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.
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.
CLICK HERE, for an earlier article on amending both the Canadian Criminal Code and Human Rights Code for ”gender identity or expression”.
2. New York City
CLICK HERE, for the link to the NYC Human Rights Commission.
The document is a very long one, but let’s start with the first topic: misnaming or misgendering someoneone.
1. Failing To Use an Individual’s Preferred Name or Pronoun
.
The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.
.
Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. 10 Many transgender and gender non-conforming people choose to use a different name than the one they were given at birth.
.
All people, including employees, tenants, customers, and participants in programs, have the right to use their preferred name regardless of whether they have identification in that name or have obtained a court-ordered name change, except in very limited circumstances where certain federal, state, or local laws require otherwise (e.g., for purposes of employment eligibility verification with the federal government). Asking someone their preferred gender pronoun and preferred name is not a violation of the NYCHRL
And the penalties for this?
IV. PENALTIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
The Commission can impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct. The amount of a civil penalty will be guided by the following factors, among others:
The severity of the particular violation;
The existence of previous or subsequent violations;
The employer’s size, considering both the total number of employees and its revenue; and
The employer’s actual or constructive knowledge of the NYCHRL.
These penalties are in addition to the other remedies available to people who successfully resolve or prevail on claims under the NYCHRL, including, but not limited to, back and front pay, along with other compensatory and punitive damages. The Commission may consider the lack of an adequate anti-discrimination policy as a factor in determining liability, assessing damages, and mandating certain affirmative remedies.
Yes, a potential $250,000 fine for misgendering someone.
Incidently, New York now recognizes 31 genders. Not a joke.
1439.50. For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
.
(a) “Gender expression” has the same meaning as defined in Section 51 of the Civil Code.
.
(b) “Gender identity” means a person’s identity based on the individual’s stated gender identity, without regard to whether the self-identified gender accords with the individual’s physical appearance, surgical history, genitalia, legal sex, sex assigned at birth, or name and sex, as it appears in medical records, and without regard to any contrary statement by any other person, including a family member, conservator, or legal representative. An individual who lacks the present ability to communicate his or her gender identity shall retain the gender identity most recently expressed by that individual.
Existing law, the California Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of residential care facilities for the elderly by the State Department of Social Services. Under existing law, a person who violates the act, or who willfully or repeatedly violates any rule or regulation adopted under the act, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law also provides for civil penalties for a violation of the act.
So, just in case you are wondering, yes, it would be an actual offence. To be fair, it is being challenged in court.
4. Australia
CLICK HERE, got the tedious guidelines for awarding costs.
The Commission recognises that terminology can have a profound impact on a person’s identity, self-worth and inherent dignity. The use of inclusive and acceptable terminology empowers individuals and enables visibility of important issues.
.
The Commission supports the right of people to identify their sexual orientation and sex and/or gender as they choose. The Commission also recognises that terminology is strongly contested, particularly terminology to describe sex and/or gender identity. The consultation revealed that there is no clear consensus on what is appropriate terminology in this area.
.
This report uses the phrase ‘gender identity’ in two specific contexts. First, international human rights discourse often uses the phrase gender identity. Second, many state and territory laws use a variation of this phrase. As a result, the phrase ‘gender identity’ is used when referring to international human rights agreements or state and territory laws.
.
This report also frequently uses the phrase ‘sex and/or gender identity’. This term is used to refer to the whole spectrum of sex and/or gender in our community. It aims to include all people regardless of whether they identify within or outside of the binary gender.
5. New Zealand
CLICK HERE, for the list of things you can complain about.
The Human Rights Act 1993 makes it unlawful to discriminate based on:
.
Sex – includes pregnancy and childbirth, and discrimination against transgender and intersex people because of their sex or gender identity.
Marital status – includes marriages and civil unions that have ended.
Religious belief – not limited to traditional or mainstream religions.
Ethical belief – not having a religious belief.
Colour, race, or ethnic or national origins – includes nationality or citizenship.
Disability – including physical, psychiatric, intellectual or psychological disability or illness.
Age – people are protected from age discrimination if they are over 16 years old.
Political opinion – including not having a political opinion.
Employment status – being unemployed, on a benefit or on ACC. It does not include being employed or being on national superannuation.
Family status – includes not being responsible for children or other dependants.
Sexual orientation – being heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian or bisexual.
These grounds apply to a person’s past, present or assumed circumstances. For example, it is unlawful to discriminate against someone because they have a mental illness, had one in the past, or someone assumes they have a mental illness.
.
The prohibited grounds for discrimination are covered in detail in part two of the Human Rights Act.
6. Europe
The ECHR refers to the European Court of Human Rights
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family
life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
of others
CLICK HERE, for an absurd article that tries to erase biology altogether.
Note: While laws and punishments do vary, this stupidity is pushing the limits of tolerance and accomodation. It causes people to be openly contrarian, especially when discussion of these topics leads to stigmatizaion.
While there is legitimate concern and sympathy for trans-people, laws like these have the unintended consequence of being weaponized against undeserving targets.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) are facing a personnel shortage, and have come up with an interesting solution: drop all standards, and focus on diversity. No, this is not an exaggeration.
1. Proposed Changes
1/ Criminal record may not be a barrier to entry
2/ Credit problems not to be a barrier to entry
3/ Aptitude testing to be eliminated
4/ Hearing tests to be reduced or eliminated
5/ Vision tests to be reduced or eliminated
6/ Long stints at the acadmeny (training) to be reduced
7/ Focus to be on recruiting women and visible minorities
This CBC article, article is very difficult to parody, as it reads as one. Also, the comments are well worth checking out.
2. Article Quotations
The RCMP are taking a radical look at their recruitment strategy and could ditch credit checks and the ban on recruits with criminal backgrounds to help them rebuild their depleted ranks.
The Mounties have been plagued by staffing challenges in recent years and are looking at how to convince more women and visible minorities to don the red serge.
An internal document, obtained through access to information, suggests credit checks, the criminal background ban, the two-hour aptitude test and long stints at the training depot could all be eliminated from the hiring process as senior ranks try to make a career as a Mountie more attractive.
The document notes that some of the mandatory requirements can create barriers for communities the force wants to attract, including “groups more likely to have contact with the criminal justice system.”
It asks: Are we “tuned-in or tone deaf?”
The review exercise is the brainchild of Vaughn Charlton, the director of gender-based-analysis-plus with the RCMP.
She was brought over from Status of Women Canada in April 2017 at the request of then-commissioner Bob Paulson and tasked with focusing on gender and inclusion within the force.
“We need to stop assuming there’s only one kind of person who belongs in policing,” she said in an interview with CBC News.
“If we’re going to have mandatory requirements, we want to make sure we’re not creating unintended barriers for reasons that really have nothing to do with whether you’d be a great police officer.”
For example, someone coming to the force later in life might not be able to spend 26 weeks at the training depot in Saskatchewan. Credit checks — long part of the RCMP security screening process — can be a barrier for single parents or those who’ve been forced to take long-term leave, said Charlton.
Staffing crunch
The document also flagged hearing and vision tests and long shifts as potential barriers and questioned the value of the aptitude screening assessment — which, among other things, tests memory, logic, judgment and comprehension.
“I can definitely say we are looking at everything really seriously,” Charlton said. “These are questions worth asking and thinking, ‘Are they still relevant criteria in 2019?'”
So far, Charlton said, her questions have gone over well with top brass.
The recruitment review exercise is ongoing with no set deadline, she said. The entrance exam is getting its own fairness review through the Public Service Commission.
“I think the challenge for us going forward is looking at diversity and inclusion as seriously as we look at security,” Charlton said.
‘Race to the bottom’
When Commissioner Brenda Lucki took over as top Mountie earlier this year, she was warned in a briefing binder that “the RCMP has a growing vacancy rate that exceeds its present ability to produce regular members at a rate that keeps pace with projected future demands.”
The briefing note says that in the last five years, there has been a “dramatic” increase in the number of new recruits required to fill operational vacancies and evolving program requirements.
The RCMP says that in 2018, 21.6 per cent of regular members self-identified as women and 20.8 per cent of members above the inspector level were women. According to a 2017 report, about 10 per cent of the force identify as visible minority and eight per cent are Indigenous.
Time for civilian governance at RCMP, watchdog says in harassment report
Analysis: Toxic culture, harassment issues overshadow RCMP commissioner’s tenure
Christian Leuprecht, a Royal Military College professor who has written about the RCMP’s structure, said public service organizations like police forces are plagued by cumbersome hiring processes and low pay. On top of that, the RCMP have been plagued in recent years by allegations of sexual harassment, bullying and intimidation within the ranks.
“What this all points to is that the RCMP is going to have to change the way they do business, both as an organization and in particular in the way they recruit,” he said.
But Leuprecht cautioned against dropping too many of the mandatory requirements simply to raise the number of applicants. In an age of complex cybercrime investigations, terrorist threats and sophisticated organized crime operations, he said the force needs to ask itself how it can bring in more of the country’s top minds.
“The discussion is always about, ‘Well what can we do to kind of eliminate some barriers to this race to the bottom?'” he said.
“The RCMP is the largest police organization in the country and it is also our federal police force. This needs to be the force that shows the greatest professionalism, the greatest competence and that needs to position itself as an employer of choice and an employer that affords equality of opportunity to all Canadians.”
With files from the CBC’s Kathleen Harris
3. Thoughts On The Proposal
(1) Dropping the prohibition against people with a criminal record is non-sensical. Having a “pardoned” criminal record is one thing, but letting actual criminals in to do the policing?
Additionally, there are way too many questions here:
(a) Which offences will be grounds for exclusion?
(b) Will there be any specific cut-off, or is it case by case?
(c) Will there be a waiting period before a person can enter?
(d) Will people on parole or probation be allowed to enter?
(e) If an ex-con has a firearms ban, will that be waived?
(f) If an ex-con has a driving prohibition, will that be waived?
(2) Credit checks are used in places like banks. When putting someone is a position of trust, it is important to have some knowledge that they can manage finances, and will be less likely to abuse that trust.
Furthermore, ”employment credit checks” do not show anywhere near as much information as say, getting a check for a loan or credit card. These ones are severely restricted in the information disclosed, as it is to measure trustworthiness, not the balance on your cards or mortgage.
(3) Dropping the aptitude test? Do we not want some intellectual standards for RCMP recruits? If a person cannot meet a basic entry level exam, then excluding that person, or people, is in the best interest of the organization. It does raise the question though: is this an attempt to gain more ESL recruits?
(4) Hearing and vision tests are useful, since your physical health and sense are essential to one’s ability to do the job. Further, given how dangerous and gruelling policing can be, physical strength and stamina are needed.
(5)Yes, being away from the family for 6 months can be a burden, but training to be a police officer is a serious commitment. It cannot simply be gutted.
(6) Who cares how many people are women (or trannies identifying as women), or how many people are of a particular background? The focus should be on creating a strong force of intelligent, fit people with good moral character. The rest is just pandering to identity politics.
(7) “”….If we’re going to have mandatory requirements, we want to make sure we’re not creating unintended barriers for reasons that really have nothing to do with whether you’d be a great police officer.””
If we’re going to have mandatory requirements? These people seem uncertain about that. Also, the above criteria are VERY important in selecting police recruits.
(8) Assuming the claims of a culture of harassment are true — fire any and all people engaging in behaviour and focus on building a force with better decency. Don’t eliminate standards. This is sort of like having Problem “A”, and coming up with Solution “B”.
(9) Why change the way you do business? Again, terminate the bad apples, but don’t make it open-recruitment under the guide of ”inclusiveness”.
(10) An interesting point is made: in an era where technology and crime is becoming more sophisticated, do we want to be LOWERING our IQ entry requirements?
(11) Regarding the obsession with Gender-Based Analysis: no one is saying that women should not be police officers. Rather, their abilities should be valued more, and the focus on being women should be stopped. This is a frequent straw-man lefties use: assume any difference in stats is due to discrimination, and not due to personal choices.
4. Moronic To The Extreme
This quote says it all:
“We need to stop assuming there’s only one kind of person who belongs in policing,” she said in an interview with CBC News.
The challenge for us going forward is looking at diversity and inclusion as seriously as we look at security.
– Vaughn Charlton
Yes, we need to focusing on diversity and inclusion as much as security. So, people with criminal records, poor credit, low IQ, lack of commitment, poor hearing/vision, etc…. are just “another form of diversity”?
Enough of the endless pandering. Simply hire good quality recruits. If needed, make the compensation and benefits package more attractive. Offer flexibility in work locations. Don’t water down the standards.
(Michelle Rempel video November 21, contradicts October 20 video)
(The U.N. Global Migration Compact)
Summary of Michelle Rempel’s November 21 video:
[0:00 Complaining about Trudeau and New York border jumpers]
[1:00 Finally gets to UN Global migration compact]
[1:23 Clip in House of Commons, complaining about 38,000 border jumpers
[2:00 Trudeau responding]
[2:45 Rempel mentions objective #17, propaganda]
[3:00 Trudeau evading again]
[3:45 Rempel again goes on about 38,000 New York border jumpers]
[4:30 Praise for Harper, taxes, balanced budgets]
[5:10 Rempel again criticises Trudeau’s credibility]
[5:45 Rempel calls Trudeau a bully]
[6:00 Rempel says Trudeau calls names]
[6:15 Rempel says CPC opposes compact because of language (and other reasons)]
[6:30 Rempel says CPC would withdraw and gets its own house in order]
[6:45 Again criticises Trudeau]
[7:08 Rempel says CPC has been consistent, says offering general solutions]
[7:30 Rempel again goes on about refugees being put in hotels]
[8:00 Rempel again says we need a change, and working for Canadians]
YouTuber CanadaPoli released this response video on Rempel’s update, but I believe he was far too kind.
To make this clear: I don’t believe Rempel at all when she says the CPC opposes the UN Global Migration Compact. This seems like going through the motions.
To Rempel’s credit, she does reference the “Propaganda Provisions” embedded in Objective 17 of the UN Global Compact. See here
OBJECTIVE 17: Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration
33. We commit to eliminate all forms of discrimination, condemn and counter expressions, acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, violence, xenophobia and related intolerance against all migrants in conformity with international human rights law. We further commit to promote an open and evidence-based public discourse on migration and migrants in partnership with all parts of society, that generates a more realistic, humane and constructive perception in this regard. We also commit to protect freedom of expression in accordance with international law, recognizing that an open and free debate contributes to a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of migration.
Although this is mentioned by Rempel, she still seems rather indifferent towards it in the YouTube video.
However, I believe Rempel is lying in the video when she talks about the CPC opposing this deal with the UN. Here are the reasons (in no particular order)
(1) Rempel Lies About Conservatives Being Consistent
This is probably the easiest to debunk. Here is Rempel’s previous video, starting at 4:50. Rempel talks in circles and doesn’t actually say CPC opposes it.
Further, my own CPC MP confirmed the party was just going to study the Compact, and that Maxime Bernier’s petition was populist grandstanding. There is the article summary.
Here is the audio of that meeting:
(2) Rempel Shows No Urgency In Trying To Stop Compact
If Michelle Rempel actually had any concern over this, she would be a lot more active, and doing a lot more to stop this. Further, she wouldn’t be ignoring emails and phone calls, and blocking people on Twitter
(3) Rempel Spends More Time on Trudeau and Roxham Rd Than Compact
In the 8 minute video above, Rempel goes on and on about Trudeau, about fake refugees being put in hotels, and the achievements of the last government. Very little is actually spent on addressing the UN Compact itself. This is true in many of her videos: talking in circles and repeating herself without ever making a clear point. This is deliberate obfuscation.
(4) CPC Shows No Interest In Promoting Petition E-1906
Surely there are hard feelings over Maxime Bernier leaving the CPC the way he did. But if Conservatives actually opposed this global compact, then they would support this petition, or at least start one of their own.
(5) Rempel’s Video Is Extremely Light On Content
While Rempel did acknowledge the propaganda the UN promotes with regard to language, there is so much more that could be cited, that is simply not. Anyone could make an extemely compelling case against this simply by reading the document?
Serious question: Has Michelle Rempel ever read the UN Global Migration Compact?
Serious question: If these people are “refugees”, then why are we signing the “migration” compact?
Here are the 2 separate agreements.
OBJECTIVE 1: Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence based policies
We commit to strengthen the global evidence base on international migration by improving and investing in the collection, analysis and dissemination of accurate, reliable, comparable data, disaggregated by sex, age, migration status and other characteristics relevant in national contexts, while upholding the right to privacy under international human rights law and protecting personal data. We further commit to ensure this data fosters research, guides coherent and evidence-based policy-making and well-informed public discourse, and allows for effective monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of commitments over time.
This sounds eerily like the StatsCan type mentality, see here, and see here. Privacy is non essential, as long as it is done for statistical purposes.
OBJECTIVE 2: Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin
We commit to create conducive political, economic, social and environmental conditions for people to lead peaceful, productive and sustainable lives in their own country and to fulfil their personal aspirations, while ensuring that desperation and deteriorating environments do not compel them to seek a livelihood elsewhere through irregular migration. We further commit to ensure timely and full implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as well as to build upon and invest in the implementation of other existing frameworks, in order to enhance the overall impact of the Global Compact to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration.
This word-salad sounds nice, except when one realises that it goes directly against the purpose of the Global Migration Compact. The U.N. wants to promote mass migration, so spending huge amounts of resources improving conditions in home countries wouldn’t exactly help.
OBJECTIVE 3: Provide accurate and timely information at all stages of migration
We commit to strengthen our efforts to provide, make available and disseminate accurate, timely, accessible, and transparent information on migration-related aspects for and between States, communities and migrants at all stages of migration. We further commit to use this information to develop migration policies that provide a high degree of predictability and certainty for all actors involved.
This directly contradicts objective #2. Here, the U.N. speaks of coordinating mass movement of people. Indeed, the objective is quite clear: MASS MIGRATION.
OBJECTIVE 4: Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation
We commit to fulfil the right of all individuals to a legal identity by providing all our nationals with proof of nationality and relevant documentation, allowing national and local authorities to ascertain a migrant’s legal identity upon entry, during stay, and for return, as well as to ensure effective migration procedures, efficient service provision, and improved public safety. We further commit to ensure, through appropriate measures, that migrants are issued adequate documentation and civil registry documents, such as birth, marriage and death certificates, at all stages of migration, as a means to empower migrants to effectively exercise their human rights.
On the surface this sounds great, but think about it. The U.N. is going to obtain identity documents for people. What is to stop people from just claiming they don’t have any documents, and using the U.N. as a proxy to obtain false identification? That is not addressed here.
OBJECTIVE 5: Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
We commit to adapt options and pathways for regular migration in a manner that facilitates labour mobility and decent work reflecting demographic and labour market realities, optimizes education opportunities, upholds the right to family life, and responds to the needs of migrants in a situation of vulnerability, with a view to expanding and diversifying availability of pathways for safe, orderly and regular migration
What is sounds like. Wanting to streamline mass migration. Do the host countries ever get a say in the matter? Their rights don’t seem important.
OBJECTIVE 6: Facilitate fair and ethical recruitment and safeguard conditions that ensure decent work
We commit to review existing recruitment mechanisms to guarantee that they are fair and ethical, and to protect all migrant workers against all forms of exploitation and abuse in order to guarantee decent work and maximize the socioeconomic contributions of migrants in both their countries of origin and destination.
No concerns for the unemployment issues that may exist within the host countries. Flood the market with cheap labour. What could go wrong?
OBJECTIVE 7: Address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration
We commit to respond to the needs of migrants who face situations of vulnerability, which may arise from the circumstances in which they travel or the conditions they face in countries of origin, transit and destination, by assisting them and protecting their human rights, in accordance with our obligations under international law. We further commit to uphold the best interests of the child at all times, as a primary consideration in situations where children are concerned, and to apply a gender-responsive approach in addressing vulnerabilities, including in responses to mixed movements.
The U.N. really does believe that migration is a human right.
OBJECTIVE 8: Save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants
We commit to cooperate internationally to save lives and prevent migrant deaths and injuries through individual or joint search and rescue operations, standardized collection and exchange of relevant information, assuming collective responsibility to preserve the lives of all migrants, in accordance with international law. We further commit to identify those who have died or gone missing, and to facilitate communication with affected families.
This is another objective that sounds great until you realize that this is going on a major operation for search and rescue of migrants who have chosen to flout the will of home countries, and gone missing as a result.
OBJECTIVE 9: Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants
We commit to intensify joint efforts to prevent and counter smuggling of migrants by strengthening capacities and international cooperation to prevent, investigate, prosecute and penalize the smuggling of migrants in order to end the impunity of smuggling networks. We further commit to ensure that migrants shall not become liable to criminal prosecution for the fact of having been the object of smuggling, notwithstanding potential prosecution for other violations of national law. We also commit to identify smuggled migrants to protect their human rights, taking into consideration the special needs of women and children, and assisting in particular those migrants subject to smuggling under aggravating circumstances, in accordance with international law
OBJECTIVE 10: Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration
We commit to take legislative or other measures to prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration by strengthening capacities and international cooperation to investigate, prosecute and penalize trafficking in persons, discouraging demand that fosters exploitation leading to trafficking, and ending impunity of trafficking networks. We further commit to enhance the identification and protection of, and assistance to migrants who have become victims of trafficking, paying particular attention to women and children.
Another 2 objectives that sound great, until you realize that the U.N. is in effect just bringing smuggling under its own control. The actual idea of sneaking people into countries is not going away, rather it is just a change in management.
OBJECTIVE 11: Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner
We commit to manage our national borders in a coordinated manner, promoting bilateral and regional cooperation, ensuring security for States, communities and migrants, and facilitating safe and regular cross-border movements of people while preventing irregular migration. We further commit to implement border management policies that respect national sovereignty, the rule of law, obligations under international law, human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status, and are non-discriminatory, gender-responsive and child-sensitive.
Exactly what it appears to be. Countries enforcing their own borders will be a thing of the past. Instead, governments will now coordinate with the U.N. The part about “respecting border sovereignty” is a joke, as the idea of coordinating defeats the idea of sovereignty.
OBJECTIVE 12: Strengthen certainty and predictability in migration procedures for appropriate screening, assessment and referral
We commit to increase legal certainty and predictability of migration procedures by developing and strengthening effective and human rights-based mechanisms for the adequate and timely screening and individual assessment of all migrants for the purpose of identifying and facilitating access to the appropriate referral procedures, in accordance with international law.
Going through the details, this appears to be a combination of social worker combined with human rights tribunals. Nothing could possibly go wrong?
OBJECTIVE 13: Use immigration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
We commit to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality and individual assessments, is carried out by authorized officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective of whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. We further commit to prioritize noncustodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.
Yes, detention of migrants who commit crimes must be a last resort. And you think bleeding heart liberal justice systems are weak now?
OBJECTIVE 14: Enhance consular protection, assistance and cooperation throughout the migration cycle
We commit to strengthen consular protection of and assistance to our nationals abroad, as well as consular cooperation between States in order to better safeguard the rights and interests of all migrants at all times, and to build upon the functions of consular missions to enhance interactions between migrants and State authorities of countries of origin, transit and destination, in accordance with international law
Here the Compact completely undermines itself. If these people are fleeing horrible persecution, then how exactly do they have “consular services”? Wouldn’t that imply the government does help them?
OBJECTIVE 15: Provide access to basic services for migrants
We commit to ensure that all migrants, regardless of their migration status, can exercise their human rights through safe access to basic services. We further commit to strengthen migrant inclusive service delivery systems, notwithstanding that nationals and regular migrants may be entitled to more comprehensive service provision, while ensuring that any differential treatment must be based on law, proportionate, pursue a legitimate aim, in accordance with international human rights law.
“Irregulars”, meaning “illegals” are still entitled to most, if not all of the same rights as people “legally” immigrating.
OBJECTIVE 16: Empower migrants and societies to realize full inclusion and social cohesion
We commit to foster inclusive and cohesive societies by empowering migrants to become active members of society and promoting the reciprocal engagement of receiving communities and migrants in the exercise of their rights and obligations towards each other, including observance of national laws and respect for customs of the country of destination. We further commit to strengthen the welfare of all members of societies by minimizing disparities, avoiding polarization and increasing public confidence in policies and institutions related to migration, in line with the acknowledgment that fully integrated migrants are better positioned to contribute to prosperity.
This may sound great, but in practice it generally means that the host country must bend over backwards to accommodate very different and often incompatible cultures and traditions. Yay, multiculturalism.
*** Object 17 refers to propaganda, which to be fair, Rempel did mention ***
OBJECTIVE 18: Invest in skills development and facilitate mutual recognition of skills, qualifications and competences
We commit to invest in innovative solutions that facilitate mutual recognition of skills, qualifications and competences of migrant workers at all skills levels, and promote demanddriven skills development to optimize the employability of migrants in formal labour markets in countries of destination and in countries of origin upon return, as well as to ensure decent work in labour migration.
So a job training problem for migrants, one not available to host citizens. Is this not an acknowledgement that we are bringing large numbers of unskilled people? Further, what if the migrants refuse to work? Are we expected to just shut up and pay their welfare?
OBJECTIVE 19: Create conditions for migrants and diasporas to fully contribute to sustainable development in all countries
We commit to empower migrants and diasporas to catalyse their development contributions, and to harness the benefits of migration as a source of sustainable development, reaffirming that migration is a multidimensional reality of major relevance for the sustainable development of countries of origin, transit and destination
OBJECTIVE 20: Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants
We commit to promote faster, safer and cheaper remittances by further developing existing conducive policy and regulatory environments that enable competition, regulation and innovation on the remittance market and by providing gender-responsive programmes and instruments that enhance the financial inclusion of migrants and their families. We further commit to optimize the transformative impact of remittances on the well-being of migrant workers and their families, as well as on sustainable development of countries, while respecting that remittances constitute an important source of private capital, and cannot be equated to other international financial flows, such as foreign direct investment, official development assistance, or other public sources of financing for development.
Short explanation: massive open-ended welfare
OBJECTIVE 21: Cooperate in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as sustainable reintegration
We commit to facilitate and cooperate for safe and dignified return and to guarantee due process, individual assessment and effective remedy, by upholding the prohibition of collective expulsion and of returning migrants when there is a real and foreseeable risk of death, torture, and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment, or other irreparable harm, in accordance with our obligations under international human rights law. We further commit to ensure that our nationals are duly received and readmitted, in full respect for the human right to return to one’s own country and the obligation of States to readmit their own nationals. We also commit to create conducive conditions for personal safety, economic empowerment, inclusion and social cohesion in communities, in order to ensure that reintegration of migrants upon return to their countries of origin is sustainable.
So, we can’t deport someone or send someone back if they claim to be in fear for their lives. That is never abused or used to circumvent legal court orders. “Human rights” in such a way that will undermine public safety.
OBJECTIVE 22: Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits
We commit to assist migrant workers at all skills levels to have access to social protection in countries of destination and profit from the portability of applicable social security entitlements and earned benefits in their countries of origin or when they decide to take up work in another country
Not only are we paying welfare, but pensions as well. This although the Canadian government or public has received no benefit. And how would we even verify that this work took place? Ripe for abuse.
OBJECTIVE 23: Strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships for safe, orderly and regular migration
We commit to support each other in the realization of the objectives and commitments laid out in this Global Compact through enhanced international cooperation, a revitalized global partnership, and in the spirit of solidarity, reaffirming the centrality of a comprehensive and integrated approach to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration, and recognizing that we are all countries of origin, transit and destination. We further commit to take joint action in addressing the challenges faced by each country to implement this Global Compact, underscoring the specific challenges faced in particular by African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, small island developing States, and middle-income countries. We also commit to promote the mutually reinforcing nature between the Global Compact and existing international legal and policy frameworks, by aligning the implementation of this Global Compact with such frameworks, particularly the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as well as the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, and their recognition that migration and sustainable development are multidimensional and interdependent
Earlier, we are told that each country will maintain sovereignty. Now, its “global partnerships”.
Back to the original point: CPC “Immigration Shadow Minister” Michelle Rempel now claims the CPC opposes the UN Global Migration Compact in her YouTube video. This is stark contrast to when she shrugged it off as “non-binding”.
However, in the video, she spends most of the time talking about other things. There is no sense of urgency, and the video is very lacking in details. Here are just the 23 OBJECTIVES, and they are scary.
Has Michelle Rempel even read the U.N. Global Migration Compact?
Doubtful, otherwise her video wouldn’t meander nearly as much. Either that or she is flat out lying.
(The U.N. admits it helps “migrants”, regardless of their legal status)
(Mastercard and MercyCorps)
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.
Of course, CBC promoting globalism is nothing new. Here is a recent cover of a “non-profit” calling itself Century Initiative. Their goal was to boost Canada’s population to 100 million people by the year 2100. Of course, logistical details, or incompatibility of cultures is not discussed.
On November 23, Jonathon Gatehouse of CBC released this article. It contained a story whining about how Europe enforcing its borders was putting migrant lives in danger.
The present article is extremely biased and one sided. It takes issue with Europe protecting its own borders, and denying unending immigration from the third world. It is amazing how an article can both be factually accurate, yet so completely miss the point. CBC is being extremely selective in what information is presents.
Throughout the article, Gatehouse repeatedly implies that these migrants have the right to reach Europe and live there. The right of European Nations to defend their borders is mention is looked down upon. Let’s go through the article:
“Desperate migrants are choosing ever more dangerous sea routes to Europe and using smaller and less seaworthy boats, causing a sharp increase in drowning deaths, warns the International Organization for Migration.”
What CBC leaves out is that these are “ILLEGAL” migrants, who do not have permission to enter Europe, let along live there. This point is omitted throughout the article.
“The European Union’s success in cutting deals to close off the sea routes from Turkey to Greece, and from Libya to Italy, has resulted in an overall drop in the number of migrants arriving on the continent — 128,265 so far this year, compared to almost 187,000 in 2017, and 390,000 in 2016.
.
Some are now even arriving in the Canary Islands, a Spanish archipelago 100 kilometres off the Moroccan coast. At least 36 migrants have died trying to make that crossing in 2018, compared to one the year befoore”
The European Union is not trying to cut off one route for the sake of being a jerk. They are genuinely trying to control their borders with this move. Migrants are trying circumvent this by finding other ways to get into Europe.
“Yet despite the concerns over the rising death toll, many European nations seem focused on enacting even tougher anti-migrant policies.
.
This week, prosecutors in Sicily moved to seize a migrant rescue vessel operated by Medecins Sans Frontières and another aid organization, accusing the groups of illegally dumping of 24 tonnes of “potentially toxic waste” during stops in Italian ports.”
Gatehouse seems to miss the point of this entirely. European nations are sick of mass illegal immigration and are trying to stop it. If migrants are endangering themselves by finding innovative ways to break immigration laws, then it is not the responsibility of said nations to provide assistance. There is no obligation to aid law-breakers.
“And soon, Italy’s parliament will vote on a new immigration law proposed by the populist government that will remove humanitarian protections for migrants and block asylum seekers from accessing services. These are moves that UN human rights experts have said will “certainly” violate international law.”
Gatehouse omits the key detail that these new laws are meant for ILLEGAL immigrants. He seems to think that just showing up against Italy’s will entitles people to free benefits.
“Meanwhile in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is ratcheting up his attacks on the European Union, calling it a “transport agency” for migrants that hands out funds and “anonymous bank cards” to “terrorists and criminals.”
.
“This is the kind of slippery slope which could again lead to a broken Europe,” Orbán declared today in an interview on Hungarian public radio.
Actually, the EU and UN do provide financial assistance for migrants, regardless of their legal status. See this page, from the U.N. website, regarding the “caravan” demanding access to the U.S. See this previous article. Handing out prepaid credit cards to finance “migration” actually is happening.
“Anti-immigrant sentiment is undeniably on the rise in Europe.
.
This week, the Guardian newspaper crunched the voting results from 31 European elections over the past 20 years. It found that populist parties have tripled their support and managed to put their leaders into positions of power within 11 different governments.”
This is true, although Gatehouse bypasses the fact that mass, illegal and uncontrolled immigration directly leads to anti-immigrant sentiment and policies. Throughout the article, there is no mention of European nations having the right to decide for themselves who enters their borders.
“”I [Hillary Clinton] admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken, particularly by leaders like Angela Merkel, but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must send a very clear message — ‘We are not going to be able to continue to provide refuge and support’ — because if we don’t deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil the body politic.”
.
To date in 2018, 2,075 migrants have drowned or gone missing while crossing the Mediterranean.”
This quote is accurate. However, the connection seems to be lost on the author. And while 2075 may have died, they were trying to get into Europe ILLEGALLY. This is a point Gatehouse avoids altogether. Why should Europe assist those trying to break their laws?
This is a theme in the entire article: that these migrants have a “right” to enter Europe, and that Europe is causing a humanitarian crisis by not assisting them.
However, Gatehouse does deserve credit for one thing: not once does he refer to them as “refugees”. he acknowledges that they are migrants looking for a better life.
***********************************************************************
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.
Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
***********************************************************************
The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear Bela Kosoian, a woman detained in Laval, Quebec, for refusing to hold a hand rail.
(1) Backstory of the Case
This is a a bizarre story, starting in 2009, of a woman in a Laval, QC, subway station, refused instructions from transit officers to hold a handrail while on an escalator.
When transit officers attempted to write her a ticket for the refusal to obey, she refused to identify herself. Identity is rather important in enforcing tickets. This led to her being detained for about a half hour, after which point she did reveal her name.
Kosoian was issued 2 tickets from that incident, one for $100, and one for $320. She contested both, and they were eventually thrown out.
Since then, she has taken legal action against the city, the STM, and a staff member. After a series of legal twists, it will now be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.
(2) Quebec Court of Justice — Trial Court
Kosoian took legal action against: (a) the City of Laval; (b) Fabio Camacho — one of the officers; and (c) the Transportation Company of Montreal — aka the STM. She sought $24,000 for moral damages, pain, suffering, inconvenience and exemplary damages, and another $45,000 for moral and punitive damages for the fault committed by its agent.
Kosoian submitted a VERY LENGTHY list and description of physical and psychological trauma suffered as a resukt of being detained for about half an hour. On the surface, it seems like malingering.
49. Any unlawful interference with any right or freedom recognized by this Charter entitles the victim to obtain the cessation of such interference and compensation for the moral or material prejudice resulting therefrom.
In case of unlawful and intentional interference, the tribunal may, in addition, condemn the person guilty of it to punitive damages.
For it’s part, the STM Referenced By-Law R-036
” BY-LAW R-036
“REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE SAFETY AND BEHAVIOR STANDARDS OF PERSONS IN ROAD EQUIPMENT AND BUILDINGS OPERATED BY OR FOR THE MONTREAL TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION”
[…]
SECTION III – GENERAL PROVISIONS
3. Subject to the law and regulations, any person has the right to use the public transportation system of the Company in comfort and safety.
Subsection I – Citizenship
4. In or on a building or rolling stock, no person shall
(a) impede or hinder the free movement of persons, including standing still, lurking, strolling, laying down or carrying a bag, container or other object;
(b) endanger the safety of persons or rolling stock, in particular by depositing or carrying a bag, container or other object;
[…]
e) to disobey a directive or pictogram posted by the Society;
[…]
h) to delay or interfere with the work of a servant of the Corporation; “
But according to the STM staff, it is not the potential safety infraction that led to Bela Kosoian being arrested. Rather, it was her refusal to identity herself when being written a ticket.
In August 2015, a Quebec Court rejected the claim. It stated that the officers acted reasonably, and that the situation was largely self-inflicted
(3) Motion for Leave, Quebec Court of Appeal
Kosoian sought leave to go to the Quebec Court of Appeal.
On December 2015, in an extremely brief ruling, the Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to proceed, dismissing a motion from the Respondents.
(4) Appeal, Quebec Court of Appeal
In a 2-1 split decision, Kosoian lost her appeal at the Quebec Court of Appeals. 2 Justices ruled that the STM and its staff had acted reasonably. In dissent, the other Justice says he would have set aside the Trial ruling, and ordered $15,000 in damages.
[ 1 ] The appellant appeals against a judgment rendered on August 11, 2015, by the Court of Quebec, District of Laval (the Honorable Denis Le Reste), dismissing the appellant’s motion to institute damages for damages .
[ 2 ] For the reasons of Dutil and Vauclair JJ., THE COURT :
[ 3 ] REJECTS the appeal with court costs.
[ 4 ] For other reasons, Schrager JA would have allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment at trial, granted the motion to institute proceedings, ordered the respondents, jointly and severally, to pay the appellant the sum of 15,000 $ with interest and the additional indemnity since the summons at first instance, as well as legal costs at first instance and on appeal, and stated that between the respondents, the Montreal Transit Corporation will have to assume the entire conviction.
(5) Supreme Court of Canada
This leads things to where they are today. Once again, the Supreme Court granting leave to appeal just now.
The motion for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal to the judgment of theCourt of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500-09-025644-154, 2017 QCCA 1919 (CanLII) , date December 5, 2017, is awarded with costs in the case. The schedule for serving and filing materials will be set by the Registrar .
An interesting split so far in the courts. In Kosoian’s favour:
-Supreme Court of Canada, leave to appeal
-Quebec Court of appeal, dissenting opinion
-Quebec Court of Appeal, motion for leave
And against Kosoian:
-Quebec Court of Appeal, majority opinion
-Quebec Trial Court
-Laval ruling which dismissed the original tickets.
Personally, I see blame on both sides here. While ticketing her for refusing to hold a handrail does seem excessive, the escalation of the problems resulted from Kosoian herself. She did refuse to identify herself when being ticketed, which for the STM was a legitimate demand. Also, her claims of emotional and psychological damages seem grossly exaggerated, and manipulated to seek a huge damages amount.
The Supreme Court Appeal Panel will now decide the case.
