Category: Human Rights

Posted on

The Water Action Hub

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the main page.
CLICK HERE, for the Business for Social Responsibility.
CLICK HERE, for Global Water Challenge.
CLICK HERE, for Human Development Report.
CLICK HERE, for International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Global Water and Sanitation Initiative.
CLICK HERE, for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
CLICK HERE, for Stockholm International Water Institute.
CLICK HERE, for UN Global Compact.
CLICK HERE, for UN Millennium Development Goals.
CLICK HERE, for UNDP Water Governance Programme.
CLICK HERE, for UNEP Collaborating Center on Water and Environment.
CLICK HERE, for UNEP Freshwater Activities.
CLICK HERE, for UNEP Global Environment Outlook.
CLICK HERE, for UNESCO Institute for Water Education.
CLICK HERE, for UNICEF Water, Environment and Sanitation Program.
CLICK HERE, for WaterAid.
CLICK HERE, for Water Footprint Network.
CLICK HERE, for World Bank Group.
CLICK HERE, for World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
CLICK HERE, for World Economic Forum Water Initiative.
CLICK HERE, for World Health Organization.
CLICK HERE, for WWF International.

2. Preamble Of The Group

We also recognize the following:
● Water stress is expected to worsen in many parts of the world as a result of factors including urbanization and population growth, increasing food production, changing consumption patterns, industrialization, water pollution, and climate change.
● The main user of fresh water is agriculture. Though much less is used in manufacturing and services, these sectors can still contribute positively.
● Scarcity and related problems pose material risks but can also, when well managed, create opportunities for improvement and innovation.
● Unsafe drinking water and lack of appropriate sanitation profoundly affect the health and well-being of billions of people, including those who are our customers and employees. In this regard, we note the 2010 resolutions by the UN Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly recognizing the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation.
● Companies can have a direct impact on water management in their own business, as well as an indirect impact by encouraging and facilitating actions by those in their supply chains to improve water management.
● In order to operate in a sustainable manner, and contribute to the vision of the UN Global Compact and the realization of the Millennium Development Goals, companies have a responsibility to make water-resources management a priority.
● Individual and collective efforts – involving partnership with the public sector and civil society and through the supply chain – will be required to adequately address this crisis.

Some thoughts on the preamble:

  1. Changing consumption patterns is a threat to water supply, but the UN promotes mass migration to the West, which leads to people with previously LOW consumption levels now adopting HIGH consumption levels.
  2. Most water use due to agriculture, but that isn’t where the focus seems to be.
  3. UN recognizes water and sanitation as human rights, though interestingly the Human Rights Council is stacked with members who don’t believe in human rights.
  4. Companies have an obligation to make this agenda a priority.
  5. Collective efforts will be required. Can I assume that force and law will be needed in order to accomplish this?

3. Mandate Of The Group

The Mandate is governed by the Steering Committee, which oversees the initiative’s strategic, administrative, and financial arrangements. The CEO Water Mandate Steering Committee is composed of:
(1) Ten corporate representatives from diverse geographies who serve staggered two-year terms. Corporate representatives will be drawn from Action Platform participants only.
(2) One representative of the UN Global Compact Office
(3) Special Advisors representing different stakeholder interests and spheres
(4) Patron sponsors of the Action Platform – Water Security through Stewardship

The Secretariat makes decisions based on a consensus model. When consensus cannot be reached, a simple majority vote decides matters.

So the mandate seems to be fluid, to put it mildly. This “Steering Committee” will decide what the mandate will be, and consisted of these people.
Endorsing Company Members

  1. Troy Jones, Teck Resources
  2. Mark Weick, The Dow Chemical Company
  3. Carlo Galli, Nestlé
  4. Andre Fourie, ABInbev
  5. Naty Barak, Netafim
  6. Inge Huijbrechts, Radisson Hotel Group
  7. Feroz Koor, Woolworth Holdings
  8. Adriana Lagrotta Leles, SANASA
  9. Erika Korosi, BHP
  10. Michael Alexander, Diageo

Some observations on this list:

  • Teck Resources is a mining conglomerate, and Dow Chemical is (no shocker), a chemical company. Strange choices to have on your committee.
  • Interesting to note: The Radisson Hotel in Toronto has been converted into a migrant camp. Of course this could be a total coincidence.
  • Woolsworth Holdings is a retail giant based in South Africa.
  • SANASA is a banking institution.

While individual organizational efforts will be critical in helping to address the water challenge, collective efforts – across sectors and societal spheres – will also be required. Such multi-stakeholder collaboration can draw on significant expertise, capacities and resources. Utilizing frameworks such as the UN Global Compact, companies can participate in collective efforts to address water sustainability.

4. Collective Action

Therefore, we pledge to undertake the following actions, where appropriate, over time:

  • Build closer ties with civil society organizations, especially at the regional and local levels.
  • Work with national, regional and local governments and public authorities to address water sustainability issues and policies, as well as with relevant international institutions – e.g., the UNEP Global Programme of Action.
  • Encourage development and use of new technologies, including efficient irrigation methods, new plant varieties, drought resistance, water efficiency and salt tolerance.
  • Be actively involved in the UN Global Compact’s Country Networks.
  • Support the work of existing water initiatives involving the private sector – e.g., the Global Water Challenge; UNICEF’s Water, Environment and Sanitation Program; IFRC Water and Sanitation Program; the World Economic Forum Water Initiative – and collaborate with other relevant UN bodies and intergovernmental organizations – e.g., the World Health Organization, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the World Bank Group

The collective action that they speak of, is collaborating with the United Nations, and approved partners. This is globalist control over water resources.

Of course, while this wording sounds all lovely and flowery, it is not yet clear what sort of force will be used (if any) to ensure these goals are met.

Globalist regulation of water resources and determination over how it is used, and in what amounts. What could possibly go wrong?

Posted on

Abuse of Safe Third Country Agreement & Coming To Canada Under False Pretenses

CLICK HERE, for previous article on the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement (signed in 2002)

1. Interesting Cases

(1) CLICK HERE, for a marriage of convenience.
Liang v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2014 CanLII 90636 (CA IRB)

(2) CLICK HERE, for committing identity fraud in order to gain entry to Canada.
Shaikh v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 CanLII 89040 (CA IRB)

(3) CLICK HERE, for an actual terrorist wanting to stay in Canada.
Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1997 CanLII 5893 (FC)

(4) CLICK HERE, for a failed US asylum seeker, relying on falsified psychological documents.
X (Re), 2016 CanLII 152912 (CA IRB)

(5) CLICK HERE, for a failed US asylum seeker changing his story this time.
X (Re), 2013 CanLII 99499 (CA IRB)

(6) CLICK HERE, for an Indian man claiming to be from Tibet to gain asylum (Mariam Monself, take note).
X (Re), 2014 CanLII 100882 (CA IRB)

(7) CLICK HERE, for a “refugee” who lived illegally in the US for 14 years, then trying to claim asylum in Canada
X (Re), 2015 CanLII 44019 (CA IRB)

(8) CLICK HERE, for a wanted fugitive from China trying to get asylum in Canada.
X (Re), 2015 CanLII 107837 (CA IRB)

These 8 cases are just a small sample of the tidal wave of fraudulent “refugee” claims that have been made over the last several years. Although many get rejected, many still get through. This happens even when adjudicators admit that applicants have been deceptive.

2. UN Promotes Abuse Of S3CA

CLICK HERE, for the UN link.

Exceptions to the Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada

The U.S. and Canada have an agreement preventing people who first enter one country from applying for asylum or refugee status in the other. This means that if you entered the U.S. first and then try to apply for asylum in Canada, you may not be able to. However, there are exceptions to the agreement that may allow you to apply for asylum in Canada, even if you came to the U.S. first. For one thing, this agreement only applies to you if you are planning on arriving at entry ports on the U.S.-Canada land border. It does not apply if you plan on arriving in Canada at air or marine ports.

The following questions will determine whether you meet any of the exceptions that will allow you to apply for asylum in Canada at a U.S.-Canada land border even if you arrived in the U.S. first.

EXCEPTION # 1 Land Border Entry Ports Only

Are you going to arrive in Canada from a land border?

NO ==> You qualify under this exception!

YES ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

EXCEPTION # 2 Family Connections in Canada

Do you have any of the following family members in Canada?

  • A spouse
  • A common-law partner (a common law partner is person of the same or opposite sex with whom you are cohabiting in a conjugal relationship and have cohabited for at least a year.)
  • A legal guardian
  • A child
  • A father or mother
  • A brother or sister
  • A grandfather or grandmother
  • A grandchild
  • An uncle or aunt
  • A nephew or niece

NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

YES ==> Is your family member any of the following?

  • A Canadian citizen
  • A permanent resident
  • A protected person (i.e. determined to be a refugee or a person in need of protection)
  • Accepted in principle on humanitarian and compassionate grounds (removal order stayed under Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations 233)
  • 18 years of age or over and is a refugee claimant (and the claim has not been rejected, withdrawn, found abandoned or ineligible)
  • 18 years of age or over and is in Canada on a work permit or study permit (but check the exceptions)

    • YES ==> You qualify under this exception!
    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 3 Unaccompanied Minor
    Are you under 18?
    NO ==> You do not qualify under the unaccompanied minor exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.
    YES ==> Were you accompanied here by your father, mother, or legal guardian? Are you married? Is your father, mother, or legal guardian in Canada or the United States?

    If NO to all these questions ==> You qualify under this exception!
    If YES to any of these questions ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 4 Countries to which Canada Does Not Remove

    Are you a national of any of the following countries?

    • Afghanistan
    • Burundi
    • Democratic Republic of Congo
    • Haiti
    • Iraq
    • Liberia
    • Rwanda
    • Zimbabwe

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    YES ==> Have you been convicted of any crimes?

    NO ==> You qualify under this exception!

    YES ==> You may not qualify under this exception. Canada does not admit people who have been convicted of certain crimes. Whether you qualify under this exception depends on the type of crime(s) you were convicted of.

    EXCEPTION # 5 Death Penalty

    Have you been charged or convicted of an offence punishable with the death penalty in the country?

    YES ==> You MAY qualify under this exception. Canada does not admit people who have been convicted of certain crimes. Whether you qualify under this exception depends on the type of crime(s) you were convicted of.

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 6 Valid Visa Exception

    Do you have a valid visa to enter Canada, other than a transit visa?

    YES ==> You qualify under this exception!

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 7 Visa Required in U.S. But Not in Canada

    Are you a national of any of the following countries?

    • Antigua and Barbuda
    • Barbados
    • Botswana
    • Cyprus
    • Greece
    • Malta
    • Mexico
    • Namibia
    • Papua New Guinea
    • Republic of (South) Korea
    • St. Kitts and Nevis
    • St. Lucia
    • St. Vincent
    • Solomon Islands
    • Swaziland
    • Western Samoa

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    YES ==> You qualify under this exception!

    From Canadian Website

    CLICK HERE, for Canadian Government website.

    Where the Agreement is in effect
    The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:
    at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
    by train or
    at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S.

    Exceptions to the Agreement
    Exceptions to the Agreement consider the importance of family unity, the best interests of children and the public interest.
    There are four types of exceptions:

    1. Family member exceptions
    2. Unaccompanied minors exception
    3. Document holder exceptions
    4. Public interest exceptions

    Even if they qualify for one of these exceptions, refugee claimants must still meet all other eligibility criteria of Canada’s immigration legislation. For example, if a person seeking refugee protection has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, that person will not be eligible to make a refugee claim.

    Family member exceptions
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they have a family member who:

    • is a Canadian citizen
    • is a permanent resident of Canada
    • is a protected person under Canadian immigration legislation
    • has made a claim for refugee status in Canada that has been accepted by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB)
    • has had his or her removal order stayed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds
    • holds a valid Canadian work permit
    • holds a valid Canadian study permit, or
    • is over 18 years old and has a claim for refugee protection that has been referred to the IRB for determination. (This claim must not have been withdrawn by the family member, declared abandoned or rejected by the IRB or found ineligible for referral to the IRB.)

    Unaccompanied minors exception
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they are minors (under the age of 18) who:
    are not accompanied by their mother, father or legal guardian
    have neither a spouse nor a common-law partner, and
    do not have a mother, a father or a legal guardian in Canada or the United States.

    Document holder exceptions
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they:
    hold a valid Canadian visa (other than a transit visa)
    hold a valid work permit
    hold a valid study permit
    hold a travel document (for permanent residents or refugees) or other valid admission document issued by Canada, or
    are not required (exempt) to get a temporary resident visa to enter Canada but require a U.S.–issued visa to enter the U.S.

    Public interest exceptions
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if:
    they have been charged with or convicted of an offence that could subject them to the death penalty in the U.S. or in a third country. However, a refugee claimant is ineligible if he or she has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, or if the Minister finds the person to be a danger to the public.

    Making a refugee claim under the Safe Third Country Agreement
    For detailed information on making a refugee claim for protection in Canada at the Canada–U.S. border, please refer to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).

    There are so many exemptions in this agreement that it’s difficult to find someone who “doesn’t” qualify on one or more grounds.

    4. Canada Admits U.S. A Safe Country

    Factor 3: Human rights record of the United States
    The United States meets a high standard with respect to the protection of human rights. It is an open democracy with independent courts, separation of powers and constitutional guarantees of essential human rights and fundamental freedoms.

    Factor 4: Whether the United States is party to an agreement with Canada for the purpose of sharing responsibility with respect to claims for refugee protection

    The Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States was signed on December 5, 2002, came into force on December 29, 2004, and remains in force.

    The US is a safe country. That “should” end the discussion on fake refugees coming here.

    After all, simply being in the country illegally isn’t a defense.

    Posted on

    UN High Level Panel On Global Sustainability – Jordan Peterson Co-Authors

    Jordan Peterson contributed to the U.N. Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Sustainable Development. This certainly raises a lot of questions.

    1. Free Speech Hypocrisy

    2. Important Links

    (1) Peterson deplatforms Faith Goldy at free speech event
    (2) Peterson’s free speech cognitive dissonance
    (3) Peterson Threatens To Sue A Critic
    (4) Peterson files frivolous lawsuit against Laurier University
    (5) http://archive.ipu.org/splz-e/rio+20/rpt-panel.pdf
    (6) Sustainable Development Agenda Unformatted Final Text
    (7) https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/untaskteam_undf/HLP%20P2015%20Report.pdf
    (8) HLP P2015 Report Sustainable Development Agenda
    (9) https://www.un.org/sg/sites/www.un.org.sg/files/documents/management/PRpost2015.pdf
    (10) High Level Panel Rpost 2015
    (11) https://uscib.org/docs/GSPReportOverview_A4%20size.pdf
    (12) Resilient People Resilient Planet GSP Report Overview
    (13) https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/722600?ln=en#record-files-collapse-header
    (14) High Level Panel On Sustainable Development Peterson Named
    (15) https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/about/
    (16) Peterson Confirms UN Involvement (See 1:09)
    (17) Peterson Again Confirms UNSDA Involvement With Publication
    (18) https://nationalpost.com/news/world/jordan-petersons-popular-12-rules-book-banned-by-new-zealand-booksellers-because-of-christchurch-mosque-massacre
    (19) https://hlpf.un.org/

    Note: At the risk of this looking like a hit-piece, the right in Canada should be very wary about embracing this “free speech” warrior as one of their own.

    And what did this work ultimately contribute to?

    3. UN Agenda 2030

    Peterson’s Biography

    Raised and toughened in the frigid wastelands of Northern Alberta, Dr. Peterson has flown a hammer-head roll in a carbon-fiber stuntplane, piloted a mahogany racing sailboat around Alcatraz Island, explored an Arizona meteorite crater with a group of astronauts, built a Native American Long-House on the upper floor of his Toronto home, and been inducted into a Pacific Kwakwaka’wakw family (see charlesjoseph.ca). He’s been a dishwasher, gas jockey, bartender, short-order cook, beekeeper, oil derrick bit re-tipper, plywood mill laborer and railway line worker. He’s taught mythology to physicians, lawyers, and businessmen; worked with Jim Balsillie, former CEO of Blackberry’s Research in Motion, on Resilient People, Resilient Planet, the report of the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Global Sustainability; helped his clinical clients manage the triumphs and catastrophes of life; served as an advisor to senior partners of major Canadian law firms; penned the forward for the 50th anniversary edition of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago; lectured to more than 250,000 people across North America, Europe and Australia in one of the most-well attended book tours ever mounted; and, for The Founder Institute, identified thousands of promising entrepreneurs, in 60 different countries.

    So What’s In This Report?

    Disclaimer: The members of the panel endorse the report and generally agree with its findings. The members think that the message of this report is very important. The recommendations and the vision represent the consensus the panel members reached, but not every view expressed in this report reflects the views of all individual panel members. panel members naturally have different perspectives on some issues. if each panel member had individually attempted to write this report, she or he might have used different terms to express similar points. The panel members look forward to the report stimulating wide public dialogue and strengthening the common endeavour to promote global sustainable development.

    Let’s set this straight. The members, by and large, support the content of the report. Although there may be small discrepancies, on the whole they agree with the content.

    The panel also wishes to thank the civil society organizations that shared their valuable ideas and views during a series of consultations coordinated by the United Nations Non-Governmental liaison service. The full list of contributors from civil society is available from www.un-ngls.org/gsp. furthermore, the panel interacted at various meetings with senior representatives of the following organizations: civicUs: World alliance for citizen participation, eTc Group, the Global campaign for climate action, the huairou commission, oxfam international, stakeholder forum, sustainUs and the World resources institute.

    Interesting list of “organizations” that shared their views.

    Priority Areas For action Include:


    • delivering on the fundamentals of development: international commitments to eradicate poverty, promote human rights and human security and advance gender equality
    • advancing education for sustainable development, including secondary and vocational education, and building of skills to help ensure that all of society can contribute to solutions that address today’s challenges and capitalize on opportunities
    • creating employment opportunities, especially for women and youth, to drive green and sustainable growth
    • enabling consumers to make sustainable choices and advance responsible behaviour individually and collectively
    • Managing resources and enabling a twenty-first-century green revolution: agriculture, oceans and coastal systems, energy and technology, international cooperation
    • building resilience through sound safety nets, disaster risk reduction and adaptation planning

    1/ As with all UN causes, a virtue signal towards human rights and gender equality.

    2/ Advancing education? Propaganda in the classrooms?

    3/ Make work projects with age and gender quotas. Okay.

    4/ Advance responsible behaviour? Will there be some sort of “social credit system”?

    5/ Environmental systems to be managed globally

    6/ Disaster reduction, as in climate change I assume

    Policy Action Needed On

    • incorporating social and environmental costs in regulating and pricing of goods and services, as well as addressing market failures
    • creating an incentive road map that increasingly values long-term sustainable development in investment and financial transactions
    • increasing finance for sustainable development, including public and private funding and partnerships to mobilize large volumes of new financing
    • expanding how we measure progress in sustainable development by creating a sustainable development index or set of indicators

    This is going to be a globalist money pit, with cash flooding from all over the world to achieve some vague goals. And regulating the costs of goods and services? How very Communistic of you.

    (Page 50, Box 13): The Growing Use of Emissions Trading
    “cap and trade” emissions trading systems allow environmental damage to be reflected in market prices. by capping emissions, they guarantee that the desired level of emission reduction is achieved; and by allowing trading, they give business the flexibility to find the cheapest solutions, while rewarding investment in low-carbon technologies and innovation.

    This is the climate change scam on steroids. Carbon dioxide is not pollution, despite what the UN says. Under this scheme, “pollution” can be offset by buying credits, which of course does nothing to actually reduce emissions.

    (Page 64): Institutionalised Governance
    The present section examines aspects of governance and coherence for sustainable development at the national and global levels. it also pays special attention to holding all actors accountable for achieving sustainable development, and many of the recommendations put forward are designed to strengthen accountability at all decision making levels

    This is taking the actual decision making ability away from the people who are elected by and accountable to their citizens.

    (Page 30) Education
    67. investing in education and training provides a direct channel to advancing the sustainable development agenda. it is widely recognized as a tremendously efficient means to promote individual empowerment and lift generations out of poverty, and it yields important development benefits for young people, particularly women.
    .
    68. primary education for all, in particular, is a precondition for sustainable development. despite real progress, we are still not on track to achieving Millennium development Goal 2 by ensuring that all children, boys and girls alike, achieve a full course of primary schooling by 2015. instead, 67 million children of primary school age remain out of school and are still not receiving a primary education. The gap is especially critical for girls, who as of 2008 still made up more than 53 per cent of the out-of-school population. basic education is essential to overcoming barriers to their future employment and political participation, as women presently constitute roughly two thirds of the 793 million adult illiterates worldwide.
    .
    69. The Millennium development Goal on universal primary education has not yet been met, owing in part to insufficient funds, although other barriers exist. international means to supplement funds and support local and national efforts could help to overcome challenges such as teacher shortages and lack of infrastructure. The World bank’s Global partnership for education provides one model to help countries develop and implement sound education strategies.
    .
    70. While primary education is the foundation of development, post-primary and secondary education and vocational training are as crucial in building a sustainable future. every added year of education in developing countries increases an individual’s income by 10 per cent or more on average. studies also show that women in developing countries who complete secondary school have on average one child fewer than women who complete only primary school, leading to more economic wealth within families and decreased intergenerational poverty. Moreover, post-primary education based on a curriculum designed to develop key competencies for a twenty-first-century economy — such as ecosystem management, science, technology and engineering — can encourage innovation and accelerate technology transfer, as well as provide skills vital for new green jobs. yet today it is estimated that fewer than a quarter of children complete secondary school.

    I can’t be the only one thinking that this “global” education push will just lead to propaganda to be used against children. Rather than teaching the basics, kids will be indoctrinated about how to be good global citizens.

    Also worth noting, wherever this education takes root, it leads to young children being exposed to highly sexual content.

    4. (Page 54) Innovative Sources of Financing
    158. other innovative sources of financing can be used at the global, regional or national level as a way of pricing externalities, as well as of generating revenue that can be used to finance other aspects of sustainability. The reform of tax systems to shift taxation away from employment and towards consumption and resource use can help incentivize greener, more resource-efficient growth. Tax deductions to incentivize sustainable behaviour can also be highly effective.
    .
    159. While the political acceptability of innovative sources of finance and new fiscal measures will vary by country, as past efforts have shown, recent years have seen particular attention paid to the potential for this kind of approach to be used at the global level. The panel discussed and agreed on the need to further explore new areas of innovative sources of finance. This could build on, for instance, the work of the high-level advisory Group of the secretary-General on climate change financing. in terms of sources, a number of categories were identified by the advisory Group (see box 16).
    .
    160. a number of important sectors of the global economy are currently untaxed, despite the externalities they generate; these include emissions from fossil fuel combustion in the international maritime and aviation sectors. a tax on the most important energy-related greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, would be another economically efficient means of addressing externalities.

    recommendation 27
    161. governments should establish price signals that value sustainability to guide the consumption and investment decisions of households, businesses and the public sector. in particular, governments could:
    .
    a. establish natural resource and externality pricing instruments, including carbon pricing, through mechanisms such as taxation, regulation or emissions trading systems, by 2020;
    .
    b. ensure that policy development reflects the positive benefits of the inclusion of women, youth and the poor through their full participation in and contribution to the economy, and also account for the economic, environmental and social costs;
    .
    c. reform national fiscal and credit systems to provide long-term incentives for sustainable practices, as well as disincentives for unsustainable behaviour;
    .
    d. Develop and expand national and international schemes for payments for ecosystem services in such areas as water use, farming, fisheries and forestry systems;
    .
    e. Address price signals that distort the consumption and investment decisions of households, businesses and the public sector and undermine sustainability values. governments should move towards the transparent disclosure of all subsidies, and should identify and remove those subsidies which cause the greatest detriment to natural, environmental and social resources;
    .
    f. Phase out fossil fuel subsidies and reduce other perverse or trade-distorting subsidies by 2020. The reduction of subsidies must be accomplished in a manner that protects the poor and eases the transition for affected groups when the products or services concerned are essential.

    4. Some Reflection

    This is all about finding new ways to tax people, and regulate their behaviour. Absolutely leads to complete government control. Worst of all, it wouldn’t even be our government doing the regulating.

    The review will stop here, but please read through the document in its entirety. Anyone who supports it is no friend of freedom, or of sovereignty.

    Posted on

    Infanticide #6: Fallout And Some Pushback

    1. Other Articles on Abortion/Infanticide

    (1) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-universities-fighting-against-free-speech-and-free-association-in-court/
    (2) https://canucklaw.ca/the-new-lindsay-shepherd-statistics-are-now-violence-infanticide-2/
    (3) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-part-3-ny-virginia-to-legalise-up-to-birth-abortion/
    (4) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-part-4-leave-no-survivors/
    (5) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-5-un-endorses-abortion-as-human-right-even-for-kids/

    2. Important Links

    (1) http://toresays.com/2019/03/23/oregon-bill-passed-to-legalize-starving-mentally-ill-patients-so-they-die-faster/
    (2) https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2018R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB4135/Enrolled
    (3) http://toresays.com/2019/03/21/beto-constituent-arrested-for-capital-murder-may-believe-infanticide-is-her-legal-right/
    (4) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/new-yorks-ultrapermissive-abortion-law-forced-prosecutors-to-drop-a-charge-against-a-man-who-allegedly-murdered-his-pregnant-girlfriend
    (5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_heartbeat_bill
    (6) CLICK HERE, for Florida’s SB 492, to make it a felony for a doctor to perform abortion if heartbeat detected.
    (7) ttps://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2019/00235
    (8) https://legislativenavigator.myajc.com/#bills/HB/481
    (9) http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=hb0933&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2019RS
    (10) http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=hb0978&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2019RS
    (11) https://legiscan.com/MO/bill/HB126/2019
    (12) http://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=2903&year=2019&sessiontype=RS
    (13) https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/311/text
    (14) http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/march/lsquo-defunded-of-all-taxpayer-money-rsquo-ohio-withdraws-all-funding-from-planned-parenthood

    3. Stabbing Baby Post-Birth is “Abortion”

    From the Toresays.com article, a 17 year old Texas teenager apparently gave birth, then murdered her infant. Here is a quote:

    The infant girl was delivered naturally and there were nine entry wound sites. The infant was stabbed 5 times in her back, once on her side and three times in the neck. This was determined by Dr. Diaz who performed the forensic examination. She also determined that the child was found 12 hours after birth and died to homicidal violence.

    Many of them quoted the snippets of coverage by MSM who claimed killing a child up until the time of birth is a “right of women’s health”. All these young children believe they have the right to end the life of an infant because “My Body My Right”.

    What this young lady did was murder. She stabbed an innocent young baby girl 9 times and abandoned her in a shed and went straight to back to bed. The rhetoric of the radical leftists MSM along with the educational system that purports radical grievances and ideologies has torn the fabric of basic morals and the sanctity of life. “

    This is disgusting. How did we get to the point where not only abortion is legal, but then giving birth and then killing your child is considered “your right”?

    Perhaps the rationale here is: “well, I saved the taxpayers some money by not having them pay for a doctor, so I did you a favour.”

    But at least there is some good news. The recent surge in pro-death sentiments has led to some backlash, and people reaffirming that life really does matter.

    Posted on

    Review Of Mark Bray’s Book: Antifa, The Anti-Fascist Handbook


    Yes, this came out in 2017, but still worth a read.

    Check out this amazing review of Antifa by YouTuber Matt Christiansen.

    This review will mostly focus on the opening part. This is for a few reasons.
    First: The book is fairly long.
    Second: It gets very repetitive.
    Third: You can get a good understanding just from the introduction.

    Despite a resurgence of white-supremacist and fascistic violence across Europe and the United States, most consider the dead and the living to be safe because they believe fascism to be safely dead — in their eyes, the fascist enemy lost definitively in 1945. But the dead were not so safe when Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi described spending time in Mussolini’s prison camps as a “vacation” in 2003 or the French Front National (National Front) politician Jean-Marie Le Pen called Nazi gas chambers a mere “detail” of history in 2015.”

    Assuming these details are accurate, Mark Bray lists 2 European leaders making inappropriate remarks as evidence of fascistic violence rising.

    This book takes seriously the transhistorical terror of fascism and the power of conjuring the dead when fighting back. It is an unabashedly partisan call to arms that aims to equip a new generation of anti-fascists with the history and theory necessary to defeat the resurgent Far Right. Based on sixty-one interviews with current and former anti-fascists from seventeen countries in North America and Europe, it expands our geographical and temporal outlook to contextualize opposition to Trump and the alt-right within a much wider and broader terrain of resistance. Antifa is the first transnational history of postwar anti-fascism in English and the most comprehensive in any language. It argues that militant anti-fascism is a reasonable, historically informed response to the fascist threat that persisted after 1945 and that has become especially menacing in recent years. You may not walk away from this book a convinced anti-fascist, but at least you will understand that anti-fascism is a legitimate political tradition growing out of a century of global struggle.

    Okay, some points to take away from this.

    (1) The book’s author admits it is very partisan, and is a call to arms. And as he will show, he means it quite literally.

    (2) Opposition to Trump and the Alt-Right? Seems an admission that Trump himself is not Alt-Right.

    (3) Militant fascism is appropriate.

    As historian Robert Paxton argued, fascists “reject any universal value other than the success of chosen peoples in a Darwinian struggle for primacy.” Even the party platforms that fascists put forward between the world wars were usually twisted or jettisoned entirely when the exigencies of the pursuit of power made those interwar fascists uneasy bedfellows with traditional conservatives. “Left” fascist rhetoric about defending the working class against the capitalist elite was often among the first of their values to be discarded. Postwar (after World War II) fascists have experimented with an even more dizzying array of positions by freely pilfering from Maoism, anarchism, Trotskyism, and other left-wing ideologies and cloaking themselves in “respectable” electoral guises on the model of France’s Front National and other parties

    Bray seems not to grasp the hypocrisy here. This so-called Anti-Fascist movement does exactly that: it promotes the success of “marginalised people” in a struggle for supremacy. He is also correct about the “Left’s” claim to defend the working class is the first to be discarded.

    Some historians have used this literal, minimalist definition to describe as “anti-fascist” a wide variety of historical actors, including liberals, conservatives, and others, who combated fascist regimes prior to 1945. Yet, the reduction of the term to a mere negation obscures an understanding of anti-fascism as a method of politics, a locus of individual and group self-identification, and a transnational movement that adapted preexisting socialist, anarchist, and communist currents to a sudden need to react to the fascist menace. This political interpretation transcends the flattening dynamics of reducing anti-fascism to the simple negation of fascism by highlighting the strategic, cultural, and ideological foundation from which socialists of all stripes have fought back. Yet, even within the Left, debates have raged between many socialist and communist parties, antiracist NGOs, and others who have advocated a legalistic pursuit of antiracist or anti-fascist legislation and those who have defended a confrontational, direct-action strategy of disrupting fascist organizing. These two perspectives have not always been mutually exclusive, and some anti-fascists have turned to the latter option after the failure of the former, but in general this strategic debate has divided leftist interpretations of anti-fascism.

    (1) The author sees liberals and conservatives as unable to stop fascists, though he admits they are opposed to it.

    (2) An interesting admission: Apparently legal and non-violent means of stopping fascism are ineffective, hence the need to turn to violence.

    At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase incorrectly ascribed to Voltaire that “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” After Auschwitz and Treblinka, anti-fascists committed themselves to fighting to the death the ability of organized Nazis to say anything.

    Thus, anti-fascism is an illiberal politics of social revolutionism applied to fighting the Far Right, not only literal fascists. As we will see, anti-fascists have accomplished this goal in a wide variety of ways, from singing over fascist speeches, to occupying the sites of fascist meetings before they could set up, to sowing discord in their groups via infiltration, to breaking any veil of anonymity, to physically disrupting their newspaper sales, demonstrations, and other activities. Militant anti-fascists disagree with the pursuit of state bans against “extremist” politics because of their revolutionary, anti-state politics and because such bans are more often used against the Left than the Right.

    A lot to unpack in these passages:

    (1) Anti-fascism is illiberal.

    (2) Anti-fascists reject free speech ideals.

    (3) Anti-fascists don’t believe “Nazis” should have the right to speak at all in any organized way.

    (4) Anti-fascism opposes the far right, not just fascism.

    (5) Anti-fascists will drown out speakers they don’t like.

    (6) Anti-fascists will infiltrate groups they don’t like.

    (7) Anti-fascists will commit violence.

    Bray makes an interesting comment about bans being used more often against the left than the right. Bray seems completely unaware that his words make such a ban seem popular.

    So who does Mark Bray reject?
    A/ Nazis, Fascists
    B/ Far right individuals
    C/ Conservatives
    D/ Liberals, or at least liberal beliefs
    Or, to be blunt, most of the political spectrum.

    Despite the various shades of interpretation, antifa should not be understood as a single-issue movement. Instead, it is simply one of a number of manifestations of revolutionary socialist politics (broadly construed). Most of the anti-fascists I interviewed also spend a great deal of their time on other forms of politics (e.g., labor organizing, squatting, environmental activism, antiwar mobilization, or migrant solidarity work). In fact, the vast majority would rather devote their time to these productive activities than have to risk their safety and well-being to confront dangerous neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Antifa act out of collective self-defense.

    (1) This seems like a bogus attempt to give Antifa some legitimacy. Saying it is more than a single issue movement distracts from the harm it does to free societies. Remember, this group openly rejects free speech and liberal ideology.

    (2) Just because Antifa members have other things to do with their lives doesn’t whitewash the violence they commit against speakers they disagree with.

    (3) Collective self defense? Who is the collective? Antifa has written off everyone who is Liberal and any further right. And attacking people whose viewpoints you don’t like is not “self-defense”.

    Finally, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that anti-fascism has always been just one facet of a larger struggle against white supremacy and authoritarianism.

    The lack of self awareness here. Mark Bray advocates for a violent, illiberal, ideology that rejects free speech …. but at the same time rejects authoritarianism.

    For this reason, it is vital to understand anti-fascism as a solitary component of a larger legacy of resistance to white supremacy in all its forms. My focus on militant anti-fascism is in no way intended to minimize the importance of other forms of antiracist organizing that identify with anti-imperialism, black nationalism, or other traditions. Rather than imposing an anti-fascist framework on groups and movements that conceive of themselves differently, even if they are battling the same enemies using similar methods, I focus largely on groups that self-consciously situate themselves within the anti-fascist tradition.

    -Anti-fascism is just part of the bigger picture?
    -Your wording is confusing. Is BLACK NATIONALISM a good thing?
    -You just focus on the violent groups? Okay.

    Mark Bray’s Fall 2017 Book Tour
    9/16 Philadelphia: Wooden Shoe Books (w/ George Ciccariello-Maher)
    9/18 Durham, NC: Duke University
    9/19 Chapel Hill, NC: Flyleaf Books
    9/23 Atlanta: A Cappella Books
    9/25 Richmond, VA: Babes of Carytown
    9/26 Highland Park, NJ: Reformed Church of Highland Park
    9/27 Brooklyn: Powerhouse Arena (w/ Kim Kelly)
    9/28 Baltimore: Red Emma’s
    9/29 DC: Politics and Prose
    10/5 Ithaca, NY: Ithaca College
    10/7 Rochester, NY: Gay Alliance of the Genesee Valley
    10/8 Pittsburgh: National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 84
    10/9 Detroit: The International Institute of Metropolitan Detroit
    10/10 Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Friends Meeting
    10/11 Flint, MI: University of Michigan at Flint
    10/12 Chicago: (info tbd)
    10/15 Minneapolis (info tbd)
    10/16 Madison, WI: A Room of One’s Own
    10/17 Detroit: Wayne State University
    10/18 Toronto: Workers’ Action Center, 720 Spadina Ave., Suite 223
    10/19 Ottawa: Dalhousie Community Center
    10/26 Woodstock, VT: Yankee Bookshop
    10/27 Montreal: CÉDA, 2515 rue Delisle
    10/30 Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University (see below)

    No one tried to shut him down. Weak fascists.

    This guy is a lunatic, who supports violent, illiberal policies, and opposes free speech. Ironic that he relies on free speech to sell his book, and to promote his ideas.

    That was just the introduction covered. But Bray repeatedly conflates speakers and ideas he doesn’t like with fascists. He also conflates right wingers with Nazis and fascists.

    Could Antifa Logic Shut Down Antifa?
    Serious thought: if you say that violence must be used to prevent violence from happening, could groups of people not pre-emptively attack you? This is the precedent you set.

    Posted on

    Florida Judge Rules Using Fake Documents To Get Driver’s License Isn’t Illegal

    CLICK HERE, for text of the ruling.
    CLICK HERE, for media on the subject.

    “BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

    ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

    THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Government’s Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal Order (“Motion”), ECF No. [53]. The Court has considered the Motion, the Defendant’s Response in Opposition, ECF No. [54], and is otherwise fully advised. For the following reasons, the Motion is denied.

    The Government asks the Court to reconsider its ruling dismissing the Superseding Indictment against the Defendant. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for motions for reconsideration. In ruling on a motion for reconsideration in a criminal case, federal district courts apply civil standards and exercise substantial discretion. See United States v. Sabooni, No. 09-20298-CR, 2014 WL 4385446, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 4, 2014) (Seitz, J.) (citing United States v. Pugh, 426 F. App’x 876, 876 (11th Cir. 2011)). “The only grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” Smith v. Ocwen Fin., 488 F. App’x 426, 428 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)). “A motion for reconsideration should not simply rehash previously litigated issues[.]” United States v. Russo, No. 11-6337-RSR, 2011 WL 3044844, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 25, 2011) (Rosenbaum, J.); see also Smith, 488 F. App’x at 428 (“A motion for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise arguments, or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment” (citing Arthur, 500 F.3d at 1343))).
    In its Motion, the Government rehashes essentially the same arguments raised in its Response to the Defendant’s Motion for Dismissal, during argument at calendar call, and in its Response to Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum. The Government disagrees with the Court’s conclusion that the Government has failed to identify any federal statute or regulation prescribing an Order of Supervision as evidence of authorized stay in the United States. Yet the Government fails to point to any new facts or law, demonstrate clear error or manifest injustice, or identify any federal statute or regulation that would require the Court to change its prior finding. Simply put, the Government’s arguments amount to “mere disagreement” with the Court and do not warrant reconsideration. See Linet Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Florida, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2015) (affirming denial of reconsideration where plaintiff merely “disagreed with the district court’s treatment of certain facts and its legal conclusions” in the earlier order under review); see also Roggio v. United States, No. 11-22847-CIV, 2013 WL 11320226, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2013) (Goodman, J.).

    It appears the Government argues that evidence of authorized employment in the United States necessarily equates to evidence of authorized stay in the United States. However, this argument is not persuasive because Section 1546(a) clearly delineates documents evidencing “authorized stay” and documents evidencing “authorized employment” as two distinct forms of authorization. By equating these two forms of authorization, the Government’s interpretation of Section 1546(a) necessarily renders the words “or [authorized] employment” superfluous. See In Re Walter Energy, Inc., 911 F.3d 1121 (11th Cir. 2018) (“[W]e generally construe a statute so that ‘no clause, sentence, or word’ is rendered superfluous, void, or insignificant.” (quoting TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001))). While the Court agrees with the Government that, when amending Section 1546(a) in 1986, Congress intended to broaden the types of documents encompassed by Section 1546(a) beyond those “required for entry into the United States,” see ECF No. , the Government’s Superseding Indictment did not provide the Defendant notice of any intent to prove that an Order of Supervision is “prescribed by statute or regulation… as evidence of authorized… employment in the United States,” ECF No. [22].

    Accordingly, it is
    ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Government’s Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal Order, ECF No. [53], is DENIED.

    DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 7th day of March, 2019.

    This is absurd. The driver’s license was obtained under false pretenses. Shrugging this off as “procedural” is setting a dangerous precedent. It will be interesting to see if this is appealed.

    Hopefully either it is overturned, or the State Congress will enact legislation to prevent this from happening again.