TSCE #18(B): Canada’s Bills/Treaties Undermine Hague Convention On Child Abduction

Today is the 40th anniversary of the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. This is to focus on the civil side (such as custody issues). While this seems impressive, Canada has done much domestically and internationally to undermine and weaken the principles. Even the UN has studied the connection between illegal border crossings and smuggling, trafficking and child exploitation. Quite simply, without real borders, the Hague Convention is meaningless.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

For the previous work in the TSCE series. This is the 40th anniversary of the Hague Convention of Child Abduction. However, Governments ensure that it will continue. Also, take a look at open borders movement, the abortion and organs industry, and the NGOs who are supporting it. This is information that won’t be found in the mainstream or alternative media.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the Hague Convention treaty itself.
Hague Convention Civil Treaty
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s announcement on 40 year anniversary.

CLICK HERE, for Agenda 21, full treaty.
CLICK HERE, for Gov’t info on Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for text of Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for the many exemptions in S3CA.

CLICK HERE, for FIPA agreement Canada/China.
CLICK HERE, for previous review on FIPA.
CLICK HERE, for CD18.5, sanctuary for illegals in Toronto.
CLICK HERE, for Toronto EC5.5, human and sex trafficking resolution.
CLICK HERE, for Canadian Labour Congress on sanctuary cities.

CLICK HERE, for CANZUK International website.
CLICK HERE, for proposed expansion of CANZUK zone.
CLICK HERE, for review of new USMCA (NAFTA 2.0)
CLICK HERE, for link to official Agenda 2030 text.
CLICK HERE, for review of UNSDA Agenda 2030.
Text Of Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda
CLICK HERE, for text of New York Declaration.
new.york.declaration.2016

CLICK HERE, for Bill C-6, citizenship for terrorists.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-32, lowering age of consent for anal.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-75, reduced criminal penalties.
CLICK HERE, for 2nd review of Bill C-75 (child offences).
CLICK HERE, for asking if Gov’t actually supports trafficking.

UN Global Migration Compact (Full Text)

OTHER SOURCES:
CLICK HERE, for UN Review On Smuggling Migrants.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention On Transnational Crime.
http://archive.is/q0XqK
CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol Against Human Trafficking.
http://archive.is/cjnJt
CLICK HERE, for UN Opt. Protocol On Rights Of The Child.
http://archive.is/onmrr
CLICK HERE, for UN Global Initiative To Fight Trafficking.
http://archive.is/Fjuv6
CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol To Prevent/Punish Trafficking.
CLICK HERE, for UN Rights Of The Child, Sale, Prostitution, Porn.
http://archive.is/onmrr
CLICK HERE, for Eliminate Worst Forms Of Child Labour.
http://archive.is/OZQM
CLICK HERE, for the Rome Statute, Int’l Criminal Court.
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s antitrafficking strategy, 2019-24.
http://archive.is/15ov0

3. Quotes From Hague Convention (Civil) Treaty

Article 3
The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where –
a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and
b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or
would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.

Article 4
The Convention shall apply to any child who was habitually resident in a Contracting State immediately before any breach of custody or access rights. The Convention shall cease to apply when the child attains the age of 16 years.

Article 5
For the purposes of this Convention –
a) “rights of custody” shall include rights relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child’s place of residence;
b) “rights of access” shall include the right to take a child for a limited period of time to a place other than the child’s habitual residence.

Article 8
Any person, institution or other body claiming that a child has been removed or retained in breach of custody rights may apply either to the Central Authority of the child’s habitual residence or to the Central Authority of any other Contracting State for assistance in securing the return of the child.
The application shall contain –
a) information concerning the identity of the applicant, of the child and of the person alleged to have removed or retained the child;
b) where available, the date of birth of the child;
c) the grounds on which the applicant’s claim for return of the child is based;
d) all available information relating to the whereabouts of the child and the identity of the person with whom the child is presumed to be.
.
The application may be accompanied or supplemented by –
e) an authenticated copy of any relevant decision or agreement;
f) a certificate or an affidavit emanating from a Central Authority, or other competent authority of the State of the child’s habitual residence, or from a qualified person, concerning the relevant law of that State;
g) any other relevant document.

Article 13
Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that –
a) the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; or
b) there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.
.
The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the
child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate
to take account of its views.
.
In considering the circumstances referred to in this Article, the judicial and administrative authorities shall
take into account the information relating to the social background of the child provided by the Central
Authority or other competent authority of the child’s habitual residence.

Article 17
The sole fact that a decision relating to custody has been given in or is entitled to recognition in the requested State shall not be a ground for refusing to return a child under this Convention, but the judicial or administrative authorities of the requested State may take account of the reasons for that decision in applying this Convention.

In short, this is an international agreement to enforce child custody orders, or family disputes. Note: the children don’t have to be return if administrators determine there is some danger. Unfortunately, this seems entirely subjective.

4. Announcement From Global Affairs Canada

Statement
October 25, 2020 – Ottawa, Ontario – Global Affairs Canada
.
The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, today issued the following statement:
.
“Today, we mark the 40th anniversary of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
“Every year, in Canada and abroad, thousands of children are wrongfully taken across international borders by a parent or guardian in violation of rights of custody. This has devastating effects on families, and it is the children who suffer the most. Children must be at the heart of family justice, and mechanisms like the Hague Convention on child abduction are essential in order to assist them in these terrible situations.
.
“Canada, along with 100 contracting states, continues to support this global effort to protect children from wrongful removal or retention and return them to their country of residence. We continue to call on the global community to join us and to ratify this important convention.
.
“We are committed to working with our international partners to continue to protect children and to reinforce the operation of the convention.”

While this all sounds fine, it should be noted that Canada has done a lot, both domestically, and with international treaties to weaken and undermine the spirit of this agreement.

What other treaties or bills do this?

5. Canada’s Bills/Treaties Since 1980

Here are some of the major developments in Canada in the last few decades. All of these either weaken the borders and/or reduce the criminal penalties involved.

  • UN Agenda 21 (1992)
  • Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement (2002)
  • FIPA (2012)
  • Sanctuary cities (First in 2013)
  • CANZUK: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK (2015)
  • UN Agenda 2030 (2015)
  • New York Declaration (2016)
  • Bill C-6 citizenship for terrorists (2016)
  • Bill C-32/C-75 (2018)
  • UN Global Migration Compact (2018)
  • USMCA, NAFTA 2.0 (2020)

It doesn’t matter who’s in power. They’re all globalists.

6. Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement

CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;

ARTICLE 8
(1) The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
(2) These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
(3) The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.

Source is here. Serious question: why have Canada and the United States signed an agreement that quite clearly gives the UN a seat at the table?

The treaty was pretty ineffective anyway, given that people could still get into the country as long as they BYPASSED legal border ports. Now, thanks to the Federal Court, the agreement is effectively dead.

Of course, the tens of thousands entering Canada illegally in recent years pales in comparison to the hordes of LEGAL migrants entering under various programs.

7. FIPA Between Canada And China

FIPA largely eliminated the border between Canada and the Chinese. This means that Chinese nationals can freely enter Canada, almost without restrictions. They can also bring their own security to look after their national interests. Makes it easy to smuggle products — or people — into Canada.

8. Sanctuary Cities Forming In Canada

In 2013, Toronto became the first city in Canada to officially obtain status a sanctuary city. It was supported by “conservatives” Doug and Rob Ford. How are child custody agreements supposed to be enforced overseas when children can simply disappear in one of them?

Now list includes: Toronto, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Edmonton and others. In the 2018 Ontario election, the NDP campaigned on turning Ontario into a sanctuary province.

9. CANZUK (CDA, Australia, New Zealand, UK)

The Trans-Tasmanian Partnership is an agreement between Australia and New Zealand to let citizens work and freely travel in each other’s countries. CANZUK would essentially be an expansion of that agreement by adding both Canada and the UK. This is an actual open borders arrangement which could be further expanded.

CANZUK International was formed in 2015, and members of the CPC are some of its biggest supporters.

It’s also interesting how the justifications have changed. Previously, it was about opportunity. Now it’s about containing Chinese influence, which Conservatives allowed to grow in the first place. One obvious example is FIPA.

10. UN Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development

Agenda 2030 was signed in September 2015 by then PM Stephen Harper. It signs away more of Canada’s sovereignty to the “sustainable development agenda”, and makes mass migration across international borders even easier. So-called conservatives would be hard pressed to explain why this is okay, but why the Paris Accord and UN Global Migration Compact are so wrong. There is a lot of overlap with the content.

Worth a mention is that “Conservative” Brian Mulroney was in power in 1992 when Agenda 21 was signed in Brazil.

11. New York Declaration, UN GMC Prelude

This was signed in September 2016, just a year after Agenda 2030. The UN Global Migration Compact was largely based on this text. Both agreements are to make it easier to bring large numbers of people across borders, and to establish international standards. It’s not difficult to see how this would make child abduction and transportation easier to do.

12. Bill C-6, Citizenship For Terrorists

It cheapens Canadian citizenship when anyone can get it. This is especially true for convicted terrorists and traitors. There’s also the increased likelihood of people gaming the system to avoid being sent back, for say crimes against children.

13. Bill C-32/C-75, Reducing Criminal Penalties

If the government is concerned about the well being of children, then why would they introduce a bill to water down criminal penalties for sex crimes against children, and reduce the age of consent?

  • Section 58: Fraudulent use of citizenship
  • Section 159: Age of consent for anal sex
  • Section 172(1): Corrupting children
  • Section 173(1): Indecent acts
  • Section 180(1): Common nuisance
  • Section 182: Indecent interference or indignity to body
  • Section 210: Keeping common bawdy house
  • Section 211: Transporting to bawdy house
  • Section 242: Not getting help for childbirth
  • Section 243: Concealing the death of a child
  • Section 279.02(1): Material benefit – trafficking
  • Section 279.03(1): Withholding/destroying docs — trafficking
  • Section 279(2): Forcible confinement
  • Section 280(1): Abduction of child under age 16
  • Section 281: Abduction of child under age 14
  • Section 291(1): Bigamy
  • Section 293: Polygamy
  • Section 293.1: Forced marriage
  • Section 293.2: Child marriage
  • Section 295: Solemnizing marriage contrary to law
  • Section 435: Arson, for fraudulent purposes
  • Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime

Bill C-75 “hybridized” these offences. What this means is that they were initially to be tried by indictment (felony), but now prosecutors have discretion to try them summarily (misdemeanor). Of course, there were plenty of Section 83 offences (terrorism) that were also hybridized.

14. UN Global Migration Compact

What is strange about the UNGMC is that its text explicitly undermines its stated goals. While the UN supposedly opposed smuggling, the agreement says people shall not be punished. And while condemning trafficking, the UN provides advice and guidance on how to do it more successfully.

15. USMCA, More Than Just Trade

The new USMCA (U.S., Mexico & Canada Agreement) is far more than just a trade agreement. It ensures that more “workers” will be coming across the borders, and cedes areas of labour rights to the UN.

16. How Does Any Of This Help Children?

Remember, this is the 40th anniversary on the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. Member states, (of which Canada is one), should take seriously the obligation to ensure that children are not taken across borders illegally, even if it’s by a parent, or some other guardian.

Instead, Canada signs treaties and passes bills that ensure that this will continue. Erasing borders, and reducing penalties does nothing to deter child smuggling. In fact, it only encourages it.

Sure, these changes don’t explicitly state moving children around illegally is a major goal (or even a goal at all). But as borders become less meaningful, this will certainly increase.

Sex-Selective Abortion And The Mental Gymnastics Of “Conservative Inc.”

Modern conservative politicians make it clear that they will take money and votes from social conservatives, but will never advance their interests in any real way. Abortion is a major issue, but not the only one. They act as a form of controlled opposition.

1. Other Articles For Abortion/Infanticide

While abortion is trumpeted as a “human right” in Western societies, questions have to be asked: Why is it a human right? Who are these groups benefiting financially, and why are so they so fiercely against free speech? Do these groups also support the open borders industry, or organ trafficking? Not nearly enough people are making these connections.

2. Mental Gymnastics In Abortion Policy

CPC Policy Declaration 2018

The CPC explicitly states in their policy declaration to support no legislation to regulate abortion. However, MPs support Private Member’s Bill C-233, to ban the practice of sex-selective abortion (which would target female babies). But that contradiction is not the only problem.

Today’s “conservatives” have no issue with killing babies itself. However, they are adamantly opposed to letting them be killed simply for being female. The obvious answer is that Conservative politicians don’t actually care about the lives of the unborn, but just virtue signal to show how feminist they are.

Side note: it seems the CPC’s stance on euthanasia is to do nothing. They won’t expand access for assisted suicide, but they won’t do anything to restrict or roll it back either.

3. Conservatives: Only Fund Local Genocide

From the Canadian Press. Trudeau announces that Canada should be fund abortions globally. Conservatives object to the “globally” part, not the “abortion” part of it.

A slim majority of Conservative convention delegates voted Saturday against a resolution backed by anti-abortion campaigners while at the same time affirming the party’s opposition to using Canadian foreign aid to fund abortion services abroad — a mixed bag result for social conservatives.

Other controversial resolutions, including a push to limit citizenship rights for those born in this country to non-Canadian parents and an endorsement of moving Canada’s embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, received overwhelming support.

The abortion resolution, No. 65, would have struck from the party’s policy book a pledge that a Conservative government would not support any legislation to regulate abortion, something added under former prime minister Stephen Harper to reassure some Canadians that the Conservative Party did not have a “hidden agenda” to legislate an abortion ban.

More gaps in logic. Many conservatives don’t have a problem with using taxpayer money to kill CANADIAN children, but they oppose using public funds to exterminate FOREIGN children. So it’s not about principles, but simply how tax dollars are used.

The article refers to the August 2018 CPC Policy Convention. Of course, it wouldn’t be a conservative gathering without some pandering to Israel. In this case, the moving of an embassy.

4. Summer Jobs Grant Attestation

Ineligible projects and job activities:
Projects consisting of activities that take place outside of Canada;
Activities that contribute to the provision of a personal service to the employer;
Partisan political activities;
Fundraising activities to cover salary costs for the youth participant; or
Projects or job activities that:
restrict access to programs, services, or employment, or otherwise discriminate, contrary to applicable laws, on the basis of prohibited grounds, including sex, genetic characteristics, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression;
advocate intolerance, discrimination and/or prejudice; or
actively work to undermine or restrict a woman’s access to sexual and reproductive health services.

Please note the following definitions:
As per section 2.1 of the Canada Summer Jobs Articles of Agreement, “project” means the hiring, administration of, job activities, and organization’s activities as described in the Application Agreement.
To “advocate” means to promote, foster, or actively support intolerance, discrimination, and/or prejudice.
To “undermine or restrict” means to weaken or limit a woman’s ability to access sexual and reproductive health services. The Government of Canada defines sexual and reproductive health services as including comprehensive sexuality education, family planning, prevention and response to sexual and gender-based violence, safe and legal abortion, and post-abortion care.

Conservatives claimed to oppose the move to make the attestation mandatory for groups where their social beliefs conflicted with official government policy. To be clear though, this was framed as a free speech issue, not because the beliefs they held may be valid. See this piece for more information on the topic.

5. “Social Conservative” Leslyn Lewis

This weekend, Ontario-based political activist Tanya Granic Allen distributed an email making the case that social conservatives should not support me in the upcoming CPC Leadership election because of my past involvement with the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF).

They knew I held strong pro-life beliefs, and I hoped to be a balancing influence on the Board. After a few months of earnestly trying to make a difference, it was clear that it wasn’t the best fit all around, and we wished each other well, and I chose to conclude my term early with the Board.

I have chosen to be upfront with my pro-life views, and the fact that I will personally advocate for a law that fights the misogynistic practice of sex-selective abortion.

In the recent CPC leadership race, Leslyn Lewis promoted herself as a social conservative. She (sort of) defended her previous membership with Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF). Problem is, LEAF is far more extreme than she is letting on, so the membership makes no sense. One would have to wonder why she became a director without doing any research on the firm — or why they would pick her.

Interestingly, Lewis condemns the practice of sex-selective abortion as “misogynistic” for targeting girls, but she doesn’t condemn the practice of abortion overall.

A much more likely explanation is that Lewis ideologically agrees with the pro-death LEAF, but simply reinvented herself for perceived political gain.

Lewis also claims to oppose funding foreign abortions, but stays quiet on the topic of financing domestic ones.

6. What Conservative Inc. Really Stands For

To sum up, these are the official party positions of mainstream “conservatives” in Canada. Try to wrap your heads around them.

[1] We have no issue with the principle of abortion, and will pass no legislation against it, as long as children aren’t killed specifically for their gender.

[2] We don’t have a problem with paying to abort Canadian children, but we believe that killing children abroad is a waste of taxpayer money.

[3] We don’t agree with the principles that many religious groups stand for. We oppose the summer grants attestation requirement purely on free speech grounds.

[4] Yes, abortion leads to an overall lower birth rate, but we can just continue to import a replacement population to fill in the gaps.

Free Trade #12: A Look Back At FIPA, And Selling Sovereignty To China

Erin O’Toole was a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade in 2014. It’s clear from these quotes that he doesn’t see a problem selling out Canada’s sovereignty to China with the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA). In fact, he glosses over just how bad this arrangement really is. All of the Conservatives did.

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/9/22/erin-otoole-1/

1. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

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

2. Important Links

https://openparliament.ca/debates/

CLICK HERE, for Erin O’Toole and FIPA support.
https://archive.is/p2fkV
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for CBC article on what FIPA is.
https://archive.is/C6Xvi

CLICK HERE, for Canadian Government on FIPA text.
https://archive.is/wC5ed
WayBack Machine Archive

3. Other “Conservatives” Support FIPA

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2013/4/18/ron-cannan-3/

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2013/4/18/rob-merrifield-3/

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/6/4/lois-brown-7/

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2013/4/18/james-moore-3/

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2013/4/18/michael-chong-1/

4. Quotes From FIPA Agreement

Article 5
Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment
1. Each Contracting Party shall accord to investors of the other Contracting Party treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investors of a non-Contracting Party with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
2. Each Contracting Party shall accord to covered investments treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of investors of a non-Contracting Party with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
3. For greater certainty, the “treatment” referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article does not encompass the dispute resolution mechanisms, such as those in Part C, in other international investment treaties and other trade agreements.

Article 6
National Treatment
1. Each Contracting Party shall accord to investors of the other Contracting Party treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the expansion, management, conduct, operation and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
2. Each Contracting Party shall accord to covered investments treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of its own investors with respect to the expansion, management, conduct, operation and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
3. The concept of “expansion” in this Article applies only with respect to sectors not subject to a prior approval process under the relevant sectoral guidelines and applicable laws, regulations and rules in force at the time of expansion. The expansion may be subject to prescribed formalities and other information requirements.

Article 11
Compensation for Losses
Investors of one Contracting Party who suffer losses in respect of covered investments owing to war, a state of national emergency, insurrection, riot or other similar events, shall be accorded treatment by the other Contracting Party, in respect of restitution, indemnification, compensation or other settlement, no less favourable than it accords in like circumstances, to its own investors or to investors of any third State.

Local laws — environmental protection, for example — which are seen as harmful and detrimental to business interests will be considered grounds to submit a claim for compensation.

Article 23
Consent to Arbitration
Each Contracting Party consents to the submission of a claim to arbitration in accordance with the procedures set out in this Agreement. Failure to meet any of the conditions precedent provided for in Article 21 shall nullify that consent.

Disputes won’t be heard in any open or transparent way. Instead arbitration that is largely secret will be resolving disputes.

Article 35
Entry into Force and Termination
1. The Contracting Parties shall notify each other through diplomatic channels that they have completed the internal legal procedures for the entry into force of this Agreement. This Agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the following month after the second notification is received, and shall remain in force for a period of at least fifteen years.
2. After the expiration of the initial fifteen-year period, this Agreement shall continue to be in force. Either Contracting Party may at any time thereafter terminate this Agreement. The termination will be effective one year after notice of termination has been received by the other Contracting Party.
3. With respect to investments made prior to the date of termination of this Agreement, Articles 1 to 34, as well as paragraph 4 of this Article, shall continue to be effective for an additional fifteen-year period from the date of termination.
4. The Annexes and footnotes to this Agreement constitute integral parts of this Agreement.

So the agreement itself lasts for at least 15 years. Then, we are required to give a 1 year notice, at which time, Articles 1 to 34 will lapse in another 15 years. All in all, this agreement will then last a minimum of 31 years. This is an entire generation away from being able to really terminate.

5. What Is Canada Getting With FIPA?

The secrecy shrouding the much-delayed Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) with China makes it hard for experts, let alone average Canadians, to figure out what benefits this country will see from the deal.

-Canadian governments are locked in for a generation. If Canada finds the deal unsatisfactory, it cannot be cancelled completely for 31 years.
-China benefits much more than Canada, because of a clause allowing existing restrictions in each country to stay in place. Chinese companies get to play on a relatively level field in Canada, while maintaining wildly arbitrary practices and rules for Canadian companies in China.
-Chinese companies will be able to seek redress against any laws passed by any level of government in Canada which threaten their profits. Australia has decided not to enter FIPA agreements specifically because they allow powerful corporations to challenge legislation on social, environmental and economic issues. —-Chinese companies investing heavily in Canadian energy will be able seek billions in compensation if their projects are hampered by provincial laws on issues such as environmental concerns or First Nations rights, for example.
-Cases will be decided by a panel of professional arbitrators, and may be kept secret at the discretion of the sued party. This extraordinary provision reflects an aversion to transparency and public debate common to the Harper cabinet and the Chinese politburo.
Differences between FIPA and the North American Free Trade Agreement may offer intriguing loopholes for American lawyers to argue for equal treatment under the principle of Most Favoured Nation.

The CBC covered the story and raised several legitimate concerns over this deal. Secrecy aside, it’s difficult to see what (if any) real benefits Canada gets from it.

6. China Buying Up Assets Across Canada

This is too long to do justice here, but Canadian laws make it easy for foreigners to buy property in Canada. This applies regardless of whether they live here, or even intend to. The Chinese in particular are taking full advantage of that.

7. Putting China Over Canadians

This isn’t really related to FIPA, but still good to point out: even so-called “populists” can be globalist shills. Here is no different. How does making it easier to import cheap Chinese products keep industries and jobs in Canada? However, China has more freedom and less government in recent decades.

8. CANZUK To Counter Chinese Influence?

CPC Policy Declaration August 2018

Have to love the mental gymnastics here. CPC Leader Erin O’Toole spoke in support of CANZUK in the 2018 Policy Convention. He explicitly stated he wanted to “let more and more countries” into the agreement. Fast forward 2 years, and he wants to accelerate CANZUK to stop the growing Chinese influence ….. that he supported in 2014. Way to be consistent.

9. Can O’Toole/CPC Actually Be Trusted?

How can anyone trust Erin O’Toole?
(a) He has no qualms about selling sovereignty to China.
(b) He supports CANZUK — and expanding the zone.
(c) CANZUK is now just a way to counter China, who is still here.
(d) Heenan Blaikie was Trudeau Sr.’s and Chretien’s old law firm.
(e) He is an ex-Facebook lobbyist.
(f) He openly shills for foreign powers like Israel.
(g) He supports even more draconian measures than Trudeau.
(h) His Chief of Staff is a Director at Sick Kids Hospital.
(i) CPC supports the temp-to-PR pipeline.

10. Conservative Politicians Are Globalists

One would think that “conserving” in the sense of trade meant protecting local industries, and protecting communities from having major employers shipped overseas.

However, that is not the case. What passes for conservatism is really just “corporatism”, putting those interests over that of the local population. There are far more important things than stock prices and overall profits.

Ask them to “conserve” the makeup, culture, language, traditions, or heritage of a country, and that’s being racist. After all, Canada is make up of abstract values (that few can agree on), not any sort of identity.

CV #64: RCMP, Trudeau, Cuck As Sikhs Demand Accommodation Over Masks

March 26: This is a picture of the respirator that the RCMP announces officer may arrive wearing. They ask that people not be afraid.

September 24: This is BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry, explicitly stating that respirators don’t seal properly when there is facial hair on the user. So why is the RCMP letting officers who won’t conform to safety standards remain on the force?

So…. is this a serious health crisis, or not?

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Worth mentioning: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations (IHR), that the WHO imposes are legally binding on all members.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for BC Transit press release on masks.

CLICK HERE, for RCMP directive to be clean shaven.
https://archive.is/LMpzG
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for RCMP answering calls with respirators.
https://archive.is/esL9G
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for RCMP enforcing Quarantine Act.
https://archive.is/gvDCg
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for RCMP August 10 memo on masks.
https://archive.is/I4y2c
WayBack Machine Acrhive

CLICK HERE, for angry Sikhs demanding accomodations.
https://archive.is/bNt4s
CLICK HERE, for Trudeau bending the knee again.

In other pandering news: Sikhs don’t have to wear helmets while riding motorcycles in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, and Ontario. Perhaps the laws of gravity don’t apply to religious pieces of cloth.

3. BC Transits Masks For “Rider Comfort”

We recognize the advice from health professionals, including Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry, has been to wear face coverings when physical distancing is not possible including on transit vehicles. Customers have indicated making the use of face coverings mandatory will create a more comfortable environment.

While face coverings will be mandatory, the policy will be implemented as an educational step without enforcement. The educational position is aligned with TransLink and other transit agencies in Canada.

We will work hard to ensure customers are aware of our new policy over the coming weeks, and work together to make transit a comfortable environment for staff and customers.

This was covered a while back. BC Transit decided to make it mandatory (well, sort of mandatory), to wear masks to ensure rider comfort. It was based on feedback from riders — specifically — Karens, who felt it was their job to tell others how to live. Same theme with the RCMP.

4. RCMP Clean Shaven Directive, March 19

N95 mask and facial hair
.
The COVID-19 pandemic is a global issue, and the RCMP is a vital safety service for Canadians. In the interest of your health and safety, we are suspending the facial hair provisions of our Uniform and Dress Manual. All front-line regular members must report to work clean-shaven (or with moustaches of appropriate length) unless subject to a specific approved exemption. This is to ensure that the N95 respiratory mask is able to properly protect you in the event that it is needed on short notice.
.
If you require an exemption on religious or health grounds, you must speak with your manager.
.
As outlined in our Occupational Health Advisory on COVID-19, you must ensure your respirator is sealed correctly. Any break in that seal can put you at risk, and one of the most common causes of a breached seal is facial hair.

On March 19, RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki issued a directive that all officers were to remain clean shaven, given that masks don’t seal properly if there is bulky facial hair. This makes a great deal of sense, as beards render them useless.

5. RCMP: Don’t Be Afraid Of This, March 26

Protective equipment
.
Depending on the situation that our police officers are attending, they may wear protective equipment including a mask and goggles, similar to what is shown below.

We know that this may appear alarming, but please understand that this measure is taken in order to ensure our officers safety. For those who witness our police officers responding to calls for service wearing this protective equipment, all our officers are doing is limiting any potential exposure they may have to COVID-19. It does not mean the call for service was related to COVID-19 or that anyone has been diagnosed with COVID-19.

In order to keep the City of Burnaby safe, we need to keep our frontline officers healthy, says Corporal Mike Kalanj. This is simply an extra precaution we’re taking in order to provide the citizens of Burnaby the best police service possible.”

In March 2020, the RCMP announced that it may be responding to certain calls while wearing respirators. This was to be for the safety of the officers involved. What, no tiny piece of cloth as a show of solidarity?

6. RCMP Enforcing Quarantine Act, April 9

While everyone’s efforts can make a difference in this critical period, still more is needed. Where sound information and common sense fail, law enforcement must step in to protect those around them. In addition to its ongoing operations, the RCMP assists in enforcing mandatory isolation orders under the Federal Quarantine Act in communities where it is the police of jurisdiction.

The RCMP admits that a part of its job is enforcing isolation orders under the Quarantine Act. But what the RCMP is really enforcing are the IHR (International Health Regulations) from the World Health Organization.

7. RCMP Wearing Masks “As A Courtesy”, Aug 10

The RCMP is following public health advice by providing front-line employees with non-medical masks. Front-line police officers can use these masks while on duty in situations where personal protective equipment (PPE) is not required but where physical distancing may be difficult or unpredictable.

RCMP Commanding Officers will determine their requirements based on the direction of their local health authority and will distribute masks accordingly.

Wearing non-medical masks as a courtesy to your fellow community members is becoming more common. In an effort to limit the spread of COVID-19, the RCMP is taking these additional steps so that public can feel comfortable in engaging with police officers in their community.

Some people may be uncomfortable with a police officer approaching them with a mask on and we want to make sure that the people in the communities we serve know they can ask to see police identification, if it is safe to do so.

These measures aren’t about making the public more safe. Instead, it is about making people “feel” safe and comfortable. It’s about the appearance of doing something.

8. Masks Are Just For Show: Dhillon

Retired officer wants resolution
Retired RCMP Insp. Baltej Singh Dhillon, who served nearly 30 years and became the first RCMP officer to wear a turban, said he disagrees with the force’s “blanket policy” because it discriminates against one group of police officers.

He said calls to police are often assessed for risk so officers who wouldn’t be able to meet the standard for a fitted respiratory masks could go to a different call and still serve on the front line.

“Clearly, the PPE is for that time where a police officer feels that he or she is in a higher-risk situation where they may be exposed to COVID-19,” said Dhillon. “Because I think you can generally see that RCMP officers are currently working in our communities, not wearing masks the moment they leave the detachment.”

In an interesting bit of disclosure, a retired RCMP Inspector admits the masks are entirely for show. He claims that officers routinely take the mask off as soon as they leave the detachment.

9. Trudeau Cucks: Diversity Tops Safety

In what should surprise no one, Trudeau, or at least his clone, has declared that it’s a human rights violation to make ethnic groups comply with safety regulations.

However, considering this “pandemic” is a hoax to begin with, it may be an instance of two wrongs making a right.

10. Masks Are About Submission, Not Safety

Not sure who actually created these, but the NPC comics here illustrate a valid point. If masks work, why should people care if others refuse to wear one? It’s almost as if there was another agenda at play.

TSCE #36: Pushing To Decriminalize Non-Disclosure Of HIV In Sexual Encounters

Yes, this was actually discussed in several Parliamentary hearings in the Spring of 2019: should we decriminalize the failure to disclose HIV positive status in sexual encounters?

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

The TSCE series is a broad area, one that covers many overlapping topics. This includes the open borders agenda, organ harvesting, and various NGOs who help facilitate it. A subtopic for this article is using gay rights as a way to make this seem less wrong.

2. Just Another Scott Wiener Here?

California State Senator Scott Wiener was the subject of a recent piece. He helped pass legislation that reduced the penalty of KNOWINGLY spreading HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor. He also helped pass SB 145, which made sex offender registration optional for gay pedos.

This may be even worse, since proponents in the Canadian debate want to decriminalize non-disclosure of HIV status altogether.

3. Parliamentary Hearings In 2019

hiv.non.disclosure.april.9.meeting.transcript
hiv.non.disclosure.april.30.meeting.transcript
hiv.non.disclosure.may.7.meeting.transcript
hiv.non.disclosure.may.14.meeting.transcript
hiv.non.disclosure.June.04.meeting.transcript
hiv.non.disclosure.June.06.meeting.transcript
hiv.non.disclosure.June.11.meeting.transcript

hiv.CanadianHIVAIDSLegalNetwork-e
hiv.JointUnitedNationsProgrammeOnHIVAIDS-e
hiv.PivotLegalSociety-e
hiv.WomensLegalEducationAndActionFund-e
HIVJusticeWorldwide-e

hiv.non.disc.report.to.parliament

4. Lobbying By HIV Legal Network

In what should surprise no one, HIV Legal Network has been lobbying the Federal Government a lot over the last several years. Don’t worry, Canadian tax dollars are helping to pay for this.

HIV Legal Network is also not the only group trying to weaken the criminal penalties. There are several more.

5. Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund

One would think that a women’s group with a feminist tilt would be very concerned about removing penalties for crimes that can devastate women. Instead, Karen Segal of LEAF argued that non-disclosure of HIV during sexual encounters should be removed from the sexual assault laws, and possibly decriminalized altogether. Segal was more concerned with protecting the rights of causing this.

Remember LEAF? They come out with yet another anti-woman stance, this time, on protecting women from HIV infected people.

6. Recent Court Decision By ONCA

[1] Over a period of many months, after being diagnosed with HIV and warned about the need to disclose his HIV status to sexual partners, the appellant engaged in repeated acts of vaginal sexual intercourse with three different women. The appellant wore condoms but did not disclose his HIV-positive status and was not on antiretroviral medication. The complainants testified that they would not have consented to having sexual intercourse with the appellant had they been aware of his HIV-positive status.

[2] The appellant was charged with multiple offences, including three counts of aggravated sexual assault. The trial focused on whether the appellant’s failure to disclose his HIV status to the complainants, prior to sexual intercourse, constituted fraud vitiating their consent to that sexual activity in accordance with the principles laid down in R. v. Mabior, 2012 SCC 47, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 584. Although one of the complainants was diagnosed with HIV after her sexual relationship with the appellant, there was no proof that she contracted the virus from him.

And this goes to the heart of the matter: the other person would not have consented if the HIV status had been disclosed ahead of time. While these convictions were upheld, all of this can change if the Federal Government does implement changes to the criminal code.

7. Comm Report Recommends Decriminalization

Final Report To Parliament

5.1.1 Immediately Prohibiting the Use of Sexual Assault Provisions
The Committee agrees with witnesses that the use of sexual assault provisions to deal with HIV non-disclosure is overly punitive, contributes to the stigmatisation and discrimination against people living with HIV, and acts as a significant impediment to the attainment of our public health objectives. The consequences of such a conviction are
too harsh and the use of sexual assault provisions to deal with consensual sexual activities is simply not appropriate
.

5.1.2 Limiting Criminalization to the Most Blameworthy Circumstances
The Committee believes that a new offence should be created in the Criminal Code to cover HIV non-disclosure cases in specific circumstances. The new offence should not be limited to HIV but cover the non-disclosure of infectious diseases in general. The Committee is of the view that people living with HIV should not be treated differently than people living with any other infectious disease.

Recommendation 2
That the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada immediately establish a federal-provincial working group to develop a common prosecutorial directive to be in effect across Canada
.
• to end criminal prosecutions of HIV non-disclosure, except in cases where there is actual transmission of the virus;
• to ensure that the factors to be respected for criminal prosecutions of HIV non-disclosure reflect the most recent medical science regarding HIV and its modes of transmission and only applies when there is actual transmission having regard to the realistic possibility of transmission. At this point of time, HIV non-disclosure should never be prosecuted if (1) the infected individual has an undetectable viral load (less than 200 copies per millilitre of blood); (2) condoms are used; (3) the infected individual’s partner is on PrEP or (4) the type of sexual act (such as oral sex) is one where there is a negligible risk of transmission.

The report is correct in one regard: that this shouldn’t be limited to HIV. However, it otherwise comes across as pretty indifferent to the real world consequences of withholding such information to a partner.

While it talks about creating a new offence, it would most likely have very minor penalties.

8. Lametti Promises To Implement If Re-Elected

The Liberals hope to address the criminalization of HIV nondisclosure if re-elected in the fall, the federal justice minister said Friday as advocacy groups pushed the government to make changes to the law.

HIV nondisclosure has led to assault or sexual assault charges because it’s been found to invalidate a partner’s consent — the rationale being that if someone knew a person had HIV, they wouldn’t consent to sexual activity because of the risk of transmission.

Advocates say the justice system lags behind the science on the issue, with a growing body of evidence saying there is no realistic possibility of transmission of HIV if a person is on antiretroviral therapy and has had a suppressed viral load for six months.

A parliamentary committee has been examining the issue for months and is expected to release a report with recommendations next week. Justice Minister David Lametti said the Liberals want to address the matter but won’t have time to act before the October election.

This misses the point. While antiretrovirals may be able to treat the person with HIV, the other person would likely still withdraw their consent anyway.

It must be noted however, that the CPC members on the committee dissented in their views.

Bit Of History: Galati/Trudeau Put Rights Of Terrorists Over Canadians


(From Canuck Politics. Although a political ad, this one is entirely truthful, and worth a mention.)

Rocco Galati and Justin Trudeau both believe it’s a human right for foreigners who obtain Canadian citizenship to retain that citizenship, even after being convicted of terrorism or treason offences. Although Galati lost that court challenge, Justin Trudeau would “correct” it anyway, by implementing Bill C-6.

Simply holding a Canadian passport doesn’t make you a Canadian, except in a civic sense. Terrorists and traitors, however, don’t even deserve that.

1. Islam, Terrorism, Religious Violence

Check this series for more information on the religion of peace. Tolerance of intolerance is being forced on the unwilling public. Included are efforts to crack down on free speech, under the guise of “religious tolerance”.

2. Galati Defending Terrorists’ “Rights”

CLICK HERE, for Galati claiming to have received threats.
CLICK HERE, for $10.5 million payout to Khadr.
CLICK HERE, for Galati defending citizenship for terrorists.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2001/2001canlii22177/2001canlii22177.html
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2003/2003fc928/2003fc928.html
galati.easier.bail.for.terrorists.2006canlii24454
galati.terrorist.citizenship.2015fc91

3. Challenging Security Certificates (2001)

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahjoub, 2001 CanLII 22177 (FCA)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2001/2001canlii22177/2001canlii22177.html

[7] In my view, the real issue is whether the designated judge in a s. 40.1 hearing has jurisdiction to grant the remedy sought. Section 40.1(4)(d) states that the designated judge shall “determine whether the certificate filed by the Minister and the Solicitor General is reasonable on the basis of the evidence and the information available to the Chief justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, and, if found not to be reasonable, quash the certificate”. In Re Baroud, Denault, J., found that the role of this court is neither to substitute its decision for that of the Minister and the Solicitor General, nor to find that they were correct in their assessment of the evidence. Rather, the designated judge must determine, based on the evidence presented to him or her, whether the Ministers’ decision to issue the certificate is reasonable.

[8] Does the assessment of reasonableness, pursuant to s. 40.1(4)(d), include as assessment of whether upholding the certificate would breach the applicant’s constitutional rights? I do not find that it does. In my view, reasonableness and constitutionality are distinct issues. Reasonableness involves an evaluation of the evidence to determine if it supports the Ministers’ decision; constitutionality is a more in-depth assessment of the applicant’s constitutional rights. In my view, a plain reading of s. 40.1(4)(d) gives the designated judge jurisdiction only to consider the reasonableness of the certificate. If Parliament had intended the designated judge to consider the validity of the certificate, including its constitutionality, the section could have been so drafted.

[9] My decision that the designated judge does not have jurisdiction to consider Charter matters is further supported by the fact that there is no appeal from the decision of the designated judge. Section 40.1(6) states:
.
“A determination under paragraph (4)(d) is not subject to appeal or review by any court”.
.
By expressly prohibiting further appeal or review, Parliament reinforced the notion that proceedings under s. 40.1 of the Immigration Act are intended only to consider whether the Ministers’ decision to issue the certificate is reasonable on the basis of the available evidence.

[15] Although I initially had doubts regarding Cullen J.’s conclusion, I am now satisfied that his conclusion is the correct one. I find support for Cullen J.’s conclusion in the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)(1998), 229 N.R. 240. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether a judge designated under subsections 40.1(8) and (9) of the Act had jurisdiction to hear constitutional issues that arose from an order made by a judge pursuant to subsection 40.1(9) of the Act.

This appeal concerned the constitutionality of the security certificates issued by the government. The limit scope of the appeals was over whether the decisions handed down were reasonable or not.

4. Bringing Back The Khadrs (2002 to ….)

Galati, decided to stop representing terrorists in late 2003. It wasn’t because he saw the practice as wrong. Instead, it was due to alleged death threats. One of his clients was Abdurahman Khadr, brother of Omar Khadr.

Omar Khadr himself, would eventually receive $10.5 million from taxpayers, due to “alleged” abuses and human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

5. Causing Delays To Justify Release (2003)

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahjoub, 2003 FC 928 (CanLII), [2004] 1 FCR 493
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2003/2003fc928/2003fc928.html

As to the first part of the test, the reference to a period of 120 days in subsection 84(2) reflects Parliament’s intent that once a certificate has been determined to be reasonable, the person named in the certificate should be removed expeditiously. In the present case, Mahjoub has been detained for slightly over three years and it has been 21 months since the certificate was upheld. However, by requiring as one of the criteria for release that the Court consider whether removal will or will not take place within a reasonable time, Parliament has contemplated that in some circumstances, removal will not have occurred within 120 days, but the period of detention may still be a reasonable period. Otherwise, release after 120 days would be automatic, absent considerations of national security or the safety of persons. What in any particular case will be reasonable will depend upon the facts and circumstances of that case. Any uncertainty about when Mahjoub may be removed resulted from two significant circumstances: (i) Court proceedings which he has initiated or will initiate; and (ii) concerns as to whether Mahjoub faces a risk of torture or death if he is removed to Egypt. With respect to the first circumstance, while it was Mahjoub’s right to exhaust all avenues of legal recourse, the time required for those challenges could not be relied upon for the purpose of arguing that he will not be removed within a reasonable time. As to the second circumstance, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed in Suresh that, absent extraordinary circumstances, deportation to torture will generally violate the principles of fundamental justice protected by section 7 of the Charter. Thus, generally, as a matter of law, the Minister should decline to deport Convention refugees where there is a substantial risk of torture.

[6]The position of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), as stated in the summary, is that it believes that Mr. Mahjoub is a high-ranking member of an Egyptian Islamic terrorist organization, the Vanguards of Conquest, a radical wing of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad or Al Jihad. According to CSIS, Al Jihad is one of the groups which split from Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood in the 1970’s to form a more extremist and militant organization. Al Jihad, according to CSIS, advocates the use of violence as a means of establishing an Islamic state in Egypt.

[7]The summary provided to Mr. Mahjoub set out, to the extent consistent with national security and the safety of persons, CSIS’s grounds for believing that Mr. Mahjoub will, while in Canada, engage in or instigate the subversion by force of the Gov ernment of Egypt, and that he is a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe was and is engaged in terrorism, and which will engage in subversion by force against the Government of Egypt. The summary also set out the Service’s grounds to believe that Mr. Mahjoub had engaged in terrorism.

[8]An open hearing was held before Mr. Justice Nadon from February 26, 2001 to March 8, 2001 for the purpose of providing to Mr. Mahjoub a reasonable opportunity to be heard with respect to the certificate. Submissions were made by counsel to Mr. Justice Nadon on May 8, 2001. On October 5, 2001 [2001 FCT 1095 (CanLII), [2001] 4 F.C. 644 (T.D.)], Mr. Justice Nadon determined that, on the basis of the evidence and information available to him, the certificate filed by the Ministers is reasonable.

[9]On March 25, 2002 [[2002] I.Adj.D.D. No. 5 (QL)], the Adjudication Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board found Mr. Mahjoub to be inadmissible, based on the security certificate. A deportation order was therefore issued.

[68]With respect to membership in the Vanguards of Conquest and/or Al Jihad, Mr. Justice Nadon found that:
.
1. Mr. Mahjoub perjured himself when he denied knowing Mr. Marzouk.
.
2. Mr. Mahjoub was not truthful with respect to his connection with Mr. Al Duri.
.
3. Mr. Mahjoub was not truthful with respect to the use of his alias “Mahmoud Shaker” to CSIS agents.
.
4. Mr. Mahjoub was not truthful regarding his true activities while he worked in the Sudan for Osama bin Laden.
.
5. Mr. Mahjoub was initially untruthful when he was interviewed by CSIS and he denied knowing Mr. Ahmad Said Khadr.

In addition to lying in his earlier application, a defense was raised that human rights had been violated, since the deportation order hadn’t taken place within 120 days (4 months). However, that falls flat when it’s pointed out that the Applicant tried other legal means to stay in Canada.

6. Easier For Terrorists To Obtain Bail (2006)

R. v. Ghany, 2006 CanLII 24454 (ON SC)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2006/2006canlii24454/2006canlii24454.pdf

[5] The applicants submit that s. 83.01 offences are “akin, of the same class and indistinguishable from offences included in s. 469 of the Criminal Code, and therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Justice. They argue that on the allegations as disclosed to date, “some of the allegations cited constitute, or may constitute, treason and/or intimidating Parliament or attempts thereunder”. Further, the applicants submit the nature and content of terrorism charges are “either subsets or specific instances of s. 469 offences or indistinguishably akin to them”.

[29] The fact that some of the offences under s. 83.01 involve elements of other offences does not assist the applicants. For example, another count of the information charges two accused with importing a firearm and prohibited ammunition contrary to s. 103 of the Criminal Code for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a terrorist group, thereby committing an offence contrary to s. 83.2 of the Criminal Code. Doing so does not turn those offences into s. 469 offences. Section 103 is not covered by s. 469.

[36] The applicants further submit that their s. 15 Charter rights are impacted by this constitutional omission. Mr. Galati argues that having these offences “against the Canadian state tried by provincially appointed “lower magistrates” infringes sections 7 and 15 of the Charter, as well as infringing the pre-amble to the Constitution Act, 1982 in placing offences against the Canadian state before provincially appointed “lower magistrates and justices”. Finally, they submit that s. 469 “offers certain procedural and judicial benefits and protections for the accused” which mitigates in favour of having “the highest judicial scrutiny, and review by exclusive jurisdiction at first instance”. In regard to the contention that the cases are being “tried” in the Ontario Court of Justice, the issue on this application is the forum of the bail hearings.

In short, Galati wanted his client (who was charged with Section 83 — terrorism — offences), to have the court view them in the same manner as Section 469 offences. This would make it mandatory that bail hearings be held by the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario. Thus it would remove the discretion for the Lower Court to conduct it. Galati admits that the reason behind it is that he figures it will be easier for his client to get bail.

7. Bill C-24, Deport Dual National Terrorists

https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=6401990

(8) The portion of subsection 3(3) of the Act before paragraph (b) is replaced by the following:
.
(3) Paragraphs (1)(b), (f) to (j), (q) and (r) do not apply to a person born outside Canada
(a) if, at the time of his or her birth, only one of the person’s parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)(b), (c.1), (e), (g), (h), (o), (p), (q) or (r) or both of the person’s parents were citizens under any of those paragraphs;
.
(a.1) if the person was born before January 1, 1947 and, on that day, only one of the person’s parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)(o) or (q), or both of the person’s parents were citizens under either of those paragraphs; (a.2) if the person was born before April 1, 1949 and, on that day, only one of the person’s parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)(p) or (r), or both of the person’s parents were citizens under either of those paragraphs; or

This provision would allow for Canada to strip away the Canadian citizenship of a foreign-born person convicted of terrorism or treason, if citizenship elsewhere was an option.

8. Fighting Deportation Of Terrorists (2015)

Galati v. Canada (Governor General), 2015 FC 91 (CanLII), [2015] 4 FCR 3
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc91/2015fc91.pdf

I. Overview
[1] The applicants seek to set aside the decision of His Excellency The Right Honourable David Johnston Governor General of Canada on June 19, 2014 to grant royal assent to Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, SC 2014, c 22 (Strengthening Citizenship Act).

[2] Section 8 of the Strengthening Citizenship Act amends the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c C-29 (Citizenship Act). The amendments allow the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to revoke the citizenship of natural-born and naturalized Canadian citizens where a citizen has a conviction relating to national security or terrorism. These convictions include treason under section 47 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 (subsection 10(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act); a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code (subsection 10(2)(b) of the Citizenship Act) and certain offences under the National Defence Act, RSC 1985, c N-5 and the Security of Information Act, RSC 1985, c O-5. Where the citizen holds, or could have a right to dual nationality, the Strengthening Citizenship Act provides for the revocation of citizenship and designation of that individual as a foreign national, which may lead to deportation from Canada.

[99] Given these principles, it is clear that Parliament must enjoy exclusive and unqualified legislative competence over citizenship, subject only to constraints of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

VI. Conclusion
[100] The application for judicial review is dismissed. The matter in respect of which judicial review is sought, the decision to grant royal assent, is a legislative act and not justiciable. The respondents are not federal boards exercising a power or jurisdiction conferred under an act of Parliament. In any event, the substantive argument with respect to constitutionality of the Strengthening Citizenship Act fails. Section 8 of the Strengthening Citizenship Act is within the legislative competence of Parliament.

JUDGMENT
.
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application is dismissed, with costs. If parties cannot agree on the amount of costs, submissions of no more than five pages in length may be made within 10 days from the date of this decision.

Although this application was thrown out, Trudeau would soon be elected, making this all a non-issue. Still, it’s absurd beyond belief that foreigners who come to Canada only to engage in these crimes should have people fighting for their rights.

9. Trudeau Liberals Introduce Bill C-6 (2016)

In early 2016, the Trudeau Government introduced Bill C-6, to remove the requirement that foreign born dual nationals be deported if convicted of terrorism or treason. In short, Trudeau did in the legislature what Rocco Galati failed to accomplish in Federal Court.

10. Rights Of Canadians Don’t Matter

Lawyers have a well deserved reputation for being scum, and these are just a few examples of it. Societal norms and protections are undermined under the pretense of “rights” for people who enter Canada with the intention of doing harm.

Just as bad are the lobbyists, politicians, NGOs, and others who undermine our laws to let these people in. Islam is not compatible with a Western Society, and we should not make any effort to accommodate it.

Foreign NGOs should not be allowed to influence laws and policies in Canada. For that matter, foreigners shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office — because their loyalty will always be divided.