Category: Human Rights

Posted on

UN Parliamentary Assembly Proposed (a.k.a Global Government)

(The globalist UN, showing its true colours once again)

(In 2007, the Canadian House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee voted to endorse the idea of the UN Parliament. Stephen Harper was Prime Minister. Self-identified “populist” Maxime Bernier would soon be the Foreign Affairs Minister, and say nothing.)

(Seriously, this was previously approved in 1993?)

(1) https://en.unpacampaign.org/proposal/
(2) http://archive.is/GMgwO
(3) https://en.unpacampaign.org/supporters/survey/
(4) http://archive.is/KpIqW
(5) https://en.unpacampaign.org/supporters/overview/?mapcountry=CA&mapgroup=mem
(6) http://archive.is/P7ZS9

(7) https://en.unpacampaign.org/meetings/november2007/
(8) http://archive.is/NKaj8
(9) http://archive.is/kRdVJ
(10) https://en.unpacampaign.org/meetings/november2008/
(11) http://archive.is/z1jUo
(12) http://archive.is/tNX9Z
(13) https://en.unpacampaign.org/239/establishment-of-a-global-parliament-discussed-at-international-meeting-in-new-york/
(14) http://archive.is/5lMyX
(15) http://archive.is/dXbo6
(16) https://en.unpacampaign.org/265/declaration-calls-for-intergovernmental-conference-on-un-parliament/
(17) http://archive.is/dXbo6
(18) https://en.unpacampaign.org/311/post-2015-agenda-should-include-elected-un-assembly-to-strengthen-democratic-participation/
(19) http://archive.is/xloAX
(20) archive.is/I4Mtb
(21) https://en.unpacampaign.org/files/declaration/en.pdf

To all the conspiracy theorists who believe that the UN is proposing setting up a one world government, your fears just became validation.

The UN formally proposes to do exactly that.

2. Quotes From Site

The proposal of a UN Parliamentary Assembly
.
The proposal of a UN Parliamentary Assembly
.
In this age of globalization, more and more issues have a global dimension that requires global cooperation. At the UN and other international fora, governments come together to negotiate and decide on policies that affect us all.
.
The UN Charter begins on the promising opening words: “We the peoples.” However, one will seek in vain for any clause in the document that specifies a means by which ordinary people can play a role in the organization’s deliberations and decision-making.
.
The bodies of the UN and international organizations are occupied by officials who are appointed by the executive branches of national governments. In view of the growing importance of international organizations and their decisions, this is no longer sufficient.
.
A United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) for the first time would give popularly elected representatives a formal role in global affairs. As an additional body, the assembly will directly represent the world’s citizens and not governments.
.
Initially, states could choose whether their UNPA members would come from national parliaments, reflecting their political spectrum and gender equality, or whether they would be directly elected. Eventually, the goal is to have all members directly elected.
.
Starting as a largely consultative body, the rights and powers of the UNPA could be expanded over time as its democratic legitimacy increases. The assembly will act as an independent watchdog in the UN system and as a democratic reflection of the diversity of world public opinion.
.
In the long run, once its members are all democratically elected, the assembly could be developed into a world parliament which – under certain conditions and in conjunction with the UN General Assembly – may be able to adopt universally binding regulations.
.
In short, the UN should evolve from what many believe to be a generally ineffectual “talk-shop” into a viable democratic and legislative body.

Okay, let’s break this down a bit:

”In this age of globalization, more and more issues have a global dimension that requires global cooperation. At the UN and other international fora, governments come together to negotiate and decide on policies that affect us all.”

So what? This seems to deliberately conflate cooperation with sovereignty. Nations can and do discuss and cooperate on issues all the time. This is a solution to an artificial problem.

”The UN Charter begins on the promising opening words: “We the peoples.” However, one will seek in vain for any clause in the document that specifies a means by which ordinary people can play a role in the organization’s deliberations and decision-making.”

Searching in vain for any clause that says ordinary people can play a role in decision making? Is this a good thing? Shouldn’t people have some ability to influence decision making?

”The bodies of the UN and international organizations are occupied by officials who are appointed by the executive branches of national governments. In view of the growing importance of international organizations and their decisions, this is no longer sufficient.”

How so? Do we not want people who are directly chosen by the host nation to be taking part in such discussions?

”A United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) for the first time would give popularly elected representatives a formal role in global affairs. As an additional body, the assembly will directly represent the world’s citizens and not governments.”

Logistical question: how do you decide if a leader is ”popularly elected”? Military dictators frequently hold sham elections and win close to 100% of the vote.

Further, what if the values of a block of nations (such as the 50+ members of Islamic nations) democratically overrule nations which believe in human rights?

”Initially, states could choose whether their UNPA members would come from national parliaments, reflecting their political spectrum and gender equality, or whether they would be directly elected. Eventually, the goal is to have all members directly elected.”

If they are not being directly elected by their people, then who is electing them? Should the UN get to decide who ”represents” the Nation of Canada, the US, Australia, or Japan?

”Starting as a largely consultative body, the rights and powers of the UNPA could be expanded over time as its democratic legitimacy increases. The assembly will act as an independent watchdog in the UN system and as a democratic reflection of the diversity of world public opinion.”

Ah, non-binding and consultative bodies which eventually become legally binding? Kind of like the UN Global Migration Compact.

How exactly would there be ”oversight” when this would effectively take away actual representative government from host nations?

”In the long run, once its members are all democratically elected, the assembly could be developed into a world parliament which – under certain conditions and in conjunction with the UN General Assembly – may be able to adopt universally binding regulations

.

In short, the UN should evolve from what many believe to be a generally ineffectual “talk-shop” into a viable democratic and legislative body.”

How would this possibly be democratic? It takes control even further from the public. If you think your MP or MPP or MLA or Senators don’t represent you now, how would you gain more representation from being even further removed.

3. UN Claims To Have Conducted Research

CLICK HERE, for survey results

Survey on a UN Parliamentary Assembly
survey graphic -donought -readyOn behalf of the British Broadcasting Corporation BBC, in 2004/05 the research institute GlobeScan conducted representative surveys in 18 countries representing 61% of the world population.

In one of the questions concerning reforms of the United Nations, participants were asked about their opinion on “creating a new UN Parliament, made up of representatives directly elected by citizens, having powers equal to the current UN General Assembly that is controlled by national governments.”

On average, 63% supported the reform proposal, while only 20% rejected it. For the first time, this survey provides empirical evidence that the world’s citizens overwhelmingly support the establishment of a directly elected world parliament.

Country results
In every surveyed nation the supporters of a UN Parliament significantly outnumbered the opponents. Overall, support to opposition margins show overwhelming majorities in all nations favoring the creation of a UN Parliament.

Let’s see: Only 18 countries were surveyed

UN claims these 18 countries represent 61% of the population.

UN Claims that 63% of populations surveyed support global government
1/ Argentina
2/ Australia
3/ Brazil
4/ Canada
5/ Chile
6/ China
7/ Germany
8/ Great Britain (UK)
9/ India
10/ Indonesia
11/ Italy
12/ Mexico
13/ Phillipines
14/ Poland
15/ Russia
16/ South Korea
17/ Turkey
18/ USA

Assuming the numbers are true, that means that all but 18 countries were left out of the survey

It means that 39% of national populations were not consulted at all

It means that 37% (of consulted nations) oppose the measure.

A better level might be to use (0.63)*(0.61) = .03843 = 38%
(A tad silly, but this research is not representative)

Assuming this research is even accurate, that would mean that only 38% would support such a measure. Of course, the site doesn’t list any of the SAMPLE SIZES, which would help give a more accurate picture.

Were 100 people interviewed in each country? 1,000? 10,000? Can we see the questions that were asked?

Of course, none of this addresses the central question: why is it that there has been no public consultation on us signing away our sovereignty? Shouldn’t we have the final say?

Wait, globalists don’t care what people think. Now it makes sense.

4. Globalist Politicians In Canada

Justin Trudeau, and Elizabeth May are on here. Jagmeet Singh probably would be, if he actually was an M.P.

Members of Parliament from Canada
Diane Bellemare
Senator, economist and politician from Quebec, Canada

(2013-12-17)

Carolyn Bennett
MP, Canada
(2009-07-07)

Sheri Benson
Member of Parliament for Saskatoon West, Canada
(2017-03-10)

Daniel Blaikie
MP, Canada
(2017-03-06)

Rachel Blaney
MP, Canada
(2016-10-26)

Sean Casey
Member of Parliament, Canada
(2011-09-01)

François Choquette
MP, Canada
(2011-06-09)

David Christopherson
Member of Parliament, Canada
(2011-06-21)

Jane Cordy
Senator, Canada
(2018-01-19)

Jane Cordy
Senator, Canada
(2018-01-31)

Nathan Cullen
MP, Canada
(2010-10-05)

Julie Dabrusin
Member of Parliament for Toronto-Danforth, Canada
(2017-04-18)

Don Davies
MP, elected 2008; Lawyer, trade union representative, Canada
(2007-05-25)

Fin Donnelly
MP, Canada
(2010-04-19)

Julie Dzerowicz
MP, Canada
(2017-03-16)

Wayne Easter
MP, Canada
(2012-02-09)

Art Eggleton
Canadian Senator, Canada
(2009-04-28)

Ali Ehsassi
MP, Canada
(2017-04-07)

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
Canada
(2016-05-12)

Hedy Fry
MP, Canada
(2009-06-15)

Marc Garneau
MP; first Canadian in outer space; President, Canadian Space Agency (2001-2006), Canada
(2012-03-24)

Randall Garrison
MP, Canada
(2012-02-24)

Pamela Goldsmith-Jones
MP for West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Canada

(2017-05-17)

Claude Gravelle
Member of Parliament, Nickel Belt, Canada
(2010-07-29)

Laurie Hawn
Member of Parliament since 2006 Privy Councillor Royal Canadian Air Force Veteran, Canada
(2012-02-16)

Carol Hughes
MP, Canada
(2012-02-16)

Mobina Jaffer
Member of the Canadian Senate, representing British Columbia, Canada
(2009-12-18)

Janis G. Johnson
Senator, Canada
(2009-05-01)

Peter Julian
MP, Canada
(2008-02-25)

Frances Lankin
Senator, Canada
(2016-11-15)

Dr. Hélène Laverdière
Foreign Affairs Critic for the New Democratic Party of Canada and MP for Laurier – Ste-Marie, Canada
(2012-02-27)

Dominic LeBlanc
MP, Canada
(2012-03-01)

Hélène LeBlanc
MP, Canada
(2012-02-28)

Alistair MacGregor
MP, Canada
(2018-02-09)

Brian Masse
MP, Canada
(2009-04-30)

Irene Mathyssen
Canada
(2012-03-12)

Elizabeth May
MP; Leader, Green Party of Canada, Canada

(2007-05-11)

Dr. John McCallum
Canada

(2012-03-13)

The Honourable John McKay P.C., M.P.
Canadian Member of Parliament for the Riding of Scarborough-Guildwood., Canada

(2012-02-28)

Alexandra Mendes
MP, Canada
(2009-04-28)

Don Meredith
Senator, Canada
(2017-03-01)

Maryann Mihychuk
Canada
(2018-02-14)

Wilfred P. Moore
Senator, Canada
(2011-06-21)

Isabelle Morin
MP, Canada
(2012-02-28)

Joyce Murray
MP, Canada
(2009-05-09)

Thanh Hai Ngo
Senator, Canada
(2018-01-22)

Robert Oliphant
MP, Canada
(2009-06-15)

John Oliver
Member of Parliament , Canada
(2018-03-01)

Joe Peschisolido
Canada
(2018-02-21)

Rose-May Poirier
Senator, Canada
(2010-07-02)

Tracey Ramsey
MP, Canada
(2018-02-08)

Murray Rankin
MP, Canada
(2018-01-26)

Pablo Rodriguez
MP, Canada
(2010-05-03)

Dan Ruimy
MP, Canada
(2018-05-07)

Nancy Ruth
Senator, Canada
(2009-05-01)

Francis Scarpaleggia
MP, Canada
(2010-08-19)

Judy Sgro
MP; Canadian Member of Parliament for the Riding of York West, Canada
(2012-04-05)

Scott Simms
MP, Canada
(2012-02-28)

Wayne Stetski
MP, Canada
(2018-04-25)

Dr. Kennedy Stewart
MP, Canada
(2012-02-22)

Justin Trudeau
Member of Parliament, Canada
(2010-07-21)

David Wells
Senator, Canada
(2016-11-22)

Borys Wrzesnewskyj
MP, Canada
(2009-05-01)

Kate Young
MP, Canada
(2018-05-03)

5. First UNPA Int’l Meeting in 2007

First international meeting on a UNPA
Palais des Nations, Geneva, November 2007
The first international meeting on a UNPA was held in November 2007 at the Palais des Nations in Geneva under the patronage of former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and was hosted by the Society for Threatened Peoples International.
Parliamentarians, representatives of non-governmental organizations and other activists of the UNPA campaign from 18 countries gathered for an exchange on the UNPA concept and the Campaign strategy.
The meeting reiterated the principles laid down in the international appeal for a UNPA such as the gradual approach which allows first steps beneath the threshold of UN Charter reform. It was also stressed, however, that at the same time the eventual goal of a world parliament should be communicated.
While some questions were vividly debated, the meeting also concluded, among other things, that a UNPA should be open for participation of regional parliamentary assemblies and should offer innovative ways for strong NGO participation.
Read more

Conclusions regarding policies of the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly
At its meeting on 19-20 November 2007 in the “Palais des Nations” in Geneva, the Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) has reiterated the policies laid down in the “Appeal for the Establishment for a Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations” and notes in particular that:
-the Campaign pursues a politically pragmatic and gradual approach to achieve the eventual long-term goal of a world parliament;
-in a first step the Campaign advocates the establishment of a UNPA by means which do not require a change of the UN Charter;
-the Campaign’s appeal states that a consultative UNPA initially could be composed of national parliamentarians and that this statement does not exclude the option to advocate the participation of other entities. For example, the Campaign also advocates the participation of regional parliamentary assemblies in a UNPA, such as the European Parliament and the Pan-African Parliament, and consideration may be given for the inclusion of local authorities in the consultative UNPA ;
-the aforementioned statement also does not exclude to advocate a flexible approach to the mode of elections. The Campaign supports the approach that already in the first step the UNPA’s Statutes should allow the participating states to opt for direct elections of their delegates if they wish to do so;
-the Campaign advocates a UNPA which is inclusive and open to all UN member states. However, direct elections of the UNPA’s delegates are regarded as a precondition for vesting the body with legislative rights.
the Campaign policy clearly embraces the demand that a UNPA has to provide for strong and efficient ways to include civil society, in particular NGOs, and local administrations into its work;
-the Campaign’s policy pursues the goal that the UNPA, once established, would advocate and facilitate a reform of the present system of international institutions and global governance;
-the Campaign understands that whereas the appeal refers to “the UN and the organizations of the UN system,” that this could be interpreted to include the Bretton Woods Institutions.

Some takeaways from this:
(a) Yes, this is about a world government
(b) Changes to UN Charter may not be needed
(c) NGO/Civil Societies to be given roles to work

6. Second UNPA Int’l Meeting in 2008

Second international meeting on a UNPA
European Parliament, Brussels, November 2008
The second international meeting on a UNPA was held on November 4-5, 2008, at the European Parliament in Brussels and was hosted by European deputy Jo Leinen.
Representatives of non-governmental organizations and stakeholders of the UNPA campaign from around 15 countries gathered for an exchange on the campaign’s progress within the past year, an outlook onto the coming activities and to discuss political questions. The meeting included a Round Table consultation and an evening reception with invited guests.
In a welcome message published on the occasion of the meeting, the President of the European Parliament affirmed the parliament’s support for a UNPA.
One of the conclusions reached at the meeting was that a UNPA would be complementary to the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s work.
Read more
The establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly and the Inter-Parliamentary Union

The establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly and the Inter-Parliamentary Union
At its meeting on 4-5 November 2008 in the European Parliament in Brussels, the Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) deliberated on the relation between the proposed UNPA and the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and the possible roles and functions of the two parliamentary bodies.
The Campaign concluded that the proposed UNPA and the IPU would be complementary institutions. A UNPA would not replace or duplicate the IPU’s functions. Quite the contrary, a UNPA would provide a response to the democratic deficit in global governance which the IPU in its current structure is unable to offer.
The Campaign noted in particular:
(1) The IPU is an association of national parliaments. One of its activities is to provide for a “parliamentary dimension to international cooperation”. The IPU’s goal in this context is to strengthen the ability of national parliaments to exercise their oversight functions at the national level in matters of international nature. The Campaign underlines the importance of this dimension.
(2) The purpose of a UNPA is to exercise parliamentary functions directly at the international level in its own right. One of the goals is to make the UN executives and its institutions accountable to a global parliamentary body. The IPU has no such capacity and currently also does not aspire to develop such an oversight function.
(3) The IPU’s purpose is to be a facilitator for the work of national parliaments. In contrast, a UNPA would be composed of individual parliamentarians who would be called upon to take a global view.
(4) The precedent of the Pan-African Parliament and the African Parliamentary Union shows that the UNPA and the IPU need not be mutually exclusive.
(5) In the long run, a UNPA could be composed of directly elected members. The precedent of the European Parliament and the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union shows that a largely directly elected UNPA and the IPU would be complementary and indeed both necessary.
(6) The Campaign supports the work of the IPU and appreciates any and all active contributions from the IPU and IPU members in the efforts for the establishment of a UNPA.

7. Third UNPA Int’l Meeting in 2009

Third international meeting on a UNPA
New York, October 2009
The third international meeting on a UNPA was held in October 2009 across the United Nations headquarters in New York. Around 60 participants from 19 countries, among them 12 Members of Parliament and numerous representatives of non-governmental organizations who are part of the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly attended the event in order to exchange experiences and views. Participants in the meeting generally felt that the campaign has gathered considerable political momentum over the past two and a half years since its launch in April 2007.

Establishment of a global parliament discussed at international meeting in New York
30. October 2009
The progress of the international efforts for the establishment of a global parliamentary assembly was discussed at a meeting across the United Nations headquarters in New York. Around 60 participants from 19 countries, among them 12 Members of Parliament and numerous representatives of non-governmental organizations who are part of the Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) attended the event on Monday in order to exchange their different experiences and views.
.
In her welcome remarks Senator Sonia Escudero, Secretary-General of the Latin-American Parliament, pointed out that the United Nations, established in 1945, “reproduces an age old international order.” Said Senator Escudero: “One of the challenges that the United Nations will have to face in order not to become obsolete is its own reform. It is imperative to undertake an integral reform of the United Nations taking into account that any representative institution, that is to say democratic institution, should have an structure that honours this characteristic. It is clear that the establishment of a UN Parliamentary Assembly would be a decisive step towards the democratic consolidation in the United Nations system.”
.
Jo Leinen, Member of the European Parliament, stressed the long-standing support of the European Parliament for the creation of a UNPA. The most recent resolution was adopted in June 2005. Mr Leinen noted that a new effort to reiterate the parliament’s support will be taken in the current new legislature. A representative of the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, Fernando Iglesias, reported on a resolution calling for a UNPA adopted by his parliament in August this year. Mr Iglesias promoted that the participants in the campaign reach out intensively to civil society and the academic world as well in order to build a broader base of public awareness. This approach was endorsed by Mike Sebalu, Member of the East African Legislative Assembly, saying that “it is crucial to reach critical mass of supporters from all walks of life.”
.
Presenting a report adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) on the reform of the United Nations a few weeks ago, Andreas Gross, a Swiss Member of Parliament and leader of the Socialist Group in PACE, pointed out that the modernization of the UN should include by necessity a parliamentary dimension. Giving the example of the Council of Europe, Gross stressed that the UN runs the risk of becoming irrelevant in the long-term if no Parliamentary Assembly is established. “If the Council of Europe were a government organization alone, without a parliamentary body, its importance would have diminished completely by now,” Gross said.
.
The afternoon session concentrated, among other things, on a debate on the concept of a UN Parliamentary Assembly and, more in particular, models for the possible distribution of seats in a UNPA. The Chair of the Committee for a Democratic U.N., Andreas Bummel, presented a paper on the subject. He outlined that the report shows the feasibility of the proposal and that there are realistic and pragmatic options on the table. Joseph Schwartzberg, Professor emeritus of the University of Minnesota, presented his own incremental approach for the creation of a UNPA and elaborated on his suggestion to distribute seats according to population, equality, and share in UN membership dues. Andrew Strauss, Professor of Law at the Widener University School of Law, argued that a UNPA should be established through a stand-alone treaty rather than as a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly.
.
Participants in the meeting generally felt that the campaign has gathered considerable political momentum over the past two and a half years since its launch in April 2007. The event was filmed by a crew led by Lisa Russell who recently won an Emmy Award and works on a documentary on U.S.-UN relations.

Okay, this is getting to be much more than theoretical. There are actual discussions on how the seats should be distributed should this Parliament ever become a reality.

8. Fourth UNPA Int’l Meeting in 2010

Declaration calls for intergovernmental conference on UN Parliament
.
5. October 2010
.
An international meeting of the Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly in the Senate of Argentina in Buenos Aires has called on the United Nations and its member states to initiate a “preparatory process towards an intergovernmental conference for the purpose of establishing a Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations.“ A declaration adopted by around 50 participants from 20 countries, among them ten Members of Parliament and representatives of 20 civil society organizations, states that “the need to democratize global governance is one of the greatest political challenges of our times. It calls on individual world citizens, and
.
Group picture of the participants
Image: Democracia Global
especially parliamentarians, governments, the international donor community, and civil society to make a commitment to democratic global change.”
.
At the opening session the Argentinian deputy Fernando Iglesias reiterated the need for global democratization through a UN Parliamentary Assembly. As a guest speaker Olivier Giscard d’Estaing, former Member of Parliament from France, voiced his disappointment over the enduring failure to bring about any substantial reform of the United Nations. Mr. Giscard d’Estaing called for the creation of “new world institutions dealing with world problems, including a world parliament.” The Executive Director of the World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy, William Pace, severely criticized the G8 and G20. “These informal governance mechanism have failed dramatically,” Mr. Pace stated. “Our goal is to replace the brutality of imperialism with constitutional and parliamentary principles at the global level,” he said.
.
In a written welcome note to the meeting, the parliamentarian and former Prime Minister of Malta, Alfred Sant, stated that “the goal of establishing a UN Parliamentary Assembly may appear to be far away down the road, but global realities are changing so fast that the relevance of an Assembly may become salient much sooner than is now supposed.” The European parliamentarian Jo Leinen noted in a message that “the proposal now has to be taken up by a group of like-minded governments”.
.
In the plenary session, participants deliberated on the outcome document and on their activities in the previous year. In the afternoon, parallel workshops were held. The former clerk of the Pan-African Parliament, Werunga Murumba, now at the Centre for Parliamentary Studies and Training of the Kenya National Assembly, spoke about lessons learned from the creation of existing international parliamentary assemblies. Other workshops were held on the next steps in the Latin-American region and on the creation of a UN Parliamentary Assembly and UN Charter reform.
.
The event that was held in the premises of the Senate of Argentina on Monday was the fourth meeting of an international campaign that was launched in April 2007. The head of the Campaign’s Secretariat, Andreas Bummel, noted that in this time span around 900 Members of Parliament from over 90 countries expressed their support, representing over 100 million people from their constituencies. Around 750 are currently in office.
.
The meeting was preceded by a seminar of the Latin-American Parliament on regional integration and the reform of international institutions that was held in the previous week. One of the sessions was devoted to the proposal of a UN Parliamentary Assembly. The UNPA-Campaign meeting was part of a ten-day programme in Buenos Aires coordinated by the Argentinian non-governmental organization Democracia Global.

Again, more talks about how the logistics of such a proposal would work. Not a question of whether we should be doing this, or what the public might say. Rather, we agree, now let’s talk details.

9. Fifth UNPA Int’l Meeting in 2013

Fifth international meeting on a UNPA
European Parliament, Brussels, October 2013
The fifth international meeting on a UNPA was held on 15-16 October 2013 in the European Parliament in Brussels and was hosted by the Members of the European Parliament Elmar Brok, Jo Leinen, Isabella Lövin, and Graham Watson from the four largest political groups European People’s Party EPP, Socialists and Democrats S&D, the Greens, and the liberal ALDE group respectively.
In a final declaration, participants from around thirty countries unanimously expressed concern that “no adequate measures have been taken to address the democratic deficit of global governance in general and of the United Nations in particular.” The conference suggested that “a global democratic body of elected representatives” should be established “to bring global governance in the pursuit of post-2015 development goals” closer to the world’s citizens.

Post-2015 Agenda should include elected UN Assembly to strengthen democratic participation
22. October 2013
5th International Meeting of the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly concludes with declaration / Strong support from key Members of the European Parliament
The fifth international conference on a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly held in the European Parliament in Brussels on 16th and 17th October called on the United Nations and the international community to make democratic participation a key

One of the conference panels
Image: European Parliament
element of the Post-2015 Development Agenda.
In a final declaration, participants from around thirty countries unanimously expressed concern that “no adequate measures have been taken to address the democratic deficit of global governance in general and of the United Nations in particular.” The conference suggested that “a global democratic body of elected representatives” should be established “to bring global governance in the pursuit of post-2015 development goals” closer to the world’s citizens.

Conference hosted in the European Parliament
The conference was hosted by the Members of the European Parliament Elmar Brok, Jo Leinen, Isabella Lövin, and Graham Watson from the four largest political groups European People’s Party EPP, Socialists and Democrats S&D, the Greens, and the liberal ALDE group respectively. At the opening of the conference, Elmar Brok who serves as chairman of the European Parliament’s Commission on Foreign Affairs stated that a consultative UN Parliamentary Assembly would “allow world civil society to be directly associated in the global decision-making process.”

Jo Leinen who is a co-chair of the advisory board of the international campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly emphasized that until now no formal body exists that would give citizen-elected representatives a say in global governance. At best they had an observer status. “This is not acceptable,” said Mr Leinen. “In a democratic system, the representatives of the citizens are not observers of what the governments do. They should provide oversight and hold the government executives accountable.”
At a panel discussion Isabella Lövin used the example of the global fishery policy to show that the system of international governance is dysfunctional. “It’s still governed by 16th century principles,” she said. Graham Watson pointed out that “there will be times when national interests and global interests collide. A UN Parliamentary Assembly could act as an arbiter and ensure that the voice of the world’s citizens is heard.“

In a message issued on the occasion of the conference, the President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, emphasized the longstanding support for the proposal by the European Parliament. In addition, he declared that “The European Parliament may serve as a model for how a UN Parliamentary Assembly could develop over time. What once began as an advisory body composed of national parliamentarians is a directly elected legislature today.”

Consultation with the UN’s Independent Expert
A similar position was taken by the UN’s Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order, Alfred de Zayas, who was participating as a special guest. In a statement delivered at a special consultation, he confirmed that “Participation is a hallmark of democratic governance” and that “civil society is entitled to more space.” He said that the establishment of a World Parliamentary Assembly was “a promising avenue” to achieve this and could be modelled according to the example of the European Parliament. Mr de Zayas pointed out that his upcoming report to the UN General Assembly includes the recommendation that it “may consider convening a conference to discuss promising initiatives such as the creation of a World Parliamentary Assembly.”
In a comment following the statement by Mr de Zayas, the Member of the European Parliament and chairperson of Democracy International, Gerald Häfner, said that “We cannot leave the world to decision-making that is in the interest of big money or big powers – but not in the interest of the world’s citizens. A UN Parliamentary Assembly is a first step to establish global democracy.”

The final declaration adopted by the conference welcomes “the decision of the UN’s Human Rights Council to mandate an Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order,” and encourages the Independent Expert “to keep considering the question of a UNPA and in particular to examine possible processes towards its creation.”
.
Main points of the final declaration
In the discussion the Secretary-General of the campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly, Andreas Bummel, emphasized three elements in the final declaration: That it puts the proposal for a UN Parliamentary

Gathering in front of the European Parliament
Image: CEUNPA
Assembly in the context of the Post-2015 Development Agenda, that it highlights the possibility of having a UN Parliamentary Assembly act as a “network of networks” and finally that the document says that “innovative forms of civic participation” in a UNPA through models of electronic democracy could be considered. In its last session, the conference also deliberated on a possible roadmap towards a UN Parliamentary Assembly as well as on the campaign’s goals and strategy.
Other speakers at the conference included, among others, Andrew Strauss from Widener University School of Law in the United States, the UN’s representative in Brussels, Antonio Vigilante, the Member of the European Parliament and President of the Union of European Federalists Andrew Duff, the European Parliament’s Vice-President Anni Podimata, Swiss parliamentarian Daniel Jositsch as well as Juan Behrend as representative of the Global Greens Coordination, Gregory Engels as representative of Pirate Parties International, and Hanno Schedler of the Society for Threatened Peoples.

Week of Action for a World Parliament
The conference was also a kick-off event for the Global Week of Action for a World Parliament that takes place until UN day on 24 October. At the end of the conference participants gathered in front of the European Parliament at Place du Luxembourg in Brussels and displayed the week’s slogan, “World Parliament Now!”

Okay, the United Human Rights Council will have a say in matters here. Considering the members on it, that is not at all encouraging.

Some alleged “research” is presented elsewhere on the website, claiming that there is widespread support across nations for a global government. Seems rather self serving.

10. Duplicity Of “Populist” Maxime Bernier

This wasn’t in the original version, but worth pointing out to the readers.

Maxime Bernier, a self-identified “populist” left the Conservative Party of Canada in August 2018 and started the People’s Party of Canada. Despite its Communist sounding name, it is marketed as a nationalist/populist party.

The problem is that Bernier was Foreign Affairs Minister in 2007, when this issue was being discussed. Very unethical to remain silent for 12 years, and now claim to oppose it.

While this petition seems to be a welcome change, it cannot be taken at face value. Bernier introduces a petition to prevent Canada from joining any such organization, despite his Committee earlier endorsing it.

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #7: UN Says Welcome Back ISIS Fighters

(The UN insists countries have a legal obligation to repatriate terrorists who go abroad to fight against national interests or allies)

CBC, a.k.a The “Communist Broadbasting Corporation”, or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”, is a government funded “news” organization. It receives about $1.5 billion annually to spew out anti-Canadian stories. Taxpayers don’t get a say in the matter.

CLICK HERE, to reach the CBC Propaganda Masterlist. It is far from complete, but being added to regularly.

In all fairness, here the CBC is ”quoting” the UN Rapporteur, and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale. However, there is nothing in the way of critical analysis or challenge to the claims. Some hard questions would be nice.

CLICK HERE, for the actual article this review references.

”Agnes Callamard, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, says it’s time for Ottawa to stop dragging its heels and repatriate its citizens who fought for ISIS and are now being held in Syria and Iraq. (Jose Cabezas/Reuters)”

Obvious question: Why? If citizens leave to take up arms in foreign conflict, then it is their problem. Canada is not obligated to bail them out.

”Several Canadians are currently being held by Kurdish authorities in Syria, following the collapse of ISIS in 2017.
.
So far, the federal government has said it has no obligation to repatriate them, and that it is ill-equipped to put them on trial.”

Not being equipped to put them on trial actually makes sense. The logistics here are enormous. How do you gather evidence, depose witnesses, and run a trial, based on events happening around the world?

Also, there is a small issue of ”jurisdiction”. Who has it, and how will that be settled?

”Ms. Callamard, why do you believe that Canada has a duty to bring these people home, those who fought alongside the Islamic State?
.
I believe it has a legal obligation to do so, if those foreign fighters are currently held in Syria by a non-state actor in this case a Kurdish group. That group has currently no international legitimacy, and probably neither does it have the capacity to undertake fair trials. That’s one reason as to why those individuals should be sent back to Canada.
.
As far as Iraq is concerned, if they are Canadian foreign fighters detained in Iraq they are tried under Iraqi counter-terrorism law. It’s an extremely problematic law that has been denounced by myself, and by the UN as well. Under the law, many foreign fighters can be sentenced to death.
.
It is a legal obligation placed upon Canada … to take all the necessary measures to ensure that its citizens do not confront or face death penalty. And frankly, the best way to do that in Iraq is to repatriate them for trial in Canada.”

Some mental gymnastics here. Callamard shrugs off so-called Canadians fighting for a group with no international legitimacy, yet says it’s wrong they are detained by people with no international legitimacy.

Okay, if a group is unable to conduct trials there, why should Canada go through the time and expense of doing it here? Logistics. Also, we wouldn’t have jurisdiction in events that happen overseas.

They can be sentenced to death. Who cares? These are not tourists on vacation who got mixed up in something bad. These are traitors who turned against out country.

”When you say that they should be brought to justice in Canada, the difficulty of actually prosecuting them would be the difficulty of gathering evidence, of protecting witnesses who have to be brought, of translating, of all kinds of things on the ground … in hostile territories. The chances of prosecutions, many would argue, is extremely fraught, and so perhaps bringing them back is not going to bring successful prosecutions. Doesn’t that fail the victims of these crimes?
.
Well, first of all, the victims of the crimes currently are completely failed. Let me be very clear: You just have to listen to the [winners of the] Nobel Peace Prize that has just been allocated, and you will know that there has been no accountability for anything that has been committed against the Yazidi community, whether we are talking sexual violence or mass massacres.”

This is a nice surprise. CBC actually asking this very important question: how do you deal with the logistics of actually conducting a trial?

”Why do you think Canada could do any better? Canada would fail them too, would they not?
.
At the moment, there is no accountability. That’s the first thing. The second is that of all countries that currently have the legal and technical capacity to undertake the challenging task, I believe that some of those governments, including Canada certainly, are far better placed to do so.
.
I’m not denying the complexity of the investigation. What I am suggesting is that after World War II we took on the challenge, and the international community brought to account those that had committed genocide and killed six million people — and far more, in fact.
.
After the Rwandan genocide, we took our responsibility and the international community together took action. After what happened in the former Yugoslavia, we did the same.”

(a) All countries have the legal and technical capacity? Great, then let’s try them overseas where these crimes happened. Pull their citizenships, seize their assets, and call it a day.

(b) Yes, you are denying the complexity of an investigation. How do you properly investigate a war zone going on halfway across the world?

(c) She conflates ”prosecuting” the Nazis with ”rescuing” ISIS fighters. Yes, ISIS fighters would probably prefer to be tried in Canada. But remember, Callamard said that all nations have the capacity to hold trials.

(d) Canada may be better placed, but again, why should we? Public funds would be far better used spent on our own people, rather than repatriating traitors and terrorists (just so we can try them and lock them up).

”There are politics in Canada, as you know, and we have tremendous opposition to the Liberal government if it even considers bringing the ISIS fighters back. And Canada’s statement we received today said there is no plan or deal in place to bring any Canadians who are in Syria to Canada. They are insisting that the ones who have returned, some will be prosecuted. But it doesn’t seem as though they’re interested in your idea.
.
So far every government, for the last four or five years, have brandished IS as enemy number one around the world. None of those governments are now prepared to take their responsibilities and put IS to trial. None of them.
.
So it’s not a particular problem with Canada. It characterizes all of the Western governments that have participated in the war in Syria and Iraq.
.
I am persuaded that at some stage they will have no other option but to be realistic and take an international responsibility for the next stage in the fight against extremism.
.
My suggestions, my strong recommendations, is that governments including Canada must do the right thing legally, and must do the right thing in front of historians.”

(a) Another surprisingly good question from the CBC. Yes, there is widespread public opposition to bringing ISIS fighters back.

(b) Callamard focuses on the righter of ISIS terrorists, but seems uninterested in the danger that they pose to Canadians. Further, she shows little concern for the drain in public resources in doing so. She just pays lip service to this.

(c) Callamard remarks that no western government is interested in doing this. Likewise, they also have their respective public to deal with.

(d) Western population are (rightly) not very interested in the well being of people who leave their countries to take up arms in foreign conflicts. When these traitors and terrorists come calling for help, there is understandably no sympathy. They are authors of their own misfortunes.

(e) Do the right thing in front of historians? Now we get a straight answer. This is about virtue signalling.

Compared to most interviews CBC does, this actually wasn’t ”that” bad. At least a few good questions were raised.

Not content with the rights of illegal migrants, the UN special rapporteur is also very concerned with the well being of terrorists who fight abroad.

It is because of nonsense like this, that opinion pieces to leave the UN altogether are published.

Nationalists believe that a government should look after its own people first and foremost. We choose leader to represent ourselves.

Globalists believe that national well being should be sacrificed in the name of ”the greater good” regardless of whether they have any sort of democratic mandate. As such, they are really accountable to no one.

This is just another UN call for nations to sacrifice their well being in the name of ”being view positively in history”.

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #6: State Supplied Drugs For Drug Addicts

(An alternative to drug treatment: just give free drugs, but do it “safely”)

CBC, a.k.a The “Communist Broadbasting Corporation”, or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”, is a government funded “news” organization. It receives about $1.5 billion annually to spew out anti-Canadian stories. Taxpayers don’t get a say in the matter.

CLICK HERE, to reach the CBC Propaganda Masterlist. It is far from complete, but being added to regularly.

This current masterpiece touts the value of state-funded narcotics as a way to ”reduce harm” and to save lives.

No, this doesn’t mean methodone, or any treatment designed to wane users off their addiction. It doesn’t mean treatment in the hopes of getting people back into society as functioning adults.

This simply is about providing narcotics to users free of charge as a ”harm reduction” policy. Furthermore, medical staff are employed (again, at taxpayer expense), to administer this program. Let’s go through the article.

CLICK HERE, for the CBC article itself.

“Carissa Sutherland’s history with drugs is a lot like many others in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.
.
The 29-year-old started about 10 years ago with morphine and hydromorphone pills marketed under the brand name Dilaudid or “Dilly” as it’s known on the street.
.
“I kind of just progressed more and more, and then I couldn’t get Dillies very much — or they were more expensive than heroin, so that I ended up just doing heroin,” said Sutherland, who soon added methamphetamine to the mix.
.
For her, an especially low point came when she overdosed, alone, in a Wendy’s bathroom about two years ago. Luckily, someone found her, and her life was saved.”

This is saddening to hear, but perhaps trying another solution would be better. Switching to heroin simply because it’s cheaper is asking for trouble.

“Now, a “safe supply” program for people in Sutherland’s situation is launching in the neighbourhood.
.
Operated by the Portland Hotel Society (PHS) out of its Molson Overdose Prevention Site (OPS), the pilot program will distribute free Dilaudid pills for 50 patients.
.
The hydromorphone pills, which are manufactured to be taken orally, will be crushed up and rendered as an injectable drug, just like heroin. It’s the first time in Canada that opioids will be prescribed in this way and an idea that came directly from the street.”

Okay, these pills are designed to be taken orally, but instead will be crushed up so they can be injected. Absurd, it means taking prescription medication and knowingly not using it in its intended form. This is harm reduction? Is there medical research?

Not hearing any sort of plan on actual treatment for these people, but perhaps that will come later in the article.

”According to Coco Culbertson, who is overseeing the program for PHS, the dosage will be prescribed by a physician, and participants will be able to get up to five doses per day, to be injected under the supervision of PHS staff and volunteers.
.
Culbertson said the pills, which are worth about 36 cents when bought legally, cost drug users $20 – $30 on the street. According to Sutherland, a user on the street can make up to four or five pick ups per day to support a habit, sometimes buying multiple pills each time.
.
“We’re really looking for our “hard target” folks that are experiencing repeated overdose and that are subject to a toxic drug supply on the street,” said Culbertson, who added that there’s already a list of about 75 people for the program, which starts on Tuesday.”

A physician will be prescribing these pills, to be taken orally. Yet he knows that they will be crushed up and used in injection form. This person’s medical license should be revoked.

You are worried about a toxic drug supply on the street? Did it cross your mind that perhaps these pills, when injected (again, not their intended form) may be toxic?

Still no mention of any treatment program. Instead, the public will be funding not only drugs for illicit purposes, but medical staff to “safely” administer?!?!

””This is safe. It’s effective. It’s cost effective. It reduces mortality, reduces crime — both violent crime and property crime — and it reduces the burden on taxpayers,” said MacDonald, who believes the facility’s pharmacy could distribute injectable doses for as many as 800 people across the region. ”

(a) It’s cost effective? How so? It forces the public to may both ”material and labour” to continue a drug addict’s spiral?

(b) It reduces crime? Perhaps, if you view legalizing illicit drug use as a form of reducing crime, you are correct, in a morbid sort of way.

(c) 800 people across the region? Does it occur to you that this will not stop people who have drug problems, rather, it will encourage others to get drugs for free.

(d) Still no mention of any plan to get these addicts back into society.

“‘Safe supply’
Sutherland’s life has taken a dramatic turn for the better since her overdose. She’s still a regular drug user, but for the past year and a half, she’s been injecting under supervision at Molson OPS

She quickly started volunteering there and now Sutherland’s on the payroll as a peer support worker. She’s taken part in reversing dozens of potentially fatal overdoses. She’s also found housing through PHS.

But despite the more stable life, the drugs have still put her in risky situations. Sutherland is hoping that will disappear if she’s accepted in the new ‘safe supply’ program.

“I’m hoping that once I get on the Dilly program, I won’t have to do that — I won’t have to go boost from stores — or steal from stores or sell things to get money to get drugs,” she said.

For her, she says, safe supply doesn’t just mean drugs that won’t contain unknown amounts of deadly fentanyl, it also means a drug supply that leads to a much safer lifestyle.”

(I) That is the end of the article, and not one mention about getting drug addicts any real sense of a life.

(II) No talk whatsoever about weaning them off drugs, or any long term treatment plan. It all seems to be about state-funded use forever.

(III) Okay, public pays for drugs, pays for medical staff, and now putting actual drug users on the payroll?

How is it that this is being allowed? All without any sort of public mandate?

Don’t get the wrong idea. People with drug problems do need to have them addressed. However, this is not the solution. Actual treatment is the solution, and getting them off the drugs is what we should be focusing on. Continuing to supply and fund hard drug use seems to be kicking the can down the road.

Every ”medical professional” involved in this needs to have their license revoked. This is blatant malpractice, and neglect for patient well being.

One final thought: could actual drug dealers take advantage of this? (Yes, this is being flippant), but the dealer wouldn’t be drug dealers, they would merely be practicing without a license.

Posted on

UN Special Rapporteur On The Human Rights Of Migrants

Since 2000 (and probably even longer), the UN has viewed migration as a human right. It explains why they are so pro-migration, and deliberately try to undermine national governments.

Annual reports are available for all to read.

Here is the text from the site:

Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants

Introduction

The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants was created in 1999 by the Commission on Human Rights, pursuant to resolution 1999/44. Since then, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur has been extended by Commission on Human Rights resolutions 2002/62 and 2005/47 and Human Rights Council resolutions 8/10, 17/12, 26/19, and 34/21 each for a period of three years.

With the reform to the UN human rights machinery in 2006, the newly established Human Rights Council was called upon to assume, review and, where necessary, improve and rationalize all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the former Commission on Human Rights. As a result, the Human Rights Council, through resolution 8/10 of 18 June 2008, strengthened the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and further extended it for a period of three years. This mandate was renewed by the Human Rights Council in resolution 17/12 of 10 June 2011, resolution 26/19 of 26 June 2014, and resolution 34/21 of 7 April 2017.

The mandate of the Special Rapporteur covers all countries, irrespective of whether a State has ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, of 18 December 1990.

The Special Rapporteur does not require the exhaustion of domestic remedies to act. When the facts in question come within the scope of more than one mandate established by the Commission, the Special Rapporteur may decide to approach other thematic mechanisms and country Rapporteurs with a view to sending joint communications or seeking joint missions.

The main functions of the Special Rapporteur are:

(a) To examine ways and means to overcome the obstacles existing to the full and effective protection of the human rights of migrants, recognizing the particular vulnerability of women, children and those undocumented or in an irregular situation;

(b) To request and receive information from all relevant sources, including migrants themselves, on violations of the human rights of migrants and their families;

(c) To formulate appropriate recommendations to prevent and remedy violations of the human rights of migrants, wherever they may occur;

(d) To promote the effective application of relevant international norms and standards on the issue;

(e) To recommend actions and measures applicable at the national, regional and international levels to eliminate violations of the human rights of migrants;

(f) To take into account a gender perspective when requesting and analysing information, and to give special attention to the occurrence of multiple forms of discrimination and violence against migrant women;

(g) To give particular emphasis to recommendations on practical solutions with regard to the implementation of the rights relevant to the mandate, including by identifying best practices and concrete areas and means for international cooperation;

(h) To report regularly to the Human Rights Council, according to its annual programme of work, and to the General Assembly,

In the discharge of these functions:

(a) The Special Rapporteur acts on information submitted to him regarding alleged violations of the human rights of migrants by sending urgent appeals and communications to concerned Governments to clarify and/or bring to their attention these cases. See Communications.

(b) The Special Rapporteur conducts country visits (also called fact-finding missions) upon the invitation of the Government, in order to examine the state of protection of the human rights of migrants in the given country. The Special Rapporteur submits a report of the visit to the Human Rights Council, presenting his findings, conclusions and recommendations. See Country Visits.

(c) The Special Rapporteur participates in conferences, seminars and panels on issues relating to the human rights of migrants as well as issues press releases.

(d) Annually, the Special Rapporteur, reports to the Human Rights Council about the global state of protection of migrants’ human rights, his main concerns and the good practices he has observed. In his report, the Special Rapporteur informs the Council of all the communications he has sent and the replies received from Governments. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur formulates specific recommendations with a view to enhancing the protection of the human rights of migrants. Upon request of the Human Rights Council the Special Rapporteur may also present reports to the General Assembly. See Annual Reports.

Furthermore, in September 2008, pursuant to Resolution 9/5, the Human Rights Council requested the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of Migrants, other special procedures of the Council and the High Commissioner for Human Rights to pay special attention to cases of arbitrary detention of migrants, particularly of migrant children and adolescents. Likewise, it encouraged the Special Rapporteur to continue to examine ways and means of overcoming obstacles to the full and effective protection of the human rights of migrants, including national and international efforts to combat the trafficking of persons and smuggling of migrants, in order to achieve a better comprehension of the phenomena and to avoid practices that could violate the human rights of migrants.
The Special Rapporteur also reports to the General Assembly.

Okay, let’s go through some of this.

“The mandate of the Special Rapporteur covers all countries, irrespective of whether a State has ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, of 18 December 1990.”

Doesn’t matter if you have signed on or not, the UN will stick its nose in your business.

“The Special Rapporteur does not require the exhaustion of domestic remedies to act. When the facts in question come within the scope of more than one mandate established by the Commission, the Special Rapporteur may decide to approach other thematic mechanisms and country Rapporteurs with a view to sending joint communications or seeking joint missions. “

Also doesn’t matter if you have tried to remedy the problem locally. The UN will still intervene on your behalf.

“(a) To examine ways and means to overcome the obstacles existing to the full and effective protection of the human rights of migrants, recognizing the particular vulnerability of women, children and those undocumented or in an irregular situation;”

The UN will protect the human rights of people migrating to another country, even those crossing illegally. Note: “irregular” or “undocumented” are just word games to gloss over the fact the person is coming illegally.

Of course, since the UN views migration as a human right, “illegal immigration” doesn’t really exist.

“(f) To take into account a gender perspective when requesting and analysing information, and to give special attention to the occurrence of multiple forms of discrimination and violence against migrant women;”

As a Canadian, one has to wonder about this. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau goes on and on about gender. Almost like he is a UN shill.

Also, why “take into account a gender perspective”? Shouldn’t the same human rights be applied to everyone?

“(g) To give particular emphasis to recommendations on practical solutions with regard to the implementation of the rights relevant to the mandate, including by identifying best practices and concrete areas and means for international cooperation; “

And what rights are those exactly? If someone is illegally immigrating (enough of the “undocumented” or “irregular” nonsense), what rights are they entitled to?

“(d) Annually, the Special Rapporteur, reports to the Human Rights Council about the global state of protection of migrants’ human rights, his main concerns and the good practices he has observed. In his report, the Special Rapporteur informs the Council of all the communications he has sent and the replies received from Governments. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur formulates specific recommendations with a view to enhancing the protection of the human rights of migrants. Upon request of the Human Rights Council the Special Rapporteur may also present reports to the General Assembly. See Annual Reports. “

Again, the idea that migration is to be globally managed, and that people entering a country illegally are to have human rights. It is this sort of nonsense that causes a nation to collapse.

Linked to this page are these annual reports. The United Nations has viewed migration as a human right since at least 2000, and probably a lot longer. Read through them,

There entire site should of course be analysed, but here is where the review ends. Once more, the UN demonstrates it has no respect for individual nations, and is trying to force mass migration on the Western World.

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #5: Resistance (And Borders) Are Futile

(CBC produces another “pro-illegal immigration” article)

Okay, securing borders is a tough job, so why even bother?

For my grandparents, divorce was unthinkable. My parents’ generation did that. For my parents’ generation, gay marriage was unthinkable. My generation did that. For my generation, more open borders is probably unthinkable. The next generation will do that.

An actual quote from the article.

CBC, a.k.a The “Communist Broadbasting Corporation”, or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”, is a government funded “news” organization. It receives about $1.5 billion annually to spew out anti-Canadian stories. Taxpayers don’t get a say in the matter.

CLICK HERE, to reach the CBC Propaganda Masterlist. It is far from complete, but being added to regularly.
Okay, where to start with this gem? CLICK HERE, for the article itself.

“In 2015, there were 244 million international migrants — nearly seven times the population of Canada.
The total includes the more than 65 million people forcibly displaced from their homes by conflict and persecution. It is the highest number on record, surpassing even the years following WWII.
.
It also includes people whose homelands have cracked apart in earthquakes, withered in droughts or suffered through famines.
.
Some migrants are pushed from their homes by poverty and drawn to countries in the global north by the promise of a better life. Others cross borders to join their families or pursue an education.”

An interesting start. And some things we can take from it.

First, it says 244 million (yes, million) international migrants. That is absurd. But don’t worry, some globalist bodies (EU, UN) will force countries to take them in.

Second, there are 244 million “migrants”, yet only 65 million of them are “refugees”. Assuming, for the sake of argument that the numbers are correct, that would be 65 million refugees, and 179 million migrants. As percentages, those are 27% refugees, and the other 73% are migrants

Third, it lists natural disasters as reason to leave, but it seems unclear if these are “refugees” or migrants”. The article doesn’t specify.

Fourth, yes, many are drawn by: 1/ poverty; 2/ search of a better life; 3/ join families; or 4/ pursue an education. Those are called economic migrants, and moving to another country for those reasons is not considered a human right.

The numbers are going to keep growing. Researchers predict there could be 1 billion climate refugees by the middle of this century, and 2 billion by its end.

The CBC quotes this article, from Cornell University. Although the article provides no actual evidence for its claims, it does make many dire predictions

“Earth’s escalating population is expected to top 9 billion people by 2050 and climb to 11 billion people by 2100, according to a United Nations report. Feeding that population will require more arable land even as swelling oceans consume fertile coastal zones and river deltas, driving people to seek new places to dwell.”

Yes, predictions about rising sea levels submerging the land have been floated for decades. No evidence of it happening though.

For the last six years, Canadian lawyer François Crépeau has served as the United Nations’ leading investigator and expert on the human rights of migrants. His post put him on the frontlines of an international crisis, during some of the most challenging years in recent memory.

The CBC links this UN page. It will be done in another article. Bottom line, the UN views migration (even illegal immigration) as a human right.

“François Crépeau: I should start by saying that migration is part of humankind, of who we are. We were born as a species 250,000 years ago in Africa. We came out of Africa around 70,000 years ago, arrived in Australia 60,000 years ago when there was a land bridge, entered Europe 40,000 years ago when the ice retreated, and entered North America between 20 and 25,000 years ago.

Since then, we’ve moved around all the time. We are a migrating animal species. The numbers are high today, but they represent on average 3 per cent of the world population. We’re told by anthropologists and sociologists that this was the proportion 50 years ago, and this was the proportion 100 years ago. [Migration] is the constant of who we are.

The problem we’re facing today, what we call a crisis, is because we invented — about 400 to 500 years ago — borders. We implemented borders in the second half of the 19th century when we invented the passport. So for the past 200 years, we’ve had this idea that we should stop people at borders, but 200 years is very little as compared to 250,000 years.”

Nice history lesson, but where we were 250,000 years ago, or 20,000 years ago is irrelevant. He makes an argument since that because humans have moved around for centuries, that actual borders and border enforcement are a strange an abhorrent concept.

He either doesn’t get (or pretends not to get) that borders and nations are what allows societies to function. People united by heritage, language, culture, traditions, and yes, ethnicity have formed the basis of societies for a very, VERY long time. Though the concept of a nation-state is newer, the principles behind it are not.

“Michael Enright: This is the whole idea of the sovereign state — that sovereignty allows nation states to control their borders and keep people out.

It’s been said to be one of the attributes of state sovereignty, but it’s never happened. All borders are porous and democratic borders are more porous than others. Even the Soviet Union had porous borders. At that time, the people we called the smugglers and we present as terrible criminals today were actually helping people getting out of USSR, and we called them heroes.”

Yes, borders are porous, but they “shouldn’t” be. They exist for a purpose: to be a barrier and an outside limit for that nation.

“I think states have to accept that borders are not meant to stop everyone they would like to stop. Borders may mean knowing who enters and stays in the country. In order to get that knowledge, you have to have people come to border guards so that they can be identified, numbered, etc. In order to do that you have to provide them with papers. If you try to stop everyone you don’t like, the only thing you do is you create underground markets for smugglers.

A question of terminology here: what’s the difference between a refugee and migrant?
.
‘Refugee’ is defined in the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees. It’s someone who is outside his or her country of origin and fears persecution for five reasons: race, religion, nationality, belonging to a particular social group, and political opinions.

Refugees are a kind of migrant. But there are many other people who do not fear persecution or who fear many other things: people who are fleeing drought, tsunamis, poverty. These are good reasons to try to move somewhere else. This is a social stress, and migration has always been a human answer to social stress. It’s going to continue, and we have to adapt to that rather than try to refuse it.”

(1) Okay, this person flat out says that borders are not meant to stop everyone. Yeah, that “is” what they are for.

(2) If you stop everyone you don’t like, you create underground markets for smugglers? Sure, if someone isn’t allowed it, for whatever reason, just pay someone to smuggle them in.

(3) “Providing papers” is standard practice when you show up at a foreign border. Border guards need to know who people are, and whether they are admissible or not.

(4) Yes, refugees are something different than migrant, but throughout this article, you blur the lines. You don’t seem to care if they are fleeing some legitimate horror, or are just looking for a better life.

(5) “fleeing drought, tsunamis, poverty”? Poverty isn’t a natural disaster, and none of these are legitimate reasons to be considered a refugee. It is just blurring the lines here.

“In the last six years, in your position with the UN, you’ve travelled around the world. You’ve visited detention centres, camps, places where people try to cross borders. What stands out in your mind now from those visits?

I was expecting this to be very grim. And what stood out from day one, when visiting detention centres or camps, was the sheer determination, the grit, the courage of those people — the fact that even if they were detained, in their mind they were already somewhere else. They were already in the next step of their journey. They might be sent back home, but they would come back.

They are going to come whether we like it or not, because this is what humankind has always done. They are going to try to find a place where they can thrive, flourish, feed their kids and educate their kids. They don’t do it, often, because they like it. They do it because that’s where the future lies for themselves and their families.”

This is creepy. There is almost an awe that these migrants — attempting to enter illegally — will just keep trying again and again. And in the next paragraph, reiterating that it is people looking for a better life. Economic migrants, not refugees.

“Some countries have responded to this influx of refugees and migrants into Europe by trying to close their borders. You say there’s no such thing as a fully sealed border.

I mean, you can seal a border that deflects migration to other weak points along the border, but borders are very long. I suppose you could put a soldier every 10 meters with orders to shoot on sight. Democracies don’t do that, really.

If you try to stop [migration], the only thing you’re creating is an underground market for criminals. That’s what’s happened with the prohibition era between Canada and the U.S. We made the fortune of several Montreal families. That’s what’s happening with 40 years of the war on drugs. The cartels are not cowed, and are deadlier than ever.”

The pattern throughout the article is that people have the right to migrate — wherever, whenever, however — they want. There is no sympathy shown for the host nations who are forced to provide costs for security. No sympathy for the housing, education, health care, etc… that these open border policies force on host nations.

It is undemocratic to defend your border? Does a nation just “give up” enforcement if the illegal immigrants are determined to cross?

This is the same kind of nonsensical arguments that “safe injection sites” are founded on: provide for these people, otherwise, they will hurt themselves. Selfish.

This is not really surprising to read though. The UN has made it clear repeatedly that it DOES NOT respect national borders.

“But do nations have a moral responsibility to take in migrants?
.
I don’t think it’s a question of moral responsibility. It’s a question of facing the facts. Migrants are going to come.

Migrations occur because of push and pull factors. We very often discuss the push factors — environmental catastrophes, violence, war, economic deprivation. We never talk about the pull factors.

The main pull factor for countries in the global north is that we have huge labour markets that need those migrants. The undocumented migrants we have in Canada and Europe and the U.S., they all work. They all perform economic functions and there are millions of employers ready to employ them.”

A bit of honesty here. He says screw morality.

But that is where the honesty ends. True, there are many who do work, but there are many more (especially from the Middle East and Africa), who do not work, and are an economic burden.

Furthermore, there is no mention of the damage done to host nations, even by those working. A huge influx of workers leads to more competition for jobs, drives down wages, and often sees citizens being replaced in favour of cheap foreign labour.

“What about the suggestion that migrants coming into my country will somehow change or subvert the common culture?

That’s often heard. It’s not supported by social science. The biggest changes in our culture are linked to generational changes.. For my grandparents, divorce was unthinkable. My parents’ generation did that. For my parents’ generation, gay marriage was unthinkable. My generation did that. For my generation, more open borders is probably unthinkable. The next generation will do that.

Changes in values are much more important because of the passage of time — because we react to what our parents did — than by people coming in. We haven’t seen a change in democratic values because we had millions of people coming from undemocratic countries.”

Finally a good question, but the answers are chilling

(1) The speaker is either not aware, or deliberately lying, about mass migration changing the culture. Particularly with Islamic immigration, there is nothing but culture clash and violence.

(2) The speaker says he believes open borders will become a reality.

“Isn’t there an argument to be put forward that countries like France or Sweden have found it very difficult to integrate migrants into the common culture?

No one ever said that welcoming migrants was easy. It’s always been difficult. There are ways of making it easier — putting people in language courses very early on, training, trying to have mechanisms so that the skills and experience they have can be translated into Canadian experience and skills.

Countries like France have had migrants for generations. But in the post-war period they have turned a complete blind eye to integration, because all those migrant workers of the 50s, 60s and 70s were supposed to go back home, and France never realised that they would stay. So integration was not part of the process.

You have a marginalized community if you don’t have proper integration policies. Now, that is true for migrants. But that is true for Roma people in in Europe. That is true for Aboriginal people in Canada. That is true for poor people in most of our cities. It’s true for older people. Integration is not simply an immigration problem; it’s a social problem that we collectively have for several communities who are excluded from the mainstream.”

Notice that again there is no concern for the host countries now forced to deal with many thousands of “migrants”.

But an interesting point, you need proper integration. But if people are just going to migrate anyway, then all of this is cast aside. Again, it is selfish to just force these burdens on host countries.

And this is to say nothing of Islam, which rejects assimilation, and attempts to conquer and dominate anyway, via mass migration. Let’s be clear, Islam is a political ideology, not a religion.

“What about the argument of politicians and people who say, well, embedded in the intake of migrants, there may be terrorists who pose a threat to my individual and national security?

That’s true. There are bad apples in every community. There are bad apples in our communities who have been here for several centuries, and there are bad people in Aboriginal communities, and there are bad people in immigrant communities. That exists. It’s true. So, we could exclude everyone, try to prevent everyone from coming.

The issue is, if you talk to anti-terrorism people, they are not interested in migration policies, and they will tell you as much. Migration policy, stopping everyone at the border, it doesn’t give [them] any information on the precise person who poses a danger. To identify a person who poses danger, this is intelligence, and intelligence means groundwork with communities. Most terrorist attacks in the global north have been done by people who were either born or integrated in those countries.”

Going out of the way to miss the point. Should we not bother with borders and screening at all then, since bad apples have gotten through? Moreover, if we can determine who is not a good fit, then it makes it more likely to prevent their radicalised children from becoming a threat to the public.

“How young would they be, the ones that are alone?
.
Most of them are between 13 and 18. You have a very small minority who are younger, sometimes 9, 10, 11. They are often not those who are found on boats, because they simply don’t have the social capital to be able to negotiate that. But they will be found, for example, trying to cross into the U.S. from Mexico.

The older ones, 13 to 18 — this is an age where you become an adult in many societies. So we consider them as children, and they are in terms of their development, but certainly they don’t take the responsibilities of children. They take the responsibilities of adults. In countries like Afghanistan, where often the men have disappeared due to conflict, the oldest boy at 14 or 15 becomes the man of the family and does what it takes.”

Actually, there have been many cases of adult men claiming to be boys for 2 reasons: 1/ harder to deport; and 2/ more generous welfare. It has gotten so bad in Europe they started doing bone scans to better estimate ages.

“How much of the resistance to migration, to migrants, to refugees, is simple old-fashioned bigotry or racism? When you hear David Cameron, the former British prime minister, talking about migrants as a “swarm” and then his foreign secretary calls them “marauding” and, of course, we know what the current president of the United States thinks — how much of that is just pure racism?

I think racism and bigotry is a great percentage of the populist nationalist discourse on migration, and we have to understand why it’s possible.

We’ve had bigotry, racism and discrimination against all marginalized groups in society forever. The Jews, the Roma, women, Aboriginals. I mean, you name them. Slowly these people started fighting back, claiming their rights as equal citizens. Industrial workers fought back, and women fought back, and Indigenous people fought back. Gays and lesbians fought back.

It’s only when they started coming out and saying publicly, “we’re not going to take it anymore,” that politicians started changing their tune and stopping doing sexist jokes — well, they still do sexist jokes, but in much less quantity than when I was young.

This is not going to happen anytime soon for migrants. They don’t vote. They have no influence on politicians whatsoever, and they don’t participate in the public debates. Normally you would make policies with the people concerned. Try to imagine policies about women made by committees of men, as it was done 100 years ago. Today it would sound ludicrous. Well, migration policies are made by people who are not migrants and have no idea what migration means in most countries.”

(a) Folks, if you oppose mass illegal migration, chances are it is because you are a racist and a bigot.

(b) Illegal immigrants are just another discriminated against group? Really?

(c) Illegal immigrants don’t vote in Canada — yet. But there are moves being made to change that.

(d) They don’t influence or participate in debate? Have you turned on a TV lately?

Final Thoughts
This review doesn’t cover every passage. However, it is disturbing: CBC, our state funded broadcaster airing a speaker who blatantly promotes open borders.

He is not pushed or challenged on his beliefs. Nor are the demands and consequences imposed on the Canadian (or other host nation) explored. Remember, The public will be the ones footing the bill for this mass migration.

There seems to be little concern for: 1/ medical screening; 2/ police screening; 3/ state security screening; 4/ language abilities; 5/ cultural compatibility; or general employment prospects. The entire article is written though the lens of those wishing — no demanding — access to whatever country they wish. Remember this quote:

For my grandparents, divorce was unthinkable. My parents’ generation did that. For my parents’ generation, gay marriage was unthinkable. My generation did that. For my generation, more open borders is probably unthinkable. The next generation will do that.

National sovereignty be damned.

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #4: More On The “Wage Gap”

(CBC Promoting The Long Debunked “Wage Gap”)

CBC, a.k.a The “Communist Broadbasting Corporation”, or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”, is a government funded “news” organization. It receives about $1.5 billion annually to spew out anti-Canadian stories. Taxpayers don’t get a say in the matter.

CLICK HERE, to reach the CBC Propaganda Masterlist. It is far from complete, but being added to regularly.

CBC released this article, today, but included in the references is this article. This review includes them both.

“A new report on the highest-paid CEOs adds evidence to the argument that women face a “double-pane glass ceiling” at the top of Canada’s corporate ladder — first in getting to the executive suite and, once there, earning as much as their male counterparts.
.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) calculates that of the more than 1,200 named executive officers (NEOs) at 249 publicly traded companies in Canada, women earn about 68 cents for every dollar made by their male counterparts.
.
The study says the gap closes to 86 cents when looking at the wages of women and men in senior manager roles, almost in line with the country’s overall pay gap of 87 cents based on Statistics Canada calculations.”

The article will provide no evidence for this claim of a “double-pane glass ceiling” at all. Some actual proof of this claim would be nice.

Interestingly, this article links an older CBC article, see below, which makes the claim that the earnings gap between men and women is explained largely by different personal choices, such as 1/ family life; 2/ employment path; and 3/ education choices.

“The author of the report says the findings, while focused on the executive level where pay is already high, point to a larger equity issue.
.
CEOs make 197 times pay of average worker
.
“This is certainly about executives — that’s what we’re looking at — but I think it’s reflective of what’s happening throughout corporate Canada and the difficulties that women face in getting a fair shake even if they do have the qualifications,” said David Macdonald, the centre’s senior economist.
.
The findings are attached to the left-leaning centre’s annual report on the salaries of Canada’s highest-paid CEOs, who are estimated to earn what an average worker makes in a year by the time lunch rolls around Wednesday.
A review of corporate filings of publicly traded companies shows the top CEOs earned an average of $10 million in 2017, the most recent year available, or about 197 times more than the average worker.”

The report is focused on executive level, where pay is already high, which points to a larger equity issue?!

Do they mean “equality”, which is equal opportunity?

No, they mean “equity”, which is equal outcome

No evidence is provided that women don’t “receive a fair shake” in the corporate world. Again, if you are going to make such claims, back them up.

Yes, CEOs typically make far, far more than the average worker. But that is not proof of discrimination. With this equity push, is this a roundabout argument in favour of communism?

“”But this supposedly more competitive job market is not yielding markedly higher average wages, and ordinary workers aren’t gaining on CEOs,” the report says.
.
An earlier analysis by The Canadian Press that’s cited in the centre’s report found a similar gender gap among the country’s top 60 publicly traded companies. The review of records for 312 NEOs showed only 25 women and they earned an average of 64 cents for every dollar made by male counterparts.”

Once more, merely stating that there are differences is not proof of any discrimination. This article doesn’t seem to account for different industries, length of service, or profitability.

Interviews with about a dozen executives revealed a range of reasons.

Okay, before going any further, it needs to be pointed out: 12 is a low number.

“Old boys’ club hiring
.
They told The Canadian Press about how companies rely on the “old boys’ club” for executive searches. They also spoke about how outdated — and unchallenged — corporate culture in some companies leave women out of top jobs or fail to provide workplace support. The executives also mentioned a lack of confidence and risk-taking among women, an issue highlighted in academic research on executive pay.
.
Macdonald’s report zeros in on three issues:
.
[1] Few women are CEOs — about four per cent of Canadian CEOs and 10 per cent of top executives are women — where pay is the highest.
.
[2] “Performance pay” given to top executives — stock, stock options or cash rewards based on how a company performs — is predominantly higher for men than women. Eliminating bonus pay from the equation shrinks the gap to 82 cents, or almost the gap in the wider workforce.
.
[3] Companies with more women in executive ranks tend to be smaller organizations, and therefore pay less than their larger counterparts, Macdonald said.”

These sections actually largely refute the claims given above.

No workplace support? That is unfortunate, but if you are a senior officer or CEO of a company, then that company effectively is your life. Doubtful men get much support either.

The first reason given — few women are CEOs or executives — is not proof of any bias. This article does not detail any difference in education, work experience, or family or personal circumstances that might genuinely explain why women are not getting involved in high level business.

The second reason given — performance pay — is not discrimination. If a company does better, then it’s top staff will likely get bigger bonuses. Eliminating the bonus pay may shrink the “wage gap”, but it goes against free markets, and is a step towards communism.

The third reason given — women work for smaller companies — would be a valid justification to pay an executive less. Much harder for a smaller company to make the same payouts.

Rather than support the thesis, that there is a “double-pane glass ceiling” for women in business, other parts of the article suggest there are perfectly legitimate reasons women in top positions are earning less on average than men.

Further, this linked article provides a very reasonable explanation for the “wage gap”: men and women, on average, make different life choices. Sure, if we take free choice away, we could obtain wage parity.

“Securities legislation passed in 2017 created a “comply or explain” model for diversity on corporate boards, rather than setting quotas for the number of women, for instance. Macdonald’s report, citing a decade of data from Norway where quotas have increased the number of women on boards, suggests quotas aren’t the answer to closing the pay gap.”

Spoken too soon. There have been efforts to force social engineering on major companies, and the evidence still doesn’t show the difference disappearing.

“About a third of CEO pay is in the form of bonuses, supposedly tied to stock prices, and another quarter is in the form of stock options.
.
The CCPA argues this has the effect of promoting short-term thinking that boosts stock prices, but is not necessarily good management.
.
“With so much of CEO total pay being variable and related to short-term stock price fluctuations, there is a strong incentive to forego long-term investments that may depress present-day profits in favour of short-term decisions, like under-investment, that will boost current profits and stock prices,” the report says.”

This seems to reinforce the earlier suggestion that men in charge of companies have companies that perform better. This may be a knock against capitalism itself, but at no point does it show evidence for the “double-pane glass ceiling” that is keeping women down.

Perhaps there are other factors that explain the “wage gap”.

Men Are Killed More At Work

CLICK HERE, for the recent Bureau of Labor Statistics (US) released in the U.S. on December 18.

Look on page 4, specifically on the divide on gender and occupational injury resulting in death. There were listings for 2016 and 2017 on a per-capita basis (per 100,000 people). Note: it excluded: 1/ children under 16 years of age; 2/ volunteers; and 3/ military personnel.

2016, for women there were 387 deaths per 100,000 workers,
2016, for men there were 4,803 deaths per 100,000 workers.

2017, for women there were 386 deaths per 100,000 workers.
2017, for men there were 4761 deaths per 100,000 workers.

From this, we can determine that men were 12.4 times more likely to be killed at work than women in 2016, and 12.3 times more likely in 2017. At least this is the case in the U.S.

Men Work In More Physical And Dangerous Jobs

CLICK HERE, for a Bureau of Labor Statistic release in 1995. Most of the physical and dangerous jobs are ones with a majority of men.

Men Work More Hours

CLICK HERE, for the actual link.

This one, citing a 2007 data collection, showed men working on average 39.5 hours per week, while woman worked 33.2 hours per week.

CLICK HERE, for another StatsCan graph showing overtime. An interesting split, men were more likely to work “paid” overtime, while women were more likely to work “unpaid” overtime.

Men And Women Have Different Work Patterns
We could go on endlessly about the differences in work, work type, overtime, and danger. However, the data is clear from the research available. These are just a few data sets chosen, from Statistics Canada and the BLS in the United States.

Despite being regularly debunked, the “wage gap” is still thrown around as if there is actually some human right.

Yes, there are difference in how much men and women are paid. But there are legitimate reasons for those differences.