possible terms. The question of whether transgender people exist and are entitled to dignity in this province is as valuable to ongoing public debate as whether one race is superior to another. This does not mean that all expression that criticizes or questions the existence of transgender people violates the Code. Here I distinguish between public debate about, for example, the scope of rights that different groups in society may be afforded, and commentary like that which is in the Flyer, which denies the very existence of transpeople. Understood in its proper context, it is simply not accurate to place this type of expression at the core of s. 2(b) values. 

(A) False equivalence. The reality of transitioning is not the same thing as racial supremacy.
(B) False equivalence. Questioning whether trans-people exist is not the same thing as saying a person should not have dignity.
(C) The flyer is inappropriate, but once again the Tribunal dodges the issue of “truth”.

[125] This argument confuses distinctions with discrimination. Efforts to increase the participation and representation of groups which have historically been excluded from political life serve the goals of achieving substantive equality and enriching Canada’s democracy. But to advocate against including those groups in politics is not the same thing as arguing for their deliberate inclusion. The law has long understood that identical treatment of groups is often the very source of serious inequality: Kapp at para. 27, citing Andrews. Put another way, “different treatment in the service of equity for disadvantaged groups is an expression of [substantive] equality, not an exception to it”: P. W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (5th ed. Supp. 2007), vol. 2, at p. 5553; cited with approval in Kapp at para. 37. It is simply not reasonable to equate efforts to increase the representation of disadvantaged groups in government with those which would seek to continue to exclude them. While I acknowledge that individual voters may choose to discriminate within the privacy of a ballot box, it does not further Canada’s democracy to suggest that a person’s connection with a historically disadvantaged group is a legitimate point on which to openly campaign against them. 

To summarize this word salad: ACTUAL equal treatment of people can be wrong, since it doesn’t take “historical marginalization” into account. Hence the idea of 15(2) of the Charter (affirmative action). This is essentially different rules for different groups in order to “increase representation”.

The decision is long one (100 pages), but this covers the main points. The Tribunal also goes on at length about Whatcott refusing to refer to Oger as “she” despite being repeatedly told not to.

While Whatcott comes off as a bit of a jerk, it is hard to come up with much sympathy for Oger, who is essentially a professional victim. The proposed “hate map” is essentially a doxing tool for opinions that they don’t agree with.

It is also disturbing to see the Tribunal so uninterested in fact or truth. Legitimate concerns about whether a person can transition are deemed hate speech. Further, the tribunal doesn’t care for evidence presented regarding statistics of trans-people. If anything, it is deemed as more of a reason to grant special status.

Whatcott “identifies” as a Christian activist, yet Oger “really is” a woman. The Tribunal is inconsistent in their own standards.

And as seems to be the case in all provinces, the “human rights” code stipulates that no intent is necessary for a finding against a person or group.

Will there be an appeal (in the form of an application for judicial review)? We will find out. But this sets a very bad precedent.

Posted on

Canadian Gov’t Purges “Sunni” & “Shia” From 2019 Terrorism Report (& Bill C-59)

(From the Global News article)

(From the Government Report on terrorism)

1. Important Links

(1) https://globalnews.ca/news/5230488/government-removes-sunni-shia-from-terrorism-threat-report/
(2) https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/pblc-rprt-trrrsm-thrt-cnd-2018/index-en.aspx
(3) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=9057418

2. View The Disclaimer

April 29, 2019 Update
As per the Minister of Public Safety’s statement on the 2018 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada, a review of the language used to describe extremism has been undertaken and is ongoing. The Government’s communication of threats must be clear, concise, and cannot be perceived as maligning any groups. As we continue this review, it is apparent that in outlining a threat, it must be clearly linked to an ideology rather than a community. The Government will carefully select terminology that focuses on the intent or ideology. As a first step, the Government has updated terminology used in the 2018 report to eliminate terminology that unintentionally impugns an entire religion. Going forward, the Government of Canada is committed to applying a bias-free approach to the terminology used to describe any threats inspired by ideology or groups.

You can’t make this up. The Feds have purged references to “Sunni” or “Shia” or Islam in general to avoid offending anyone. And let’s be clear, when Goodale talks about “impugning and entire religion”, he is talking about Islam. It’s not Buddhists or Pastafarians committing terrorism everywhere.

3. Table Of Contents

Ministerial Foreword
Executive Summary

  • Part 1: The Current Terrorist Threat Environment
  • The Current Terrorist Threat to Canada
  • Canadian Extremist Travellers

The International Threat Environment
Europe
The Middle East and South/South-East Asia
Africa

Part 2: Threat Methods and Capabilities Observed Globally in 2018

  • Low-Sophistication Tactics, High Impacts
  • Threats to Transportation Infrastructure
  • Chemical and Biological Weapons
  • Terrorist Financing
  • Terrorist Use of the Internet and Cyber Capabilities

Part 3: Canada’s Approach to Countering Terrorism

  • Managing Canadian Extremist Travellers
  • Arrests and Prosecutions in Canada for Committing Terrorism Offences
  • Bill C-59 – An Act Respecting National Security matters & Bill C-21 – An Act to Amend the Customs Act
  • Enhanced Passenger Protection Program
  • Immigration Security Screening
  • The Listing of Terrorist Entities
  • Countering Radicalization to Violence
  • Addressing Online Threats
  • Canada’s International Partnerships and Cooperation

Conclusion

4. Ministerial Foreword

Ministerial Foreword
I am pleased to provide the annual update on the threat to Canada from terrorism and violent extremism – part of our commitment to being open and transparent through a balanced and frank assessment of the current threat environment.
In many ways, this year’s threat update is similar to those of the recent past. The threat posed by those espousing violent interpretations of religious, ideological or political views persists, but has remained stable. The National Terrorism Threat Level – a broad indicator of the terrorist threat to Canada – remains at Medium, unchanged since 2014.
.
Canada is known internationally as a welcoming and peaceful nation. But we are also resolute in our determination to reject and combat violent extremism in all forms. Put simply, violence and threats of violence have no place in Canadian society. Stopping and eradicating this is a top priority of the Government.
.
Conflicts and the evolving global security environment continue to shape the nature of the terrorist threat to Canada. Those in Canada who are inspired by conflicts abroad may seek to carry out an attack here. Despite the ongoing erosion of Daesh, we have not seen an increase in the number of Canadian Extremist Travellers (CETs) attempting to return. Our top priority in managing CETs also remains the same – to bring them to justice using all resources at our disposal. Canadians expect their Government to keep them safe and to keep pace with evolving threats, tactics and global trends. Our security, intelligence, law enforcement, border and armed forces – to name a few – work around the clock in this regard. They consistently monitor all threats and review their approaches for how best to deal with them. This includes working closely with our friends and allies.
.
The global nature of terrorist and extremist threats necessitates close cooperation with international partners. Our partnerships are stronger than ever, including with NATO, the Five Eyes community, G7, the European Union, INTERPOL and others. We remain committed to being a collaborative force of good in the world and recognize that this can only be achieved by working together and leveraging our strengths.
.
Domestically, we also continue to build on our multi-layered approach to security. Bill C-59 (An Act Respecting National Security Matters) shaped by public views and concerns on how we as a country approach national security issues, is now closer to final Parliamentary approval and implementation. It brings with it an unprecedented era of transparency and openness and a clear signal of the importance that our departments and agencies have the most up to date mandates, tools and resources at their disposal.
.
Despite everyone’s best efforts, there will be times when our collective security is challenged. There will be competing public views on what we as a nation should do. We will continue to take a measured but firm approach – a collaborative approach that unites our strengths – both as a government and as a nation.

A few points in this introduction:
(1) Goodale refers to “violent interpretation” of ideology or religion, while avoiding the elephant in the room: that religions — like Islam — are violent by nature.

(2) Goodale seems content to “bring to justice” terrorists who commit crimes abroad, but doesn’t seem too focused on preventing their re-entry in the first place.

(3) Goodale talks about a “force for good”, as if preventing terrorism were some sort of moralistic issue.

5. Quotes From Executive Summary

Executive Summary
Canada’s terrorist threat environment remains stable. The principal terrorist threat to Canada continues to stem from individuals or groups who are inspired by violent ideologies and terrorist groups, such as Daesh or al-Qaida (AQ). Canada also remains concerned about threats posed by those who harbour right-wing extremist views. The April 2018 van attack in Toronto is a reminder that violent acts driven by extremists’ views are not exclusively-linked to any particular religious, political or cultural ideology. Furthermore, groups, such as Hizballah, and extremists who support violent means to establish an independent state within India also remain of concern because while their attacks in Canada have been extremely limited, some Canadians continue to support these extremist groups, including through financing. At the time of publication, Canada’s National Terrorism Threat Level remains at medium, as set in early October 2014 – meaning a violent act of terrorism could occur.
.
Though Daesh territorial holdings in the Syria-Iraq conflict zone continue to decline, Canada has not seen a related influx in the number of Canadian Extremist Travellers (CETs) who have returned to Canada, nor does it expect to. Owing to several factors (such as a lack of valid travel documents, denying boarding to aircraft destined for Canada, potential fear of arrest upon return, their continued commitment to Daesh or other groups, having been captured while in Syria and Iraq, or because they have died), CET numbers abroad remain stable at approximately 190 individuals with a nexus to Canada, and close to 60 who have returned.
.
In an effort to project strength and influence to counter its decreasing support and size, Daesh is resorting more frequently to false claims of responsibility for acts of violence, including in Canada. In June 2018, after Faisal Hussain fired on the busy Toronto neighbourhood of Danforth, Daesh quickly claimed responsibility, despite the total absence of any link between the attack and that group or any other terrorist group.
.
While globally, terrorist attacks have seen a decline, particularly in the West, ungoverned and permissive environments continue to allow terrorist groups to regroup or develop capabilities. Al-Qaida, Daesh and their affiliates continue to conduct attacks in the Middle East, South-East Asia, South Asia (Afghanistan) and North and West Africa. The Taliban continues to challenge the authority of the Afghanistan government through terrorist acts, while other groups, such as Jamaat Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen (JNIM), Ansurul Islam, and al-Shabaab remain active in Africa.

6. Other Points To Address

  1. Mentioning the April 2018 van attack seems like going out of the way to say that it’s not only Islam, that anyone can be a terrorist.
  2. And denying the link between Faisal Hussain and Daesh seems an opportunity to make the claim that Islam is (wrongly) getting blamed for everything. But beyond that
  3. All other mentions are Islamic
  • Hizballah is Islamic.
  • Daesh is Islamic.
  • Faisal Hussain is Islamic.
  • “Canadian Extremist Travellers” are Islamic.
  • Al Qaida is Islamic.
  • The Taliban is Islamic.
  • Jamaat Nurat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen is Islamic.
  • Ansurul Islam is Islamic.
  • al-Shabaab is Islamic.

These are all Muslims (except for 1 guy in a van in Toronto).

7. Exerps From Report

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to protest, as well as the rights of freedom of conscience and religion, expression, association and peaceful assembly. It is the evolution from hate to serious acts of politically-motivated violence with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, in regard to its sense of security, that could be considered a terrorism offence

This should be common sense. However, in context it seems designed to deliberately not draw any link between Islam and terrorism.

Although the majority of recent global terrorist attacks can be attributed to individuals inspired by terrorist groups such as Daesh and AQ, other recent events around the world are bringing attention to the threat of violence from individuals who harbour right-wing extremist views.
.
Right-wing extremism (RWE) is traditionally driven by hatred and fear, and includes a range of individuals, groups, often in online communities, that back a wide range of issues and grievances, including, but not limited to: anti-government and anti-law enforcement sentiment, advocacy of white nationalism and racial separation, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, anti-immigration, male supremacy (misogyny) and homophobia. The threat of violence from any individuals, including those holding extreme right-wing views, may manifest in terrorist activity or other forms of criminal violence. However, while racism, bigotry, and misogyny may undermine the fabric of Canadian society, ultimately they do not usually result in criminal behavior or threats to national security.
.
In Canada, individuals who hold extreme right-wing views are active online, leveraging chat forums and online networks to exchange ideas, as opposed to openly promoting violence. These individuals leverage online chats and forums in attempt to create an online culture of fear, hatred and mistrust by exploiting real or imagined concerns.
.
Traditionally, in Canada, violence linked to the far-right has been sporadic and opportunistic. However, attacks perpetrated by individuals who hold extreme right-wing views and other lesser-known forms of ideological extremism can occur. A recent example is the April 2018 van attack in Toronto, Ontario, which resulted in the deaths of 10 people and alerted Canada to the dangers of the online Incel movement. It may be difficult to assess, in the short term, to what extent a specific act was ideologically-driven, or comment while investigations are ongoing or cases are before the court.

Interesting. The report (correctly) states the vast majority of terrorism is related to ideologies such as Daesh and Al-Qaida. It then goes on to blame “right wing extremists”. However, the only example cited here (or in the executive summary was the van attack in April 2018.

That one event seems to be as bad as all the Islamic terrorism elsewhere.

Right-wing extremism is not unique to Canada. In fact, some European RWE groups have established chapters in Canada. Likewise, some Canadian RWE groups have far-right connections in Europe.

This disingenuously conflates unrelated groups. This lumps in: those sick of mass migration and illegal immigration; those sick of globalism; and those sick of forced multiculturalism, with actual terrorist organizations.

Furthermore, some individuals in Canada continue to support violent means to establish an independent state within India. These violent activities have fallen since their height during the 1982-1993 period when individuals and groups conducted numerous terrorist attacks. The 1985 Air India bombing, which killed 331 people, remains the deadliest terrorist plot ever launched in Canada. While attacks around the world in support of this movement have declined, support for the extreme ideologies of such groups remains. For example, in Canada, two organizations, Babbar Khalsa International and the International Sikh Youth Federation, have been identified as being associated with terrorism and remain listed terrorist entities under the Criminal Code

.

Credit where credit is due. At least Sikh terrorism is being called out as well.

8. Canadian Extremist Travellers

The first objective in dealing with returning extremist travellers is to investigate and mitigate the threat they may pose to Canada and to Canadians and to ensure public safety. If there is sufficient evidence, the Government of Canada will pursue charges, and prosecute them to the full extent of the law. Criminal prosecution is the top priority and the preferred course of action. If there is insufficient evidence for a charge, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and its law enforcement, security and intelligence partners will continue their investigation, while other tools are leveraged to manage and contain the threat. These tools include: using a terrorism peace bond to seek to have the court place conditions on the individual (including electronic monitoring); active physical surveillance; using the Secure Air Travel Act to prevent further travel; additional border screening; and/or cancelling, refusing or revoking passports. In certain circumstances, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) may also employ threat reduction measures to reduce the threat posed by a returnee.
.
Canada’s law enforcement, security and intelligence, and defence departments and agencies continue to monitor and respond to the threat of Canadian extremist travellers through a coordinated, whole-of-government approach. When the Government learns that a CET may be seeking to return, federal departments and agencies come together to tailor an approach to address the threat he/she may pose. Key departments and agencies, including Public Safety Canada, Global Affairs Canada (GAC), the RCMP, CSIS, the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre (ITAC), the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces (DND/CAF), Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), Transport Canada (TC) and the Privy Council Office (PCO) work together to assess risks, develop options and manage the return of CETs. The whole-of-government approach enables the collective identification of measures needed to deal with the threat.

Some thoughts:

(1) The safety of the Canadian public seems to be taking a backseat.

(2) Safety measures? How about not letting them back into the country in the first place?

(3) Among those measures: why is “INCARCERATION” not listed?

(4) Prosecution is the preferred method? No, we don’t want them back here, period.

9. Bill C-59 And Young Offenders

A particularly troubling section of Bill C-59, new protections for “Young Offenders”. Is the Government expecting youth to commit or be involved in terrorism? What about adults “identifying” as youth?

Youth Criminal Justice Act

159 Subsection 14(2) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act is replaced by the following:

Orders

(2) A youth justice court has exclusive jurisdiction to make orders against a young person under sections 83.‍3 (recognizance — terrorist activity), 810 (recognizance —fear of injury or damage), 810.‍01 (recognizance — fear of certain offences), 810.‍011 (recognizance — fear of terrorism offence), 810.‍02 (recognizance — fear of forced marriage or marriage under age of 16 years) and 810.‍2 (recognizance — fear of serious personal injury offence) of the Criminal Code and the provisions of this Act apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require. If the young person fails or refuses to enter into a recognizance referred to in any of those sections, the court may impose any one of the sanctions set out in subsection 42(2) (youth sentences) except that, in the case of an order under paragraph 42(2)‍(n) (custody and supervision order), it shall not exceed 30 days.

160 Subsection 20(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Orders under section 810 of Criminal Code

(2) Despite subsection 14(2), a justice has jurisdiction to make an order under section 810 (recognizance — fear of injury or damage) of the Criminal Code in respect of a young person. If the young person fails or refuses to enter into a recognizance referred to in that section, the justice shall refer the matter to a youth justice court.

161 (1) Paragraph 25(3)‍(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(a) at a hearing at which it will be determined whether to release the young person or detain the young person in custody,
(a.‍1) at a hearing held in relation to an order referred to in subsection 14(2) or 20(2),

(2) The portion of subsection 25(6) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Release hearing before justice

(6) When a young person, at a hearing referred to in paragraph (3)‍(a) or (a.‍1) that is held before a justice who is not a youth justice court judge, wishes to obtain counsel but is unable to do so, the justice shall

162 The heading before section 28 of the Act is replaced by the following:

Detention and Release

163 Subsection 29(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Detention as social measure prohibited

29 (1) A youth justice court judge or a justice shall not detain a young person in custody as a substitute for appropriate child protection, mental health or other social measures.

164 Subsection 30(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Designated place of temporary detention

30 (1) Subject to subsection (7), a young person who is detained in custody in relation to any proceedings against the young person shall be detained in a safe, fair and humane manner in any place of temporary detention that may be designated by the lieutenant governor in council of the province or his or her delegate or in a place within a class of places so designated.

165 The heading before section 33 of the Act is replaced by the following:

Application for Release from or Detention in Custody

166 (1) Paragraph 67(1)‍(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(c) the young person is charged with first or second degree murder within the meaning of section 231 of the Criminal Code; or

(2) Paragraph 67(3)‍(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(c) the young person is charged with first or second degree murder within the meaning of section 231 of the Criminal Code; or

167 (1) Subsection 119(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (p):

(p.‍1) an employee of a department or agency of the Government of Canada, for the purpose of administering the Canadian Passport Order;

(2) Subsection 119(2) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (d):

(d.‍1) if an order referred to in subsection 14(2) or 20(2) is made against a young person, the period ending six months after the expiry of the order;

10. last Comments

Despite the overwhelming majority of terrorism being committed by Muslims, in the name of Islam, the Canadian Government tries to downplay that. Actual group names like “Sunni” and “Shia” are stripped from the report, so to not offend anyone.

This gesture of political correctness supposedly is to “not vilify” entire groups. However, it overlooks the elephant in the room, that Islam is directly responsible for most of the terrorism in today’s world. This does no one any good, trying to shade the truth in order to hide the root cause of the majority of terrorism.

It is also clear the Government puts more of a focus on protecting the rights and freedoms of terrorists returning from abroad that it does in protecting Canadians. This must stop.

Posted on

Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan (Destruction of Europe)

(Kalergi Plan, explained by Black Pigeon Speaks)

(Macron’s Reform Agenda)

1. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for UN Population Conferences (1974 Romania, 1984 Mexico, 1994 Egypt)
CLICK HERE, for the Barcelona Declaration (of 1995).
CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 1995).
CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 1998).
CLICK HERE, for the Expert Group of Population Decline (of 2000).
CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2002).
CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2005).
CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2008).
CLICK HERE, for the Declaration on High Level Dialogue on Migration (of2013).
CLICK HERE, for the New York Declaration (of 2016)
CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact (of 2018)
CLICK HERE, for the Charlemagne Prize, for unifying Europe.
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s Multiculturalism Act.

2. Let’s Get A Timeline

  1. 1918 – End of WW1, Austria Hungary broken apart
  2. 1918 onwards – tensions between nations and groups within
  3. 1922 – Kalergi’s Writings of a “Unified Europe”
  4. 1933 – Hitler becomes Chancellor of Germany
  5. 1945 – End of WW2, start of cold war
  6. 1973 – Free trade bloc between 6 European nations
  7. 1974 – Population Conference in Bucharest, Romania
  8. 1984 – Population Conference in Mexico City, Mexico
  9. 1994 – Population Conference in Cairo, Egypt
  10. 1995 – Barcelona Declaration in Barcelona, Spain
  11. 1995 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
  12. 1998 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
  13. 2000 – Expert Report on Population Decline
  14. 2002 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
  15. 2005 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
  16. 2008 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
  17. 2013 – High Level Talks in Migration, UN
  18. 2016 – New York Declaration, NY, USA
  19. 2018 – UN Global Migration Compact, Morocco

3. Who Was At Barcelona?


Barcelona declaration

adopted at the Euro-Mediterranean Conference – 27-28/11/95

• The Council of the European Union, represented by its President, Mr Javier SOLANA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Spain,
• The European Commission, represented by Mr Manuel MARIN, VicePresident,
• Germany, represented by Mr Klaus KINKEL, ViceChancellor and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Algeria, represented by Mr Mohamed Salah DEMBRI, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Austria, represented by Mrs Benita FERREROWALDNER, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
• Belgium, represented by Mr Erik DERYCKE, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Cyprus, represented by Mr Alecos MICHAELIDES, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Denmark, represented by Mr Ole Loensmann POULSEN, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
• Egypt, represented by Mr Amr MOUSSA, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Spain, represented by Mr Carlos WESTENDORP, State Secretary for Relations with the European Community,
• Finland, represented by Mrs Tarja HALONEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• France, represented by Mr Hervé de CHARETTE, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Greece, represented by Mr Károlos PAPOULIAS, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Ireland, represented by Mr Dick SPRING, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Israel, represented by Mr Ehud BARAK, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Italy, represented by Mrs Susanna AGNELLI, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Jordan, represented by Mr AbdelKarim KABARITI, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Lebanon, represented by Mr Fares BOUEZ, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Luxembourg, represented by Mr Jacques F. POOS, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Cooperation,
• Malta, represented by Prof. Guido DE MARCO, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Morocco, represented by Mr Abdellatif FILALI, Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• the Netherlands, represented by Mr Hans van MIERLO, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Portugal, represented by Mr Jaime GAMA, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• the United Kingdom, represented by Mr Malcolm RIFKIND QC MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs,
• Syria, represented by Mr Farouk AL-SHARAA, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Sweden, represented by Mrs Lena HJELM-WALLEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Tunisia, represented by Mr Habib Ben YAHIA, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Turkey, represented by Mr Deniz BAYKAL, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• the Palestinian Authority, represented by Mr Yassir ARAFAT, President of the Palestinian Authority, taking part in the Euro-Mediterranean Conference in Barcelona:

The first sections have to do with free trade and economic cooperation. However, the partnership in social, cultural and human affairs is far more interesting.

Partnership in social, cultural and Human affairs:

Developing human resources, promoting understanding between cultures & exchanges between civil societies

The participants recognize that the traditions of culture and civilization throughout the Mediterranean region, dialogue between these cultures and exchanges at human, scientific and technological level are an essential factor in bringing their peoples closer, promoting understanding between them and improving their perception of each other.

In this spirit, the participants agree to establish a partnership in social, cultural and human affairs. To this end:

they reaffirm that dialogue and respect between cultures and religions are a necessary precondition for bringing the peoples closer. In this connection they stress the importance of the role the mass media can play in the reciprocal recognition and understanding of cultures as a source of mutual enrichment;

they stress the essential nature of the development of human resources, both as regards the education and training of young people in particular and in the area of culture. They express their intent to promote cultural exchanges and knowledge of other languages, respecting the cultural identity of each partner, and to implement a lasting policy of educational and cultural programmes; in this context, the partners undertake to adopt measures to facilitate human exchanges, in particular by improving administrative procedures;

they underline the importance of the health sector for sustainable development and express their intention of promoting the effective participation of the community in operations to improve health and well-being;

they recognize the importance of social development which, in their view, must go hand in hand with any economic development. They attach particular importance to respect for fundamental social rights, including the right to development;

-they recognize the essential contribution civil society can make in the process of development of the EuroMediterranean partnership and as an essential factor for greater understanding and closeness between peoples;
-they accordingly agree to strengthen and/or introduce the necessary instruments of decentralized cooperation to encourage exchanges between those active in development
-within the framework of national laws: leaders of political and civil society, the cultural and religious world, universities, the research community, the media, organizations, the trade unions and public and private enterprises;
-on this basis, they recognize the importance of encouraging contacts and exchanges between young people in the context of programmes for decentralized cooperation;
-they will encourage actions of support for democratic institutions and for the strengthening of the rule of law and civil society;
they recognize that current population trends represent a priority challenge which must be counterbalanced by appropriate policies to accelerate economic takeoff;
-they acknowledge the importance of the role played by migration in their relationships. They agree to strengthen their cooperation to reduce migratory pressures, among other things through vocational training programmes and programmes of assistance for job creation. They undertake to guarantee protection of all the rights recognized under existing legislation of migrants legally resident in their respective territories;

-in the area of illegal immigration they decide to establish closer cooperation. In this context, the partners, aware of their responsibility for readmission, agree to adopt the relevant provisions and measures, by means of bilateral agreements or arrangements, in order to readmit their nationals who are in an illegal situation. To that end, the Member States of the European Union take citizens to mean nationals of the Member States, as defined for Community purposes;

they agree to strengthen cooperation by means of various measures to prevent terrorism and fight it more effectively together;

by the same token they consider it necessary to fight jointly and effectively against drug trafficking, international crime and corruption;

they underline the importance of waging a determined campaign against racism, xenophobia and intolerance and agree to cooperate to that end.

4. Summary


Okay, let’s gather some information here:

  1. Improving perception of them? Sounds like propaganda
  2. Mass media to “play a role”. Okay
  3. Closeness of cultures to be valued
  4. Exchanges to be promoted
  5. Migration to be valued
  6. Must repatriate illegals
  7. campaign against racism, xenophobia and intolerance (no Islamophobia). Could this be to silence critics of this mass migration pact?

In case anyone was wondering, this is to promote multiculturalism, with no expectation of assimilation. While this is promoted as a post-cultural era, the idea is to encourage mass migration (mainly to Europe). Various cultures could then expect accommodation, since tolerance was the norm.

Of course, all of this presupposed that nations were totally fine giving up their national heritage and culture, something that has never proven true.

5. Exerps of Kalergi Plan

This war of annihilation, prepared by European politics, will leave the world war just as far behind in horror as it did the German-French one. His element will be the air – his weapon the poison – his aim is the extermination of the hostile nation. The main fight will be directed against the cities of the hinterland, against women and children. The vanquished nations are destroyed – the victorious mortally wounded emerge from this mass murder. This imminent war means the complete downfall of Europe, its culture and economy. Other continents will take its place. The second danger that escapes a fragmented Europe is the conquest by Russia.

Then the fragmented and divided small states of Europe will face the one Russian world power whose territory is five times larger than the whole of Europe. Neither the small states of Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and the Balkans nor disarmed Germany would then be able to ward off the Russian onslaught. Rhine, Alps, Adriatic would become the border of Europe: until this border also falls and Europe becomes Russia’s western province. There is only one salvation from this danger: the European union. For a united Europe there is no Russian danger. Because it has twice as many people as Russia and a much more developed industry. So the decision about the Russian danger is not with Russia – but with Europe.

Getting originals of Kalergi’s work has been difficult. But here is the basic idea. Individual nation states within Europe lead to violence and war. People’s attachment to ethnicity, culture and heritage leads to violence between groups. However, if there was only one people, then these issues would not exist.

Yes, the Kalergi plan is ethnic cleansing, although the intent was to make for a more peaceful Europe. (Watch BPS’s video above as he explains it very well).

Further, individual nations weaken Europe against Russia. Russia of course is vastly stronger than any individual nation, but could be fended off if the European nations united.

The Kalergi plan was a way to solve both problems: (1) prevent violence between European nations; and (2) unite to be able to stand up to Russia.

As for the Charlemagne Prize, this is an award given to a person who has made extraordinary efforts in uniting Europe. There are some notable winners:
-Jean Claude Juncker won in 2006
-Angela Merkel won in 2008
-Emmanuel Macron won in 2018

The goal of Barcelona Declaration and Kalergi Plan is to destroy the individual European nation and to give rise to a European super state. Of course, the people’s themselves do not wish to give up their culture, language, traditions or ethnicity. Therefore, a high level of duplicity is necessary.

Of course, the aim of the December 10, 2018 UN Global Migration Compact is to erase nations throughout the West, not just Europe.

On a final note: doesn’t the Barcelona Declaration sound a lot like Canada’s Multiculturalism Act? Any unique national identity is to be removed in order to be “diverse and tolerant”

Multiculturalism policy
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.

The Multiculturalism Act is Canada’s version of the Barcelona Declaration. Nothing to unite us as a people, no unique culture, customs, traditions or heritage. Canada is to be “multicultural”, which plainly means it is to have “no” culture.

Also worth noting, Quebec has laws to protect its language and culture, while the rest of Canada does not. Hypocritical.

Instead of preventing conflicts BETWEEN societies, forced multiculturalism ensures there will be conflicts WITHIN societies.