Canadian Parliament Discusses Work Permits That Are Issued For Illegals

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for 42nd Parliament on illegals entering Canada.
http://archive.is/elDlW
CLICKI HERE, for September 28, 2017 meeting evidence.
http://archive.is/uxtIR
CLICK HERE, for October 3, 2017 meeting evidence.
http://archive.is/cAsj9
CLICK HERE, for the October 5, 2017 meeting evidence.
http://archive.is/H7uM7
CLICK HERE, for the May 3, 2018 meeting evidence.
http://archive.is/GBRrl
CLICK HERE, for the May 29, 2018 meeting evidence.
http://archive.is/zIFLn
CLICK HERE, for a 2001 StatsCan longitudinal study.

Previously On Canuck Law
https://canucklaw.ca/facts-figures-the-ugly-truth-about-replacement-migration-in-canada/
CLICK HERE, for the hypocrisy in Federal Court cases.
CLICK HERE, for abuse in Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for a small amnesty-for-illegals program in Toronto.
CLICK HERE, for a critique against sanctuary cities.
CLICK HERE, for 22M+ illegals in US, amnesties.

2. Context For This Piece

Canadians want secure borders. They don't want people just strolling in an staying on obviously bogus refugee/asylum claims. Understandably, they also want to know what their Parliament is doing about this issue.

And while our politicians, particularly "conservatives" repeatedly claim to be taking the issue very seriously, the records speak otherwise. So let's take a look at what exactly has been going on.

3. Witnesses And Meetings

May 29, 2018 (Meeting 112)
Canada Border Services Agency
Jacques Cloutier, Vice-President, Operations Branch

Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Mike MacDonald, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Patrick Tanguy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Government Operations Centre, Emergency Management and Programs Branch

House of Commons
Hon. Ahmed Hussen, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Hon. Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Commr Brenda Lucki

May 3, 2018 (Meeting 108)
Canada Border Services Agency
Jacques Cloutier, Vice-President, Operations Branch

Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Louis Dumas, Director General, Domestic Network, Operations
Mike MacDonald, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Patrick Tanguy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Government Operations Centre, Emergency Management and Programs Branch

Immigration and Refugee Board
Greg Kipling, Director General, Policy, Planning and Corporate Affairs Branch
Shereen Benzvy Miller, Deputy Chairperson, Refugee Protection Division

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Gilles Michaud, Deputy Commissioner, Federal Policing
Jamie Solesme, Superintendent, Federal Policing, Criminal Operations

October 5, 2017 (Meeting 73)
Canada Border Services Agency
Jacques Cloutier, Acting Vice-President, Operations

Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Michael MacDonald, Director General, Operations Sector
Paul MacKinnon, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Niall Cronin, Director, North America Advocacy

Department of National Defence
BGen Lise Bourgon, Director General Operations, Strategic Joint Staff

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Patrick Tanguy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Government Operations Centre, Emergency Management and Programs Branch

House of Commons
Hon. Ahmed Hussen, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Hon. Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Joanne Crampton, Assistant Commissioner, Federal Policing Criminal Operations

October 3, 2017 (Meeting 72)
Department of Citizenship and Immigration
André Baril, Director, Asylum Policy
Michael MacDonald, Director General, Operations Sector
Paul MacKinnon, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Greg Kipling, Director General, Policy, Planning and Corporate Affairs Branch
Shereen Benzvy Miller, Deputy Chairperson, Refugee Protection Division

September 28, 2017 (Meeting 71)
Canada Border Services Agency
Jacques Cloutier, Acting Vice-President, Operations

Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Louis Dumas, Director General, Domestic Network, Operations
Michael MacDonald, Director General, Operations Sector
Paul MacKinnon, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Patrick Tanguy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Government Operations Centre, Emergency Management and Programs Branch

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Joanne Crampton, Assistant Commissioner, Federal Policing Criminal Operations

4. Sept 28, 2017 "Evidence"

Here are some quotes from the meeting. The topic of open work permits will be mentioned many times in these 5 meetings.

[Translation]
.
Through these measures, we are working to reduce the wait times for eligibility interviews from a few months to a few weeks, after which eligible claims are referred to the IRB.
[English]
This timely scheduling of eligibility interviews is crucial because in order to apply for an open work permit, an asylum seeker must first have their initial eligibility interview, have their claim referred to the IRB, and undergo an immigration medical examination.
.
To also help ease pressures, IRCC has begun to fast-track all work permit applications across Canada from asylum claimants with a commitment to process these within 30 days. In most cases, asylum claimants become eligible for interim federal health program, IFHP, coverage only after an officer has determined that their claim is eligible to be heard before the IRB. IFHP coverage is now available to asylum seekers who enter Canada between ports of entry in Lacolle, and are being processed on or after June 1, for those who have not yet had an eligibility interview.
.
To date, more than 5,600 persons have been issued this interim federal health program coverage under this special provision.
In closing, Chairs, IRCC, with the CBSA and all other partners in the federal family, continue to address irregular migration in accordance with Canadian and international law and in keeping with our values of an open and welcoming country.

A/Commr Joanne Crampton:
In terms of someone crossing the border between the ports of entry, the RCMP would intercept the person or persons. We then advise them that they are breaking the law under the Customs Act by crossing the border between ports of entry. The persons are then detained. Their possessions are searched to ensure there is no contraband or other illegal items. Their person is searched, because they are under arrest under the Customs Act. We then verify their identification. We do background checks and local indices checks, as well as international indices checks. If there is no noted criminality or concerns for national security and, once we have interviewed them and had a lengthy discussion as to where they came from and what their intentions are, if nothing negative comes as a result of that, we pass the individual over to Canada Border Services for further processing.

Mr. Jacques Cloutier:
At this point, for the CBSA, we receive the individual from the RCMP, as well as the information collected by the RCMP. We proceed with fingerprinting, taking of biometric information, and a cursory interview to elicit additional information. We verify identity. In those cases where we are satisfied that there are no immigration-related issues from an admissibility perspective, these individuals would be released on the terms and conditions and given an appointment to complete their eligibility interview. In cases where issues are discovered, several actions are taken immediately, including completing the interview for eligibility in its entirety, or proceeding with detention if the person is deemed to pose a risk to the public.

To be clear, the police are not detaining people illegally crossing the border for any length of time. Once identity (or who they allege to be) is determined, then they are released into Canada on a promise to appear.

Ms. Jenny Kwan:
If I may interrupt, I'll ask if you can share this information with the committee then. Has the federal government provided any additional resources to provinces with these asylum seekers, not just for the housing component but also to support the asylum seekers as they wait for their claims to be processed?
.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
The federal government does not provide direct support to provinces for asylum seekers awaiting their claims. The support comes at the permanent resident granting determination process, afterwards. That being said, we have taken various measures to help the provinces and to help asylum seekers by expediting across Canada all work permit applications and trying to—
.
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
If I may interrupt then, how many work permit applications have been processed and approved?
.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
About six or seven weeks ago, we had over 6,000 work permit applications for all asylum seekers across Canada in our inventory. That is now almost eliminated, and we are processing in under 30 days any new asylum seeker's work permit that is coming in from across Canada. We are doing those in well under 30 days. The idea is to help people get into the work force quicker.

Exactly, Very few if them will ever be forced to leave Canada. This is about putting them to work as cheap labour. Funny how the "conservatives" seem less apprehensive about illegals in this context.

Mr. Michael MacDonald:
The key to this from our perspective is allowing all asylum claimants to get their work permit faster and be able to enter the workforce if they have to.
.
At the same time, we work with community organizations as part of our regular outreach, and we do that across Canada so partnerships and getting that work permit is the key.

5. October 3, 2017 "Evidence"

After a claim is made, individuals may also apply for social assistance, which is the responsibility of provinces and territories. To help ease pressure on the social assistance budgets of provincial governments, IRCC has been fast-tracking work permit applications for all asylum claimants across Canada with a 30-day service standard.
.
In recent weeks, the government has also taken a number of steps to inform people in Canada and the United States of the facts regarding the asylum process here in Canada and to dispel false information. We are spreading the word that temporary protected status in the United States does not automatically entitle anyone to any status in our country. Some asylum claimants have believed this.

This is a bit of a review from the last meeting.

Two, many of the claimants who appear before the board are vulnerable and suffer from mental health issues, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, as a result of the trauma suffered in their homeland. So far in 2017, 93% of claimants required the assistance of an interpreter. We have the capacity to provide this service in 240 languages and dialects.
.
Three, in addition, the RPD members must be up to date on the developments of the law and must be experts on the country conditions of 126 countries so far in 2017, most of which are constantly in flux.

Wow, 93% of those coming in have such a poor grasp of English and French that they need an interpreter. Sure, we'll be able to put them to work in no time.

It is in that context that the Refugee Protection Division developed its approach to respond to the influx of refugee claimants crossing the Quebec border. The fact that many of those refugee claimants are living in temporary tents and do not have work permits has created a number of problems, both for the refugee claimants and for the Refugee Protection Division's processing of refugee claims.
.
First, since a large number of those refugee claimants were in a very precarious situation in Canada, fairness required that the Refugee Protection Division use all means available to process the refugee claims quickly. That means we have to prioritize the processing of as many cases as possible, to the extent that our resources permit, while meeting our overall mandate. Therefore, on August 11, we immediately created a response team, which will be active from September until the end of November.

Mr. Marwan Tabbara (Kitchener South—Hespeler, Lib.):
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us today.
.
I want to talk about the work permits. You were here before to testify, Mr. MacDonald, and you discussed work permit applications as one of the measures that the government is taking to respond to the influx of asylum seekers in Quebec. I just want to read out something to you. The Canadian workers to retiree ratio today is 4:1, and by 2035 it will be 2:1.
.
Can you say that there's a correlation, knowing that we have an aging population, with our admitting a lot of work permits, because this is great for our economy and we need this to fuel our economy? We know the numbers of our aging population and we want to fill those gaps.
.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
I suspect there will be in a downstream effort if one were to draw that comparison. However, the most important point of the asylum seekers' experience at this stage, their journey towards possibly being accepted and then into settlement, is to get them as established as quickly as possible to help their settlement into Canadian society. That is the real goal of the work permit for today, in the present.

Here we get some more blunt honesty. The real reason we are letting so many people in with bogus "asylum" claims is because we are looking for a replacement work force. And while the overwhelming majority of these cases are fake, certainly we will be able to accommodate these new "Canadians".

Mr. Randeep Sarai (Surrey Centre, Lib.):
Thank you.
This question is to IRCC.
How many work permits have been issued to foreign national claimants who arrived at irregular points of entry this year?
.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
The data I have is not quite broken down like that, but I will give you some data that is very helpful nonetheless. Prior to August 24, which was when the minister made the decision to issue work permits, we had issued 5,913 of those permits. Since August 24, we have issued 3,902. Further along, I think a very important point, which again references what I mentioned last week, is that we committed to process work permits, post-August 24, in under 30 days. Our average processing time is 13 days.
.
Mr. Randeep Sarai:
Can you describe how many or what percentage of refugee claimants are finding gainful employment? Are you tracking that? Are you able to track that with this particular cohort versus the other refugees who come through ports of entry?
.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
No, we don't track finding gainful employment. They're open work permits, so people can obviously find employment and then move to other employment. The natural course of people in their settlement process is finding employment and going forward.
.
Mr. Randeep Sarai:
I can rephrase that. How many are you finding who are getting employment versus going on social assistance? That's probably what I'm trying to get at.
.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
Unfortunately, our department does not track that level of detail more or less at the municipal level, people finding employment in their home communities.
.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
There are two parts to my response.
First, you are correct in your statement that the government-assisted refugee overseas selection has nothing to do with this and the work permits that are processed. We do know for the Lacolle movement that the Government of Quebec is very quickly moving to help people get their social assistance cheques while many of them are still in the interim lodging sites. If you don't have a work permit, one would assume in the Lacolle movement you're on social assistance and vice versa.

Serious question here: is issuing these open work permits a way of relieving the financial burden, or was this always the goal (let fake refugees in as a form of cheap labour)?

6. October 5, 2017 "Evidence"

We figured out a way to fast-track work permit applications from asylum claimants across Canada in order to alleviate the pressure on the social assistance budgets of provincial governments. This is an issue that was raised by the Government of Quebec, and we moved quickly to establish a new 30-day service standard for work permit applications so that asylum seekers may support themselves and become self-sufficient while they await the final decision on their claims. This minimizes the impact they have on provincial social assistance programs.
.
Similarly, we have built in flexibility to ensure that asylum seekers are covered under the interim federal health program immediately after background checks are completed, but while they are awaiting their initial hearing. This is important because we want to ensure that public health is protected, that asylum seekers have access to basic care, and that there is no undue burden on hospital emergency rooms and provincial health care budgets.

Sure, people who have no secure status in Canada (93% speak limited English of French), and no real means or skills will suddenly go find jobs. And who will support such precarious employees?

7. May 3, 2018, 2017 "Evidence"

Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Thank you.
Mr. MacDonald, you just mentioned that we would welcome the DACA cohort through an economic immigration stream, as they are skilled. Who is “we”?
.
Mr. Mike MacDonald:
I think Canada overall and the labour market needs within Canada is the “we” when you look at a high-skilled labour market that could be there, which would benefit the country.
.
Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Have you or has anybody in your department brought up a proposal for an economic stream regarding the DACA migration class to the minister?
.
Mr. Mike MacDonald:
I'm not aware of any analysis specifically on the DACA cohort, other than what you see in the media.

8. May 29, 2018, 2017 "Evidence"

Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
Thank you very much.
.
My visit to Nigeria was very productive. I visited the capital city of Abuja, as well as the commercial capital city of Lagos. In Abuja I met the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Interior, and on the same day I met the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Nigeria. I was able to indicate to both officials what we were facing. I made it very clear that, overall, the number of Nigerians coming regularly to Canada is actually high. There are a lot of visitors and tourists as well as international students and people who come through the express entry system, as well as the provincial nominee program.
.
In fact, the number that is coming irregularly is smaller than the regular numbers. However, it is an issue, and I emphasized to them the need for that government to co-operate closely with Canada on the issue of reiterating the message that we are always making, which is that we welcome newcomers, but we want people to come through regular migration.
.
The second request I had of the Nigerian government was that they should work closely with us to expedite the issuing of travel documents for Nigerian nationals who have exhausted the procedures and are set to be removed from Canada. On both of those requests, the Nigerian government officials I met, including the foreign minister, were clearly supportive and indicated very clearly that they will work with us on both those issues.
.
Very quickly, I also met representatives of various media outlets in Nigeria to, again, make the point that we value the contributions that Nigerian Canadians have made to our country, but that irregular migration is an issue. I also met civil society organizations who were very kind to let me know some of the challenges, some of the misinformation that was being fed to some of these officials.

So why exactly are we allowing Nigerian "refugee claimants" into Canada? They clearly aren't in danger, so this is all a total scam.

Hon. Michelle Rempel (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC):
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On May 23, in the Stanstead Journal, the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie was quoted as saying, “We had [a lot of] calls from local businesses last year telling us they would gladly go pick them up there and hire them,” since Canada is short on manpower and the influx of people entering illegally through Roxham Road is welcomed by a lot of people.
Do the ministers share the opinion of their colleague?
.
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
The fact of the matter is that the issue of issuing work permits to asylum seekers was something that was brought to us through the intergovernmental task force on irregular migration. It was brought forward by the Province of Quebec. They felt that it was important for the federal government to help the Province of Quebec and other provinces expedite the issuing of work permits so that asylum seekers can support themselves as opposed to relying on provincial social services, and we've done that.
.
Hon. Michelle Rempel:
The sentiment the Minister of International Development expressed is that it's a good thing that people are illegally entering the country, and that this was a way to meet Canada's labour needs. Is that now Canada's policy?
.
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
The provinces have indicated their preference for asylum seekers to support themselves while they await their hearings, to work, and for us to assist them in expediting the issuing of work permits, which we have done, from three months to three weeks—

Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Just in the interest of time, I'd like a yes or no answer. Does the minister want to stop the vast influx of people illegally crossing the border at Roxham Road from the United States?
.
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
Yes.

Rempel seems to have done a 180. Now she seems to have a problem with people entering illegally, even if they are of economic value. And how valuable can they be, if 93% of people need an interpreter when they arrived in Canada?

9. Is Cheap Labour The Real Goal?

139. Immigration by Temporary Workers The Conservative Party recognizes that temporary workers can be a valuable source of potential immigrants because of their work experience in Canada. We believe the government should:
i. continue development of pilot projects designed to address serious skills shortages in specific sectors and regions of the country, and that attract temporary workers to Canada;
ii. examine ways to facilitate the transition of foreign workers from temporary to permanent status; and

AS has been shown before, Article 139 of the CPC Policy Declaration is to create new immigration pilot programs, and, to transition TEMPORARY workers into PERMANENT residents.

10. How Many Are Really Working?

Consider this StatsCan report from 2001. Table 4 includes employment rates. Just 21% of "refugees" in the 15-24 year group were employed years later. The 25-44 group was marginally better, at 25%.

So, a lot of welfare cases, bringing their foreign cultures and often incompatible views with them. But hey, diversity is our strength.

Public Policy #9: The Case For A Moratorium On Immigration

It is easy to target illegal entries into the country. Without borders, and enforcement of those borders, the nation ceases to exist. Everyone should be against illegal entries, sanctuary cities, voting rights and access to social services for those in the country illegally.

That being said, the mass LEGAL immigration is actually a much larger problem.

People excluded from Canada for various reasons (such as criminality, serious criminality, organized criminality, non-compliance, terrorism or human rights violations) should stay excluded. Global News reported on a program which brought in 3,000 people since 2010 under Rule 25.1 of IRPA, but omitted another 186,000 “inadmissibles” allowed in under Rule 24(1) of IRPA from 2002 to 2017. Considering we don’t even track people leaving the country, it’s hard to say where they are.

In recent years, we have been taking in a million people LEGALLY into Canada. In 2017, for instance, we had 950,000 people enter through regular immigration channels, refugee claims, and various temporary programs. This does not include visitors or illegals.

To start off with: our governments lie about the total number of people entering annually. Categories such as student visas (students and their families), temporary foreign workers, & International Mobility Program bring in hordes of people — are not temporary. These groups generally have access to a permanent residency pathway, and other ways to stay longer. There are several pilot programs underway on top of these, including a small amnesty-for-illegals program in Toronto. Heck, we even expedite work permits for fake refugees sneaking in from the U.S.

Even if these temporary workers were to go home (and many don’t), there is the topic of remittances. According to the World Bank, hundreds of billions of dollars are sent from the West annually. How does it help our economy when money is pulled from it?

Perhaps we can replace the money lost via remittances with money from selling investor visas, regardless of how well the business does.

Bringing in large numbers of people as cheap labour results in our own citizens having to compete against foreign, often subsidized labour. It does a huge disservice to those who really need the help.

Importing students at this scale means that Canadian graduates are forced to compete against others for a limited number of jobs. This is includes professional and skilled programs. How does it benefit Canadian graduates to have their prospects cut out like that? Does the downward pressure on wages help? How does it benefit other nations when their talent leaves is a sort of brain-drain?

It doesn’t seem to matter if the “students” are really students.

Considering all the fuss about environmentalism and climate change, answer one question. How does mass immigration remove or minimize stresses to the eco-system? How does clearing new areas for farming and housing avert this climate emergency that we are supposedly in?

The overwhelming majority of immigration coming into Canada over the last several decades is of 3rd World, non-European migrants (80 to 90%). A quick glance at the top 10 “source” countries tells the same story year after year: (a) China; (b) India; (c) the Philippines; and (d) an awful lot of Muslims. Multicultis and Civic Nationalists — which are the same thing — tell us that people who have nothing in common with each other can form a cohesive society based on abstract “values”. It’s nonsense. While other groups want to retain their identity, why are Europeans considered bigots for attempting the same?

The result is predictable: enclaves forming in the major cities, such as Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. In reality, multiculturalism is a lie that never works out as planned. Balkanization is not diversity. Furthermore, it is not a lack of screening, but the deliberate efforts to forcibly remake Canada.

The breakdown of social cohesion is obvious. And anyone who has read Robert Putnam’s study will see why.

At the heart of this is the replacement agenda going on in Western nations. Canada, for example, was 96% European, according to the 1971 census. It was 72% based on the 2016 census, and still falling. Europeans will be a minority in the next decade unless something drastic happens.

This is about preserving the foundation of European nations and ones formed in that image. Replacing the population replaces the culture and the history. It doesn’t matter to me whether it is replacement by Muslims, or by high IQ, high skill Asians. I still don’t want it, and nor should others. Call it tribalism, but Westerners should be allowed to protect their identities too.

We also now have a program for survivors of domestic abuse to apply for temporary, or even permanent residence. Guess that’s what happens with importing violent cultures.

It never seems to dawn on “conservatives” that bringing in large numbers of people from left-leaning nations means political suicide. Demographic shifts will make their ideology completely unelectable. Their only concerns seem to be: (a) come legally; (b) be economically productive; and (c) don’t be a terrorist. But beyond that, conservatives have no will to preserve their people, culture, heritage, and traditions.

While the solution may seem to be to import more Europeans, they cannot be spared as THEY are being replaced in their homelands as well. Europe is being flooded with Middle Eastern and African “refugees” and migrants. We cannot help ourselves at the Europeans’ expense. Still, we must resist the replacement here.

For these reasons, and other facts and figures, I support a moratorium on immigration into Canada. With a more complete picture of the actual situation in Canada, many more people should agree.

Demographic Changes Are Causing Voting Changes, Not Just In America

(Vincent James on immigration turning Texas blue)

(Vincent James on demographics causing hate speech push)

1. Important Links

https://canucklaw.ca/facts-figures-the-ugly-truth-about-replacement-migration-in-canada/

CLICK HERE, for Pew Research on US 2018 elections.
http://archive.is/lfmVW
CLICK HERE, for Pew Research, Latino voting in 2018 election.
http://archive.is/OQ7Qn
CLICK HERE, for Pew Research, more on Hispanics.
http://archive.is/wip/CcQzE
CLICK HERE, for Brookings, whites to be minority in 2045.
http://archive.is/Z3Kio
CLICK HERE, for 1965 Hart Cellar Immigration Act
http://archive.is/wip/XDpVh
CLICK HERE, for NY giving $250,000 fines for calling names.
http://archive.is/Tim4b
CLICK HERE, for US electoral districts impacted by immigration.
http://archive.is/wip/E4WnR
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-26, to add new seats.
http://archive.is/wip/LrCMy
CLICK HERE, for adding 30 seats to House of Commons.
http://archive.is/wip/JVZqM
CLICK HERE, for demographics/voting in Canada.
http://archive.is/slmup

2. Why Canadians Should Care

Demographic changes in the U.S., both from legal “and” illegal immigration are changing voting trends. Specifically, most first generation immigrants vote for Democrats, and by a large margin.

This is not lost on Democrats. The party is pushing for:
(a) More immigration;
(b) More amnesty programs for illegals already here
(c) Voting rights for illegal aliens
(d) Abolishing the Electoral College
(e) Getting felons the right to vote in more states
(f) Getting younger people to vote
(g) Voting without photo I.D.

The reason behind this is not idealistic or moral. The idea is to effectively rig elections by getting more people to vote, if they are part of groups that vote for them by large margins.

As demographics change, voting patterns change. Once solidly conservative states are “turning blue”, as demographics now favour Democrats in more and more places. At one time unthinkable, Virginia turned blue, and Colorado, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Texas and others are close to turning blue.

This issue is important to Canadians because the same thing is happening here. Demographic changes are turning more and more ridings liberal and socialist. It is making conservatism an unelectable ideology. While it is nice to say that demographics don’t matter, the fact is they do.

Look at the recent Canadian election. The Greater Toronto Area is now solidly Liberal, despite Trudeau’s horrible job as Prime Minister. This population change is irreversible, and will never support conservative candidates again.

Interestingly, it was Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney who flooded the GTA from 2006 to 2015, making those ridings uncompetitive. And when the next riding redistributions go ahead, there will be more and more liberal/socialist ridings created.

3. Data From 2018 U.S. Midterms

In U.S. congressional races nationwide, an estimated 69% of Latinos voted for the Democratic candidate and 29% backed the Republican candidate, a more than two-to-one advantage for Democrats, according to National Election Pool exit poll data

Blacks voted overwhelmingly (90%) for the Democratic candidate, including comparable shares of black men (88%) and black women (92%).

Overall, 41% of voters said whites in the country today are favored over minorities; 19% said that minorities are favored over whites, while 33% said that no group is favored. Attitudes on this question were strongly correlated with vote choice. Among those who said whites are favored in the U.S., 87% voted for Democrats. By contrast, large majorities of those who said minorities are favored (85%) or that no group is favored (69%) voted for Republican candidates.

Among voters who said this was the first midterm in which they voted, 62% favored the Democrat and just 36% supported the Republican.

The data from Pew Research makes it pretty clear: minorities vote by very large margins for Democrats. 90% of blacks, and 70% of Hispanics support them, margins that have remained fairly constant for decades.

Why do Democrats push for more and more immigration? Amnesty for illegals? Voting rights for children? Voting rights restored for felons? Because they want more voters.

Demographics are destiny, and these changes are permanently altering Western nations.

4. Whites To Become A Minority

The Brookings Institute that in 2045, whites will stop being an overall majority in the United States, and will drop below 50% completely. From there the percentage of whites will continue to fall.

Of course, if more amnesties are granted for illegal aliens, that switch could happen a lot sooner than 2045. As stated before, Democrats are pushing for amnesty, as they know the (net) vote addition will go very well in their favour.

New census population projections confirm the importance of racial minorities as the primary demographic engine of the nation’s future growth, countering an aging, slow-growing and soon to be declining white population. The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise 49.7 percent of the population in contrast to 24.6 percent for Hispanics, 13.1 percent for blacks, 7.9 percent for Asians, and 3.8 percent for multiracial populations

Why this drastic shift? Well, it could be the 1965 Hart Cellar Act, which changed U.S. immigration laws that favoured Europeans and capped the number. Despite claims that there would be no drastic change in the makeup of the United States, that has proven to be false.

But don’t worry, these changes won’t lead, to people being arrested or fined for hate speech. Oh wait, yes they will.

5. Changes To Lead To Seat Redistribution

High Immigration Causes Political Redistribution.
If immigrants were evenly spread throughout the country, they would have no impact on the distribution of House seats. Historically, immigrants have always been concentrated in some areas, and that is still true today. Of course, immigrants do tend to become more dispersed over time, but it is a very gradual process. In 1990, the top six states of immigrant settlement accounted for 73 percent of the total foreign-born population, while in 2000 these same six states accounted for 69 percent of the total foreign-born population. In 2020, the top six states will account for 63 percent of all immigrants, but only 40 percent of the nation’s total population. Although immigrants will almost certainly continue to move into new parts of the country, for decades to come there will continue to be states with very large immigrant populations, while other states have only a modest number. In 2020, there will still be 11 states with fewer than 100,000 immigrants, while five states will have more than two million.

The redistributive effects of immigration are not just a result of its concentration, but also partly depend on immigrants’ share of the total population. A very large immigrant population, even if it becomes more dispersed, can still have a significant impact on the distribution of House seats and Electoral College votes. As long as the number of immigrants (legal and illegal) entering the country remains very high, immigration will continue to redistribute political power in Washington. (While not examined in this report, the same dynamic applies within states, in drawing districts for the state legislatures.)

Representing Non-Citizens in Congress.
Although the political stakes for low-immigration states from continued high levels of immigration are clearly very significant, the related question of creating districts because of the presence of non-citizens is equally important to consider. While there is a consensus that naturalized citizens should be represented in Congress just like any other American, awarding congressional seats to states on the basis of their non-citizen populations raises important questions about political representation. This is especially true when one considers that these districts are created by taking representation away from states comprised of American citizens.

Consider the case of Ohio, the biggest loser from immigration-induced reapportionment. In 2020, there will be 292,000 non-citizens in Ohio, accounting for just 2 percent of the state’s population; California will be home to nearly 4.8 million non-citizens, accounting for 12 percent of the state’s population. Non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections, serve on juries, or work for the federal government in most cases. Many non-citizens, including foreign students, guestworkers, and illegal immigrants also may not make campaign contributions. Thus, it may seem odd that they are “represented” in Congress. This is especially true because the majority of non-citizens in the country are either illegal immigrants or temporary visitors such as foreign students or guestworkers. While one can at least argue that legal permanent residents who have not naturalized are entitled to representation in Congress because they are future Americans, illegal aliens and temporary visitors can make no such claim.

It is predicted that a few dozen seats will go towards Democrats in the 2020 election. This is because that immigration and population shifts will result in more seats that Democrats can win. This is about shifting political power.

Why Republicans support mass migration when it continuously dilutes their own base and voting bloc is a bit of a mystery. Is the cheap labour they import really worth it?

6. Canadian Parliament Seat Redistribution

The 2011 Fair Representation Act added 30 seats to the Canadian Parliament, (or about 10%) bringing the total to 338. It gave Ontario 15 more seats, BC 6 more, Alberta and Quebec 3 each. As a result, areas with most growth, such as high immigration, get more political power.

Although the Parliament has a limited number of seats, shifts will continue to mean high concentrations of immigrant communities will gain more power. Consequently, the original beliefs and values of the founding stock will continue to be replaced.

Well, according to this graph from Global News, most ridings with the highest immigrant population tend to vote Liberal.

7. About Those Students, Temp Workers

Not only is there the “official” population replacement going on in Canada, but there is the unofficial replacement as well. Specifically, hundreds of thousands of international students and temporary workers are coming to Canada. As has been covered here repeatedly, there are almost all eligible for some option of remaining in Canada long after their visa runs out.

How will Canada’s electoral map look after the next seat distribution? How many more safe Liberal ridings will there be as a result.

Whites are expected to become a minority in Canada soon. What will elections and voting results look like then?

Demographic Replacement In Canada: Where’s It From?

Canada is changing, to put it mildly. How serious is it, and what are the main sources of it? Let’s take a dive into those Annual Reports to Parliament.

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for facts and figures of replacement migration.

Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament
CLICK HERE, for the 2004 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2005 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2006 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2007 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2008 report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2009 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2010 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2011 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2012 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2013 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2014 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2015 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2016 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2017 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2018 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for archived listings.

2. Where Do People Come From?

This isn’t everyone who stays in Canada, and certainly not everyone who enters Canada. However, it does provide a glimpse into WHERE people are coming from. Canada is importing the 3rd World, and becoming the 3rd World as a result.

(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18, 19 of the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19, 20 of the 2007 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 21, 22 of the 2008 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

Did you think that importing large numbers of people from:
(a) China
(b) India
(c) Philippines
(d) Pakistan
(e) Iran

might be the reason we have such large enclaves of these groups? Think there may be some connection between them? This is not a single year, but a consistent pattern.

3. True Size When Temps Factored In

Above are the “temporary” categories listed in the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament. Now, let’s take a look at all of it in context. Data is compiled from the 2004 to 2018 Annual Reports (which covers the years of 2003 to 2017)

Report Year Stated Imm Temporary Actual Imm
2004 221,352 143,444 364,796
2005 235,824 147,204 383,028
2006 262,236 156,622 418,858
2007 251,649 174,361 426,010
2008 236,758 229,834 466,592
2009 247,243 272,028 519,271
2010 252,179 263,618 515,797
2011 280,681 278,433 559,114
2012 248,748 289,225 537,973
2013 257,887 318,383 576,270
2014 258,953 333,175 592,128
2015 260,404 420,708 681,112
2016 271,845 468,126 739,971
2017 296,346 551,342 847,688
2018 331,226 620,149 951,375

Shocking isn’t it? This is what it looks like when “temporary” workers and students are factored in. Now, not all will stay, but the option is there. These programs are in fact pathway to permanent residence.

4. Changes In Census Data

Year Population % of Canada
1871 3,433,315 98.5%
1881 4,146,900 95.9%
1901 5,170,522 96.0%
1911 7,005,583 94.35%
1921 8,568,584 96.0%
1931 10,134,313 97.7%
1941 11,242,868 97.8%
1951 13,582,574 96.83%
1961 17,653,864 96.8%
1966 96.8%
1971 20,763,915 96.3%
1981 22,402,000 93.0%
1986
1986
1996 24,531,635 86.0%
2001 24,678,880 83.3%
2006 25,000,155 80.0%
2011 25,186,890 76.7%
2016 25,111,695 72.9%

Based off the Wikipedia page, it’s sources are: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

To point out the obvious, yes the data table is incomplete. There are a few years missing. However, the overall trend shows an undeniable pattern towards those of European descent declining as a percentage and losing voting power.

Euro Canadians will be a minority in about a decade or so. How well will we be treated then?

5. Population Replacement Is Real

Is there any connection between importing large numbers of Chinese year after year, and the Chinese enclaves that are around Canada? Maybe there is something to it.

Is there any connection between importing large numbers of Indians year after year, and the Indian enclaves that are around Canada? Maybe there is something to it.

Is there any connection between importing large numbers of Muslims year after year, and the Muslim enclaves that are around Canada? Maybe there is something to it.

This is nothing short of full fledged population replacement going on. Import (on an ongoing basis), hundreds of thousands of people from cultures and backgrounds that have little to do with the European founding that Canada has.

However, it is taboo for Europeans to have an identity to be proud of. Other nations have a strong history, culture, and founding stock. But in Western nations, have instead, the values of “diversity, tolerance and multiculturalism”.

One rule for me, another for thee.

The Truth About Birth Rates In Canada Since 1991

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for facts and figures of replacement migration.

CLICK HERE, for StatsCan link to births annually.
CLICK HERE, for StatsCan link to deaths annually.

2. Why Cover This Topic?

It is a commonly repeated globalist talking point that Canada’s population is falling, and that more immigration is needed to keep it going.

While it is true that EUROPEANS are not having enough children to replace themselves, that is not true of other groups, or of Canada in general. In fact, Canada’s population is naturally growing bigger. That is to say, it is increasing at a few hundred people per day, even when deaths are factored in.

People pushing for more and more immigration never really give a satisfactory answer as to WHY it is needed. Claims of funding pensions and economic growth are often cited, but that seems to be a poor long term decision if the culture and makeup of the nation fundamentally breaks down.

Of course the real goal is to replace the (European) stock, culture and heritage. And while those in charge aren’t (yet) killing those European descent outright, mass migration dilutes the voting strength and leads to electoral changes.

3. Canadian Births, Deaths, Since 1991

Note: Difference = Live Births – Total Deaths
Note: Per Day = (Difference)/365 or 366

Year Birth Deaths Diff Day
1991 402,533 195,569 206,964 567
1992 398,643 196,535 202,108 552
1993 388,394 204,912 183,482 503
1994 385,114 207,077 178,037 488
1995 378,016 210,733 167,283 458
1996 366,200 212,880 153,320 419
1997 348,598 215,669 132,929 364
1998 342,418 218,091 124,327 341
1999 337,249 219,530 117,719 323
2000 327,882 218,062 109,820 300
2001 333,744 219,538 114,206 313
2002 328,802 223,603 105,199 288
2003 335,202 226,169 109,033 299
2004 337,072 226,584 110,488 302
2005 342,176 230,132 112,044 307
2006 354,617 228,079 126,538 347
2007 367,864 235,217 132,647 363
2008 377,886 238,617 139,269 381
2009 380,863 238,418 142,445 390
2010 377,213 240,075 137,138 376
2011 377,636 243,511 134,125 367
2012 381,869 246,596 135,273 370
2013 380,323 252,338 127,985 350
2014 384,100 258,821 125,279 343
2015 382,392 264,333 118,059 323
2016 383,102 267,213 115,889 318
2017 379,450 276,689 102,761 281
2018 375,390 283,706 91,684 251

In every single year there are hundreds more births per day than there are deaths. While the averages do vary, the result is still overall growth.

Although in the available data, it has dropped form 567 per day to 251 per day at the ends, the reality is that Canada’s population is naturally getting bigger. No immigration is needed for this growth to happen.

4. More Canadian Children, Less Abortion

Canadian women abort about 100,000 babies per year. If those children had actually been allowed to live, the growth in Canada would be nearly double what it naturally is. All that is required is to view and treat them as people, instead of as inconveniences.

Also, is growth really necessary? Sometimes overcrowded areas would benefit from less children. But that it rarely discussed. While Canadians are told the population is dropping, that is not the case, at least not overall.

Immigration is not needed to grow Canada’s population.
Yet it is pushed on us.
Less Canadian children.
Abort Canadian babies.
Birthrates decline.
Import a replacement population.
Connect the dots.

Facts & Figures: The Ugly Truth About Replacement Migration In Canada

(It’s a constantly repeated lie that temporary workers are only temporary. They will return home once their visas expire, and not become permanent residents.)

(It’s also a lie that students will return home. In most cases, they are eligible for the PGWP, and many transition directly to permanent residents.)

(International Mobility Program, essentially an extension of TFWP, but no labour shortages actually are required. Open work permits)

(If immigration grows our economy, then why is so much money being sent out of the country? Shouldn’t that money be spent here?)

(Making Northern towns unrecognizable is the goal.)

(Agriculture workers have pathway to PR)

(Program launched in July: PR-Path for illegals)

(Program launched in July: Domestic violence ==> PR-Path)

(CANZUK, possibly the biggest open borders and globalist free trade deal in history, is official CPC policy.)

1. Important Links

Other Canuck Law Articles
CLICK HERE, for CANZUK: open borders, free trade.
CLICK HERE, for true scope of mass migration in Canada.
CLICK HERE,for CDA immigration rate: 1M/year.
CLICK HERE, for more detail On replacement migration programs.
CLICK HERE, for replacement migration since 2003/04.
CLICK HERE, for domestic violence as perm res path.
CLICK HERE, for International Mobility Program: TFWP 2.0.
CLICK HERE, for remittances and brain drain.
CLICK HERE, for data on global remittances.
CLICK HERE, for mass migration during high unemployment.
CLICK HERE, for TD Bank article on population boom.
CLICK HERE, for amnesty for illegals program launched.
CLICK HERE, for students: grads/families become PR.
CLICK HERE, for business start up visa — purchase PR status
CLICK HERE, for “ghosts” using student visas to immigrate.
CLICK HERE, for (net) birth rate data since 1991.
CLICK HERE, for 186,000 “inadmissibles” getting Temp Res Permits.
CLICK HERE, for source nations of demographic replacement.
CLICK HERE, for demographic change causing voting changes.
CLICK HERE, for an estimate of temps/students remaining.

2. Context For This Article

As has been reported many times on this site, immigration is nowhere near what is reported in the media. Specifically, when students and so-called “temporary” workers are factored in, it is double or triple what we are lead to believe.

Why does this matter? For a number of reasons. First, it is misleading to omit that these groups are eligible for permanent resident status. That means, most can and will remain in Canada much, MUCH longer than originally stated. It artificially lowballs the immigration rate. Yes, not everyone stays, but many will, especially if they have built roots here.

Second, most people head to the larger cities, which strain to accommodate more and more people. This results in overburdened social services, congestion, and overcrowding. And contrary to conservatives and libertarians, there is a huge financial cost to these influxes.

Third, large scale mass migration has the effect of drastically changing the culture, the societal makeup, demographics (yes, race) and the voting patterns in elections. For example, importing large numbers of people who want hate speech laws, strong gun control, and socialist rule means that voting starts trending that way. Problem is, that no one ever voted to have their societies so changed.

Fourth, it brings incompatible cultures together, again, with no mandate from the host population. Islamic Hijrah (conquest by immigration) is the most obvious, but not the only one. There’s also Chinese expansion, Sikh nationalists, and replaying of ethnic conflicts, just to name a few.

In short, mass migration completely remakes a nation, and a lot of it in negative ways. Problem is (again), no one voted for it. And repeatedly lying to minimize the scale of it only serves to make things worse.

3. Annual Reports To Parliament

CLICK HERE, for the 2004 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2005 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2006 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2007 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2008 report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2009 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2010 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2011 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2012 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2013 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2014 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2015 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2016 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2017 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2018 Report to Parliament.

CLICK HERE, for archived listings.

Note: From the 2004 to 2018 reports (which cover 2003-2017) we can take the “temporary” migration data as well. For this, “temporary” refers to:
(a) Temporary Foreign Worker Program;
(b) International Mobility Program;
(c) Student Visas

Here’s a snapshot of these “temporary” programs from the years 2015 to 2017. Source is the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration.

Year TFW Int Mobility Student
2015 73,016 175,967 218,147
2016 78,402 207,829 265,111
2017 78,788 224,033 317,328

Above are the “temporary” categories listed in the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament. Now, let’s take a look at all of it in context. Data is compiled from the 2004 to 2018 Annual Reports (which covers the years of 2003 to 2017)

Report Year Stated Imm Temporary Actual Imm
2004 221,352 143,444 364,796
2005 235,824 147,204 383,028
2006 262,236 156,622 418,858
2007 251,649 174,361 426,010
2008 236,758 229,834 466,592
2009 247,243 272,028 519,271
2010 252,179 263,618 515,797
2011 280,681 278,433 559,114
2012 248,748 289,225 537,973
2013 257,887 318,383 576,270
2014 258,953 333,175 592,128
2015 260,404 420,708 681,112
2016 271,845 468,126 739,971
2017 296,346 551,342 847,688
2018 331,226 620,149 951,375

The public is (wrongly) told that the annual averages were about 250K during the Harper years (2006 to 2015) and creeping up to 300 under Trudeau, and expected to hit about 350K in a few years. Big problem is that these claims deliberately leave out the pathway-to-PR students and “temporary” workers.

While these programs are touted as “temporary” this is extremely misleading, as an awful lot of people from all streams will remain in Canada. Either they will transition to permanent residents, or remain in some other capacity.

4. Surge In Student Visas

(UBC Promoting post-graduate options to students)

(University of Calgary and options for foreign students.

(University of Regina promoting permanent residence)

CLICK HERE, for Provincial Nominee Seminar at UBC.
CLICK HERE, for permanent resident information from UCalgary.
CLICK HERE, for URegina on the Sask Immigrant Nominee Program.

The above are just the first 3 that I checked out. In fact, in seems that ALL colleges and universities are offering guidance for their international students on how to remain in Canada after they graduate.

But why would they do that? The powers that be repeatedly assure us that these students are in the country temporarily, and that they will return home afterwards. It’s almost as if these student visas were a form of backdoor immigration.

Report Year Numbers
2004 61,293
2005 56,536
2006 57,476
2007 61,703
2008 64,636
2009 79,509
2010 85,140
2011 96,157
2012 98,383
2013 104,810
2014 111,865
2015 127,698
2016 219,143
2017 265,111
2018 317,328

In 2003, Canada issued 60,000 student visas (rounded down) and in 2017 issued 315,000 student visas (again, rounded down). This is more than 5 times the amount, in just a 15 year period.

Sources are the 2004 to 2018 Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration. They are listed in Section #3. Now, not everyone will stay in Canada after they are done school. But many will, and our Government makes that very easy.

5. Surge In “Temporary” Workers

Note: in 2014 there was a public scandal regarding the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. Word got out as to just how wide spread the program was, and just how many people were being “imported” into jobs that Canadians could do, but who had to be paid more.

The “solution”, if you can call it that, was to break up the TFWP into 2 categories: one where a Labour Market Impact Assessment was needed (LIMA), and one that was not (an open work permit).

In this case, the TFWP required the LIMA, whereas the previously existing International Mobility Program was scaled up (no LIMA required). To summarize, rather than fix the underlying problem, the Government decided to split up the program and call it fixed.

Temporary Foreign Worker Program

Report Year Numbers
2004 82,151
2005 90,668
2006 99,146
2007 112,658
2008 165,198
2009 192,519
2010 178,478
2011 182,276
2012 190,842
2013 213,573
2014 221,310
2015 95,086
2016 73,016
2017 78,402
2018 78,788

International Mobility Program

Report Year Numbers
2004 included
2005 included
2006 included
2007 included
2008 included
2009 included
2010 included
2011 included
2012 included
2013 included
2014 included
2015 197,924
2016 175,967
2017 207,829
2018 224,033

Split Up Of TFWP

To offer greater clarity and transparency, the current TFWP is being reorganized and new International Mobility Programs (IMPs) are being created. The TFWP will now refer to those streams under which foreign workers enter Canada at the request of employers following approval through a new Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA). The new IMPs will incorporate those streams in which foreign nationals are not subject to an LMIA, and whose primary objective is to advance Canada’s broad economic and cultural national interest, rather than filling particular jobs. These reorganized programs will improve accountability, with Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) being the lead department for the TFWP, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) the lead department for the IMPs. In addition, ESDC will publicly post data on the number of positions for temporary foreign workers approved through the TFWP on a quarterly basis, and will post the names of corporations that receive permission to hire temporary foreign workers through LMIAs.

Source is right here.

For some context, consider that in 2003, about 80,000 temporary workers were admitted into Canada. That contrasts with over 300,000 in 2017 (when TFWP and IMP both factored in). That is nearly 4 times the amount in just 15 years.

CPC Supports Temp-To-PR Pipeline
The Conservative Party of Canada supports both: creating new immigration pilot programs, and transitioning temporary workers into permanent residents. That is listed in Article 139 of their Policy Declaration (found under Governing Documents)

Also worth noting that CANZUK is official CPC policy as well, Article 152 of their Policy Declaration. CANZUK, when fully implemented would allow free trade and free travel between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Effectively, it would erase the borders between those nations. Aside from the obvious problems, other nations like India, Pakistan, and the rest of the Commonwealth could potentially join. Would all of those “temporary” people be PR eligible as well?

To be fair, the People’s Party of Canada, which claims to “open the Overton window” on immigration, never addresses any of the following:
(a) True scale of mass migration;
(b) Temps/Students transitioning to PR;
(c) Importing the 3rd World;
(d) Rapid demographic change;
(e) Changes in voting trends, less conservatism;
(f) CANZUK being implemented

It would be nice if these Annual Reports to Parliament were more detailed in which programs/streams people were transitioning into permanent residents. It would also help for more information on how many people remain in the country but don’t become citizens. Alas, such useful data is lacking.

To address the elephant in the room: not all of the temporary workers do stay in Canada. Similarly, not all students stay in Canada after they graduate. But an awful lot do. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government doesn’t easily provide that information, so it has to be pieced together.

6. Remittances Sent Back Home

The Bank estimates that officially recorded annual remittance flows to low- and middle-income countries reached $529 billion in 2018, an increase of 9.6 percent over the previous record high of $483 billion in 2017. Global remittances, which include flows to high-income countries, reached $689 billion in 2018, up from $633 billion in 2017.

Among countries, the top remittance recipients were India with $79 billion, followed by China ($67 billion), Mexico ($36 billion), the Philippines ($34 billion), and Egypt ($29 billion).

The Brief also reports progress toward the SDG target of reducing the recruitment costs paid by migrant workers, which tend to be high, especially for lower-skilled migrants.

The World Bank estimates that $689 billion was sent in remittances globally in the year 2018. Globalist politicians repeatedly say that immigration brings wealth to the country, but it seems to be a source of draining it.

Global Remittances In Recent Years

Year Total ($B) To 1st World To 3rd World Diff.
2013 $581B $177B $404B $227B
2014 $592B $162B $430B $268B
2015 $582B $142B $440B $298B
2016 $573B $144B $429B $285B
2017 $613B $147B $466B $319B
2018 $689B $161B $528B $367B

CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2013.
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2015.
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2016.
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2017.
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2018.

Biggest Recipients Of US $ (2018)

Rank Nation Est. ($ Billions)
1 Mexico 30.019
2 China 16.141
3 India 11.714
4 Philippines 11.099
5 Vietnam 7.735
6 Guatemala 7.725
7 Nigeria 6.191
8 El Salvador 4.611
9 Dominican Republic 4.594
10 Honduras 3.769

Worth noting that reducing fees for remittances is a goal long held by the UN. It’s as if they expect and promote mass migration to the West.

7. “Inadmissibles” Still Allowed In Canada

Year Permits Cumulative
2002 12,630 12,630
2003 12,069 24,699
2004 13,598 38,297
2005 13,970 52,267
2006 13,412 65,679
2007 13,244 78,923
2008 12,821 91,744
2009 15,640 107,384
2010 12,452 107,384
2011 11,526 118,910
2012 13,564 132,474
2013 13,115 145,589
2014 10,624 156,213
2015 10,333 166,546
2016 10,568 177,114
2017 9,221 186,335

Using the 2004 to 2018 Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration, we can see that 186,000 people who were previously deemed “inadmissible to Canada” were still allowed Temporary Residence Permits since 2002. This is being done under Rule 24(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Global(ist) News recently reported about the 3,000 or so who were allowed in under a 2010 rule change, and Rule 25.1 of IRPA. However, they missed the bigger picture.

SEC = Security (espionage, subversion, terrorism)
HRV = Human or International Rights Violations
CRIM = Criminal
S.CRIM = Serious Criminal
NC = Non Compliance
MR = Misrepresentation

YEAR Total SEC HRV Crim S.Crim NC MR
2002 12,630 ? ? ? ? ? ?
2003 12,069 17 25 5,530 869 4,855 39
2004 13,598 12 12 7,096 953 4,981 20
2005 13,970 27 15 7,917 981 4,635 21
2006 13,412 29 20 7,421 982 4,387 18
2007 13,244 25 8 7,539 977 4,109 14
2008 12,821 73 18 7,108 898 4,170 17
2009 15,640 32 23 6,619 880 7,512 10
2010 12,452 86 24 6,451 907 4,423 36
2011 11,526 37 14 6,227 899 3,932 11
2012 132,474 20 15 7,014 888 5,206 18
2013 145,589 17 10 6,816 843 5,135 8
2014 10,624 12 2 5,807 716 3,895 14
2015 10,333 3 3 5,305 578 4,315 28
2016 10,568 8 4 4,509 534 2,788 20
2017 9,221 10 5 5,035 591 3,412 121

This is correct. People being denied entry for criminal record, serious criminal records, human rights violations, security risks, terrorism, and the like, are still being given Temporary Residence Permits.

For all those who say “come legally” and it’s okay, guess what? These people are being let into Canada legally. It’s the system that’s broken. Virtually anyone can get into Canada, so should we just skip the formality of having a border?

8. Importing The 3rd World

The tables below are composed form data gathered in the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament (see Section #3). While this data related to % of people gaining permanent residence, and which countries they originate from, it’s a pretty good indicator of where Canada is importing people from.

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2004 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 China 16.3
#2 India 11.1
#3 Pakistan 5.6
#4 Philippines 5.4
#5 S. Korea 3.2
#6 U.S. 2.7
#7 Iran 2.6
#8 Romania 2.5
#9 U.K. & Colonies 2.4
#10 Sri Lanka 2.0

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2007 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 China 13.2
#2 India 12.2
#3 Philippines 7.0
#4 Pakistan 4.9
#5 U.S.A. 4.3
#6 Iran 2.8
#7 U.K. 2.6
#8 S. Korea 2.5
#9 Colombia 2.3
#10 France 2.0

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2010 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 China 12
#2 Philippines 11
#3 India 10
#4 U.S.A 4
#5 U.K. & Colonies 4
#6 France 3
#7 Pakistan 2
#8 Iran 2
#9 S. Korea 2
#10 Morocco 2

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2013 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 China 12.8
#2 Philippines 12.7
#3 India 11.2
#4 Pakistan 3.9
#5 U.S.A 3.7
#6 France 3.2
#7 Iran 2.5
#8 U.K. & Colonies 2.5
#9 Haiti 2.2
#10 S. Korea 2.1

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2016 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 Philippines 18.7
#2 India 14.5
#3 China 7.2
#4 Iran 4.3
#5 Pakistan 4.2
#6 Syria 3.6
#7 U.S.A. 3.0
#8 France 2.0
#9 U.K. & Colonies 2.0
#10 Nigeria 2.0

Note: Of the top 10 countries of origin, only 3 are from European, Western nations (France, the U.S., and the U.K. & Colonies). However, ever U.K. & Colonies is suspect, as it contains people from outside the U.K.

Who would have thought that mass migration of the 3rd World would lead to Canada becoming the 3rd World? This connection is obviously so difficult to make.

This isn’t everyone who stays in Canada, and certainly not everyone who enters Canada. However, it does provide a glimpse into WHERE people are coming from. Canada is importing the 3rd World, and becoming the 3rd World as a result.

(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18, 19 of the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19, 20 of the 2007 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 21, 22 of the 2008 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

Did you think that importing large numbers of people from:
(a) China
(b) India
(c) Philippines
(d) Pakistan
(e) Iran

might be the reason we have such large enclaves of these groups? Think there may be some connection between them? This is not a single year, but a consistent pattern.

9. White Genocide In Action

Year Population % of Canada
1871 3,433,315 98.5%
1881 4,146,900 95.9%
1901 5,170,522 96.0%
1911 7,005,583 94.35%
1921 8,568,584 96.0%
1931 10,134,313 97.7%
1941 11,242,868 97.8%
1951 13,582,574 96.83%
1961 17,653,864 96.8%
1966 96.8%
1971 20,763,915 96.3%
1981 22,402,000 93.0%
1986
1986
1996 24,531,635 86.0%
2001 24,678,880 83.3%
2006 25,000,155 80.0%
2011 25,186,890 76.7%
2016 25,111,695 72.9%

Based off the Wikipedia page, it’s sources are: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

To point out the obvious, yes the data table is incomplete. There are a few years missing. However, the overall trend shows an undeniable pattern towards those of European descent declining as a percentage and losing voting power.

Euro Canadians will be a minority in about a decade or so. How well will we be treated then?

10. Truth About Birth Rates

Live Births in Canada: 2013 – 2017
Deaths in Canada: 2013 – 2017

Year Birth Deaths Diff Day
1991 402,533 195,569 206,964 567
1992 398,643 196,535 202,108 552
1993 388,394 204,912 183,482 503
1994 385,114 207,077 178,037 488
1995 378,016 210,733 167,283 458
1996 366,200 212,880 153,320 419
1997 348,598 215,669 132,929 364
1998 342,418 218,091 124,327 341
1999 337,249 219,530 117,719 323
2000 327,882 218,062 109,820 300
2001 333,744 219,538 114,206 313
2002 328,802 223,603 105,199 288
2003 335,202 226,169 109,033 299
2004 337,072 226,584 110,488 302
2005 342,176 230,132 112,044 307
2006 354,617 228,079 126,538 347
2007 367,864 235,217 132,647 363
2008 377,886 238,617 139,269 381
2009 380,863 238,418 142,445 390
2010 377,213 240,075 137,138 376
2011 377,636 243,511 134,125 367
2012 381,869 246,596 135,273 370
2013 380,323 252,338 127,985 350
2014 384,100 258,821 125,279 343
2015 382,392 264,333 118,059 323
2016 383,102 267,213 115,889 318
2017 379,450 276,689 102,761 281
2018 375,390 283,706 91,684 251

It’s a commonly repeated myth that the Canadian population is declining. In fact, it is growing by about an average of 300 people per day, and has for several years. That being said, this is not at the same across groups. Couples European descent have an average of about 1.5 children each, far below the replacement rate.

Truth is demographic replacement is already taking place, even without any immigration. And that leads to the next segment: a groups that WANTS to breed, in order to achieve its goal of world domination.

11. Muslims Taking Over The World

(Muslims man bragging that demographic change will lead to Sharia Law replacing Canadian Law at some point)

This man isn’t kidding about Islam becoming the biggest religious group. The goal is world domination, and they are breeding their way to get it. These findings, from Pew Research.

Babies born to Muslims will begin to outnumber Christian births by 2035; people with no religion face a birth dearth.

More babies were born to Christian mothers than to members of any other religion in recent years, reflecting Christianity’s continued status as the world’s largest religious group. But this is unlikely to be the case for much longer: Less than 20 years from now, the number of babies born to Muslims is expected to modestly exceed births to Christians, according to new Pew Research Center demographic estimates.

Muslims are projected to be the world’s fastest-growing major religious group in the decades ahead, as Pew Research Center has explained, and signs of this rapid growth already are visible. In the period between 2010 and 2015, births to Muslims made up an estimated 31% of all babies born around the world – far exceeding the Muslim share of people of all ages in 2015 (24%).

The current age distribution of each religious group is an important determinant of demographic growth. Some groups’ adherents are predominantly young, with their prime childbearing years still ahead, while members of other groups are older and largely past their childbearing years. The median ages of Muslims (24 years) and Hindus (27) are younger than the median age of the world’s overall population (30), while the median age of Christians (30) matches the global median. All the other groups are older than the global median, which is part of the reason why they are expected to fall behind the pace of global population growth.

He’s not wrong at all. Pew Research is predicting exactly that. Muslims will become the biggest religious group in a short time.

Of course, the fact that they murder: Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, gays, blasphemers, apostates, and different sects of Islam “might” have something to do with those changing demographics. They aren’t exactly tolerant.

12. UN Supports Replacement, White Genocide

This topic was covered previously, but time for a trip down memory lane. The United Nations has been holding “population conferences” since the 1950s. Interestingly, the solution is always the same: more migration from the 3rd World. Not higher birth rates. Not a decline may be okay. Not “piss off” as a response. More mass migration.

(UN considers replacement migration — not higher birthrates — to be the solution to declining populations)

(UN Population Division still hard at work)

(The UN Global Migration Group)

(Other important replacement migration meetings)

(Agreed outcomes on population)

UN webpages worth a read
CLICK HERE, for the UN Population Division website.
CLICK HERE, for the UN research into replacement migration
CLICK HERE, for Gov’t views & policies.
CLICK HERE, for participant contact info.
CLICK HERE, for Russian replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for European replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for Korean population decline.
CLICK HERE, for various conferences.
CLICK HERE, for the “About” page.
CLICK HERE, for “resolutions” from the UN Population Division.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention on Prevention and Punishing Genocide.
CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact.

UN Global Migration Group

  • Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)
  • International Labour Organization (ILO)
  • International Organization for Migration (IOM)
  • Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
  • United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
  • United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
  • United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)
  • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
  • United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women)
  • United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
  • United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
  • United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
  • United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
  • United Nations Regional Commissions
  • United Nations University (UNU)
  • World Bank
  • World Health Organization (WHO)

Not much to add to this abomination, but it is plain and obvious that the replacement agenda is going on at a global level, and has been for decades.

Consider this: the UN was formed at the end of the Second World War in 1945. Less than a decade later, it is already holding population conferences. They continue even now.

13. Multiculturalism Is Genocide

This may seem strange, but consider the following. Forcibly remaking the population without their consent amounts to genocide, as defined by the United Nations. Check out the UN Convention On Prevention and Punishing Genocide.

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Article V
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.

Article VI
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.

Article VII
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.

14. Where To Go From Here

A moratorium on immigration is the only sensible answer. This “multiculti” experiment is a total failure, and it’s time to put a stop to it. Illegals need to be deported.

Stop Islamic immigration. Permanently. Deport whoever can be legally deported, and ban political Islam. Mosques need to be shutdown wherever possible.

This multicultural push also needs to go. If Canada (or any nation) is to survive, it must be united under one identity.

How did we get to the stage where replacing your population, your culture, language, traditions, and customs is valued as “diversity”? Shouldn’t we preserve what we have?

Put our own people first. Have our own children, more of them, and keep the culture (what’s left of it) intact. Stop sending money away with remittances, stop importing cheap labour, and driving down wages.

It is mind boggling that so-called “conservatives” keep pushing for mass migration from socialist and other left leaning nations. It never seems to dawn on them that importing liberal and socialist voters means that their own base will eventually be replaced. Idiots. But who cares, as long as the cheap labour keeps flowing.

UN’s Neverending Quest To Ban Criticism Of Islam

(Quick search of UN index on “Islamophobia” gets 586 hits.)

(The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief)

(2004 UN Secretary General’s speech on Islamophobia)

(2005 Resolution on religious defamation)

(2010 Organization Of The Islamic Conference. Promotes “hijra”, conquest by immigration, and complains about predictable backlash against Muslims who won’t assimilate.)

(2012 Turkey speaks at UN General Assembly. Calls for UN to establish legal framework against religious defamation.)

(2014 Committee on International Terrorism)

(2015 Must stem bigotry, Islamophobia)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Proposed Global Ban On Islamophobia.
CLICK HERE, to search UN database on Islamophobia.

Religious Defamation/Islamophobia
CLICK HERE, for Confronting Islamophobia, Dec 2004.
CLICK HERE, for UN Res 7/19, Relig. Defamation, Mar 2008.
CLICK HERE, for free speech ==> intolerance, April 2009.
CLICK HERE, for UN on religious tolerance, Oct 2009.
CLICK HERE, for World Interfaith Harmony Week, Feb 2010.
CLICK HERE, for OIC calls For minority rights, Sept 2010.
CLICK HERE, for Afghan mission, religious defamation leads to violence, Afghanistan, Sept 2012.
CLICK HERE, UNGA: Islamophobia rampant, Sept 2012.
CLICK HERE, for wars caused by Islamophobia, Sept 2014.
CLICK HERE, for Islamophobia conflates terrorism, Islam.
CLICK HERE, for Islamophobia, intolerance rising, April 2015.
CLICK HERE, for Islamophobia Is Violence, June 2015.
CLICK HERE, for wrong To equate violence/Islam, Sept 2015.
CLICK HERE, for violence caused By bigotry, Oct 2015.
CLICK HERE, for Islamophobia poisoning society, Aug 2017.

CLICK HERE, for Iqra Khalid’s Islamophobia motion, M-103.

Internet Regulation/Censorship
CLICK HERE, for digital cooperation.
CLICK HERE, for Richard Lee on UN regulating the internet.
CLICK HERE, for proposed digital charter.

2. Context For This Piece

The topic of the UN wanting a global ban on criticising Islam has been addressed on this site before. However, after some reflection and a follow-up, there wasn’t nearly enough detail in that last piece.

While the UN search alone uncovered 586 articles, resolutions, drafts, or other documents under the search term “ISLAMOPHOBIA”, we will not be looking at them all.

Instead, several more will be added. Hopefully the bigger picture will become clear.

3. UN Secretary General’s Speech, Dec 2004

When a new word enters the language, it is often the result of a scientific advance or a diverting fad. But when the world is compelled to coin a new term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry, that is a sad and troubling development. Such is the case with Islamophobia.

The word seems to have emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But the phenomenon dates back centuries. Today, the weight of history and the fallout of recent developments have left many Muslims around the world feeling aggrieved and misunderstood, concerned about the erosion of their rights and even fearing for their physical safety. So the title of this series is very appropriate: there is much to unlearn.

Islam’s tenets are frequently distorted and taken out of context, with particular acts or practices being taken to represent or to symbolize a rich and complex faith. Some claim that Islam is incompatible with democracy, or irrevocably hostile to modernity and the rights of women. And in too many circles, disparaging remarks about Muslims are allowed to pass without censure, with the result that prejudice acquires a veneer of acceptability.

Stereotypes also depict Muslims as opposed to the West, despite a history not only of conflict but also of commerce and cooperation, and of influencing and enriching each other’s art and science. European civilization would not have advanced to the extent it did had Christian scholars not benefited from the learning and literature of Islam in the Middle Ages, and later.

Some points in the address to mention:

(a) European would not have advanced to the extent that it did without learning and literature of Islam? Okay, what exactly did it contribute?

(b) Disparaging remarks are allowed to pass without censure? Is this a warning that censorship is coming?

(c) The physical safety of Muslims? What about the physical safety of other people at the hands of Muslims?

4. UN Res 719, Religious Defamation, Oct 2005

2. Also expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations and emphasizes that equating any religion with terrorism should be rejected and combated by all at all levels;

3. Further expresses deep concern at the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;

6. Expresses concern at laws or administrative measures that have been specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination that they experience;

9. Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;

14. Deplores the use of printed, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and of any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any religion;

15. Invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to continue to report on all manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights to the Council at its ninth session;

Sound familiar? This “non-binding” resolution passed in 2005, and contains much of the same language that is in Iqra Khalid’s blasphemy motion, M-103. The goal to ban criticism of Islam is a very long running one.

Almost as if there were legitimate issues they wanted to suppress.

5. UN Press Briefing, April 2009

Asked for her views on the remarks made yesterday by the President of Iran through which he linked Zionism to racism, she said it was regrettable and said she aligned herself to the sentiments purporting that this was a disservice to the people of Iran, a country of cultural values. She said it was regretful the Conference started off of the wrong footing but said she was hopeful it would get back on track.   Personally, she said she firmly believed in freedom of expression regardless of how obnoxious it may be.  Whether it was intolerant or not, depended on who said it.  Statements from people in public positions which were intolerant should be frowned upon

Responding to a question on defamation of religion, she said in the context of international law there was no such thing as defamation of religion; however, there was incitement on the basis of religion.  If one took the notion of defamation of religion that meant all debates on religions had to be asphyxiated. The notion of the defamation of religion was not only detrimental to the mandate of freedom of religion but also to the whole concept of human rights. 

A few interesting points in the briefing. We don’t refer to it as defamation of religious, but there is incitement of religion. Not sure there is much of a difference as far as Islam is concerned. Also, it was nice to point out that intolerant is really a point of view.

6. Rapporteur On Freedom Of Religion Or Belief, Oct 2009

Governments have a central role to play in either preventing or contributing to religious friction, an independent United Nations expert said today, noting that a State’s commitments to non-discrimination, as well as its policies and messages, can promote tolerance.

Asma Jahangir, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, told a news conference in New York that there are preventive measures governments can take to avoid further polarization on the basis of religion before it erupts into violence.

She also noted that while governments are talking about issues such as defamation of religion, there is “less addressing of the issue of religious incitement to violence, discrimination and hatred.”

This should really be a warning sign. Legitimate concern and criticism of religion can become grounds committing violence on the basis of “incitement to violence”. It’s interesting how the conversation shifts from DEFAMATION towards INCITEMENT, as if it were to provide a stronger justification for committing violence.

7. Org. Of Islamic Conference, Sept 2010

I would, in this presentation, essentially approach this multifaceted issue in the light of my experience and role as the Secretary General of the OIC-which with its 57 member states has, over the last four decades, evolved as the second largest International Organization after the UN. We are currently in the process of implementing a Ten Year Programme of Action. Propelled by the vision of ‘moderation and modernization, the Programme has identified priority areas of action. It accords primacy to multilateralism, human rights and cultural diplomacy as key items on the OIC agenda. Each of these issues is relevant to our discussion today. I would, therefore, be sharing a few thoughts in both the spirit and interest of a lively debate that-I am confident -would follow in this prestigious setting.

He then goes on to talk about how many parts of Europe and Eurasia either are majority Muslim, or have large Muslim populations.

The term is “hijra”, which is conquest by immigration. Large parts of those areas have been conquered over time and are now subject to Islamic law. He now gets into the very predictable politics of grievances.

Unfortunately, the Muslims of Europe and other parts of the Western world have become suspect because of a campaign launched by a number of motivated individuals and groups who appear to bear an incomprehensible grudge against Muslims and Islam. The Muslim population of Europe that has for centuries lived in peace and harmony with other communities, are today being regarded as aliens. They are under some pressure to give up some of their cultural traits and practices on the ground that these are not compatible with local customs and practices. This has resulted in a growing divide.

The current tension in relations between Islam and the West is pregnant with risk of transforming the notion of clash of civilizations a self-fulfilling prophecy. Islamophobia and discrimination against Muslims in the West appears to emanate from different physical appearance of Muslims and also in intolerance toward their religion and cultural beliefs.

I don’t see, particularly with the aforementioned historical background, as to why migration of Muslims to Europe and elsewhere in the West should be seen and portrayed as a threat today. Why should they be construed as aliens? Why must the symbols of their identity be denigrated? Why should the expressions of their identity be banned? It is indeed an unfortunate situation that challenges the identity of Muslim migrants. It also defies the salient features of European identity including tolerance, non discrimination and respect for human rights. Most importantly, it poses a clear and present danger to peace, security and stability in the regional as well as the global context.

Of course, what is intentionally left out of this is that the vast majority of Muslims have no intention of ever assimilating. Islam is an ideology that is build on achieving dominance through deceit, political methods, and outright violence.

The taqiyya is strong with this group.

The part about the IOC being 57 members is true though. As such, it wields tremendous influence over the UN and its agenda.

8. UN Afghan Ass’t Mission, Sept 2012

Kabul, 13 September – The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) deplores the disrespectful, insulting and inflammatory material posted on the internet that seeks to denigrate the religious beliefs of Muslims and to incite violence and hate.

The United Nations rejects this despicable action and defamation of religion in all forms. Such intentional acts insulting the religious beliefs of others are unacceptable.

The United Nations itself is the symbol of religious tolerance and inclusive diversity representing as it does all the peoples of the world. We hold Islam and Muslims in the whole world in high esteem.

While the United Nations in Afghanistan joins the people and government of Afghanistan in strongly condemning this abhorrent action, nothing can justify violence or the further loss of life. Following the statement of the UN Secretary General of yesterday, UNAMA calls on all Afghans to exercise restraint in their indignation and to reject calls to violence or vicious behaviour.

The United Nations will continue to help the Afghan people lay the foundations for stability, security and lasting peace in Afghanistan.

While the Mission bent over backwards to kick ass and apologize for Islam, it was nice to at least hear that this violence is not justified. A good start.

9. Turkey At UNGA, Sept 2012

He underlined that the recent attacks against the Prophet Muhammad and against Islam were outright provocations that aimed to pit nations and peoples against each other. Turkey condemned all sorts of incitement to hatred and religious discrimination against Muslims and peoples of other faiths. Unfortunately, Islamophobia had become a new form of racism, like anti-Semitism, and it could no longer be tolerated “under the guise of freedom of expression”. Freedom did not mean anarchy, he stressed in that respect; instead, it meant responsibility. At the same time, he condemned the provocation and violence that followed, saying it “cannot be justified under any pretext”. Because of the alarming increase in the number of acts that defame religions, he believed the time had come to establish the denigration of all religions and their followers as a hate crime. He called for a universal policy and legal instrument that, while protecting free expression, should also ensure respect for religion and prevent intentional insults against faiths. “The solution should not be arbitrary,” he added, calling on the United Nations, in particular, to lead that effort and provide the international legal framework.

Turkey wants the UN to establish an international legal framework? As in what, a global ban on blasphemy? Perhaps it will shut down any speech remotely offensive to anyone.

Let’s be honest though. The real goal is preventing criticism of Islam. After all, you can criticize a political ideology freely, but a religious group is off limits.

10. Comm. On Int’l Terrorism, Oct 2014

AMR EL-HAMAMY (Egypt), speaking for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), denounced atrocities committed by terrorists around the world and stressed that they contradicted the practices and principles of Islam. No religion or religious doctrine encouraged or inspired acts of terrorism, and therefore, none should be portrayed as such. He strongly condemned some politicians’ attempts to link Islam with terrorism, noting that such attempts played in the hands of terrorists and constituted an advocacy of religious hatred, discrimination and hostility against Muslims.

Reaffirming the OIC’s commitment to strengthening mutual cooperation, he said that only a coordinated approach by the international community would yield effective results. Further, a comprehensive strategy must address the root causes of terrorism, such as the unlawful use of force, aggression and political and economic injustice, among others.

He reiterated the need to distinguish between terrorism and the exercise of the legitimate right of peoples to resist foreign occupation, noting that such distinction was duly observed in international law and international humanitarian law. He also called for cooperation in banning the payment of ransoms to terrorist groups. Underscoring the need to make progress on the draft comprehensive convention, he emphasized his determination to resolve outstanding issues, including those related to the legal definition of terrorism and voiced support for the convening of a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations.

It is much the same story here: Muslims and Islam are being discriminated against. However, the topic of resisting occupations is brought up. Of course, depending on what one views as an occupation, almost any violence “could” be justified on those grounds.

11. Must Stem Intolerance, Bigotry, April 2015

However, with “troubling frequency” violent attacks and despicable crimes are being carried out and claiming the lives of innocent men, women and children. From Paris to Tunis, and from Garissa to Yarmouk and Johannesburg to Peshawar, “no person, society of nation is immune” from intolerance or the threat of violent extremism, he added. In places like Iraq Afghanistan and Mali, irreplaceable artefacts are being destroyed.

“There is no justification for such attacks. We must condemn all manifestations of intolerance, including anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and racism,” and all other forms of prejudice, harassment or violence, the General Assembly President said.

As such stories become all too common the world must stand up toward the threat of intolerance and radicalism. “Violent extremism is a global test and our response must solve the problem,” Mr. Ban said.

D’aesh, Al Shabaab and Boko Haram are part of a new generation of terrorist groups threatening international peace and security but the problem goes beyond them and the regions in which they operate. Racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia exists worldwide and to protect the innocent “we must safeguard our moral compass,” he said.

This leaves out the inconvenient fact that most terrorism in the world is committed by Muslims, in the name of Islam. But why should that detail get in the way?

12. Remember Digital Cooperation?

Digital Cooperation was earlier discussed on this site as well. Despite the harmless and well sounding verbiage, it is internet censorship, with the UN at the helm. A recent invention was the proposed Digital Charter, which was along the same lines.

One other note to mention: in a 2019 by-election debate Liberal Candidate Richard Lee proposed having the UN create a body to oversee and regulate the internet.

Internet regulation and banning criticism of Islam go hand and hand. In today’s world, the latter cannot be achieved without the former.

13. UN Global Migration Compact

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.

c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media.

Remember this gem? If you wanted to shut down criticism of an ideology, just call it bigotry or Islamophobia and the problem is solved.

14. This Is Just A Small Sample

As stated at the beginning, a quick search of “Islamophobia” in the UN records will net 586 hits. This is not just a one off. A quick search through them comes up with much the same pattern: blame everything on Islamophobia and intolerance, then demand actions be taken.

It’s actually an eerily well organized scam. Once you are not allowed to criticize a group, then they have already won.

Let’s be clear what is going on: these efforts are done in the name of censoring and shutting down legitimate criticism and concern of Islam. Few could publicly justify shutting down POLITICAL ideologies without backlash. However, if those goals were framed as RELIGIOUS in nature, then they would be relatively safe.

Arguments To Appeal Dismissal in S3CA Challenge (Unedited Version)

1. Quotes From Prothonotary’s Dismissal

2. Previous Links

CLICK HERE, for abuse of Safe Third Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for Prothonotary strikes out Statement of Claim.
CLICK HERE, for Uppity Peasants on the moral arguments.

NOTE: This is an unedited version of the written submission.
There is further editing and changes being made.

PART I. ISSUES

(1) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make overriding palpable error saying the Plaintiff’s claim was based on personal opinions, without material facts?

(2) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law in finding there is no public or private standing in the matter?

(3) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law by not taking facts alleged as proven, at least in the preliminary stages?

(4) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law by overreaching, and striking out a Statement of Claim in a matter that is complex and involves in depth analysis of law? Prothonotaries are not Judges or Justices.

(5) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law by not allowing for amendments?

(6) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law by not considering arguments of: unjust enrichment, unconscionability, negligence, or constitutional issues prior to striking?

(7) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law by allowing procedural rules to unjustly hinder a self represented litigant?

Standard For Review

(8) Housen v. Nikolaisen (2002) is the accepted standard for review. It outlines the standard for both factual errors, errors of law, and mixed law and fact errors. Hospira Healthcare Corp v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology (2017) clarified that Prothonotary orders being reviewed should subjected to the same standard, as they are basically the same thing.

(9) The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. A palpable error is one that is plainly seen. …. The standard of review on pure questions of law is one of correctness, and an appellate court is thus free to replace the opinion of the trial judge with its own. Appellate courts require a broad scope of review with respect to matters of law because their primary role is to delineate and refine legal rules and ensure their universal application…. Questions of mixed fact and law involve the application of a legal standard to a set of facts.

PART II. FACTS

(10) In December 2002, Canada and the United States signed the “Safe Third Country Agreement” (the S3CA). This was in effect an agreement to prevent “asylum shopping” by forcing alleging to be refugees to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive in.

(11) In December 2004, the Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) legally took effect between Canada and the United States. This is not disputed by the other side.

(12) However, due to a “loophole” in the agreement, the rules apparently do not apply if a “refugee” simply bypasses official border ports of entry. In other words, enter Canada from the U.S. at any place other than an official port, then different rules apply. The result has been fake refugees entering from the U.S. and attempting to claim asylum.

(13) Instead of turning people away attempting to enter Canada from the United States, this loophole has made it easier for people to enter the country and submit asylum applications here. This completely defeats the purpose of having the agreement in the first place.

(14) The United States considers many thousands of asylum applications every year (see Exhibit A). It is because of this, and because of how legitimate asylees are treated, Canada as made this Safe Third Country Agreement in the first place.

(15) The claim that the Plaintiff’s assertions are just personal opinions is false. The ruling by Prothonotary Milczynski of that is complete nonsense. Here are some examples.

(16) The CBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, has reported (see Exhibit B) that at least 50,000 people have entered Canada in just the last 2 years, coming from all countries.
Close to 50,000 have come into Canada in just two years at Roxham Road, stepping across the border at the unauthorized crossing.

But the majority of those who come here to Plattsburgh, N.Y., by bus, train or plane have spent little time in the U.S., arriving on tourist visas with the intent of treading the footpath to Canada.

When CBC News visited the crossing recently, in one day we met families and single travellers from Pakistan, Turkey, Yemen, Lebanon, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Eritrea, as well as a Palestinian family from the occupied territories. Some arrived with what appeared to be fresh baggage tags from overseas flights into New York. Others had made their way north from Mexico, South and Central America.

They often prearrange taxis in Plattsburgh for the half-hour ride to the border. Since 2017, the route has become so normalized that taxi companies are branding themselves as border shuttles. A sign on one taxi van brazenly reads “Refugee Border.” Another reads “Roxham Border – LaColle Border” and advertises a group rate, with each ride costing between $60 and $80 US, a lucrative and steady business.

(17) But perhaps CBC is just faking the article. Perhaps all of this really the Plaintiff’s opinion (sarcasm). But moving on, the United Nations has published freely available articles on Roxham Road in Quebec. One such article (see Exhibit C) reads that at least 20,000 people have entered Canada illegally just in the Summer of 2017:

The 48-year old man, who used to work for Oxfam Quebec in Haiti, is one of the estimated five thousand Haitians who, in the hot summer days of 2017, walked into Canada via Roxham Road at the U.S.-Canada border. Together with these Haitians, some 20,000 people crossed into Canada via Roxham Road that summer, making it the main entry point into Canada for asylum seekers crossing the border irregularly.

(18) The United Nations, in this article, estimates that at least 20,000 people crossed into Canada illegally in just the Summer of 2017 at Roxham Road in Quebec. This is the United Nations’ own estimate. Not my imagination or opinion, as Prothonotary Milczynski has stated. Moving on, the Toronto Star has also written about the problem (Exhibit D) and writes that people are entering from Roxham Road every day in Canada.

Seven days a week, 24 hours a day, migrants who came to the U.S. from across the globe — Syria, Congo, Haiti, elsewhere — arrive here where Roxham Rd. dead-ends so they can walk into Canada, hoping its policies will give them the security they believe the political climate in the United States does not.

“In Trump’s country, they want to put us back to our country,” said Lena Gunja, a 10-year-old from Congo, who until this week had been living in Portland, Maine. She was travelling with her mother, father and younger sister. “So we don’t want that to happen to us, so we want a good life for us. My mother, she wants a good life for us.”

(19) The Toronto Star not only details the illegals (fake refugees) crossing into Canada from the US, but documents a family who was coming to Canada simply because they feared deportation because they were living in the U.S. illegally.

(20) Next, Global News covered Toronto Mayor John Tory on the topic of border jumpers, (see Exhibit E). He has said that homeless shelter beds are being filled up with illegals, and it has cost at least $64.5 million:

“But that goal is simply not achievable if the other governments, especially the federal government, don’t step up and take much greater responsibility to help us in an area of their jurisdiction. The status quo is simply not acceptable.”

City officials say the number of refugee claimants in Toronto’s shelter system has increased from 459 (11.2 per cent of the total system) in 2016 to 2,351 (37.6 per cent of the total system) in April 2018.
Tory said that if the level of refugees arriving in Toronto continues to rise, the city projects it will incur $64.5 million in direct costs related to providing shelter and housing.

(21) CTV news has also written about the cost of these fake refugees. Here (Exhibit F) is one of their submissions:

OTTAWA — The federal government has spent over $270 million on irregular border crossers over the last year and a half, according to government figures submitted to the parliamentary budget office.
The figures were requested by parliamentary budget officer Jean-Denis Frechette in early July and were recently released to members of the immigration committee.

All four agencies involved in dealing with irregular migration submitted amounts they have spent every month since early 2017 when the influx of asylum seekers began to ramp up. The total adds up to more than $270 million up to the end of June.

(22) Both the Conservative Party of Canada and the People’s Party of Canada have made pledges to close the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement (Exhibits G and H). This is to prevent more illegal crossings. But perhaps it is their opinions as well that this is happening.

(23) Prothonotary Milczynski’s ruled that the Plaintiff is stating personal opinions and personal beliefs. For this conclusion to be true, all of the following entities would have to be lying:
(a) The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)
(b) Global News
(c) CTV News
(d) Toronto Star
(e) City of Toronto
(f) Toronto Mayor John Tory
(g) Conservative Party of Canada, and its members
(h) People’s Party of Canada, and its members

(24) Of course, this is only a small sample of the media, print, photographic and video evidence available about the illegal border crossings going on, particularly at Roxham Road, QC. Even the simplest of online searches would have found a wealth of information corroborating what the Plaintiff alleges.

(25) Also, part of Prothonotary Milczynski’s ruling is confusing. She states (accurately) that I have concerns about illegal immigration and fake refugees gaming the system. That part is true. But then she goes on to state that these are bare assertions. Does she think the Plaintiff is making up the entire thing?

PART III. LAWS ON THE SUBJECT

Standard For Review

(26) Housen v. Nikolaisen (2002) is the accepted standard for review. It outlines the standard for both factual errors, errors of law, and mixed law and fact errors. Hospira Healthcare Corp v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology (2017) clarified that Prothonotary orders being reviewed should subjected to the same standard, as they are basically the same thing.

Housen v. Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 SCR 235, 2002 SCC 33 (CanLII)

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html
(27) The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. A palpable error is one that is plainly seen. …. The standard of review on pure questions of law is one of correctness, and an appellate court is thus free to replace the opinion of the trial judge with its own. Appellate courts require a broad scope of review with respect to matters of law because their primary role is to delineate and refine legal rules and ensure their universal application…. Questions of mixed fact and law involve the application of a legal standard to a set of facts.

(28) Hospira Healthcare Corporation v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, [2017] 1 FCR 331, 2016 FCA 215 (CanLII)

[66] In Housen, the Supreme Court enunciated the standard of review applicable to decisions of trial judges. More particularly, it concluded that with respect to factual conclusions reached by a trial judge, the applicable standard was that of palpable and overriding error. It also stated that with respect to questions of law and questions of mixed fact and law, where there was an extricable legal principle at issue, the applicable standard was that of correctness (paragraphs 19 to 37 of Housen).

[69] I am therefore of the view that there is no reason why we should not apply to discretionary orders of prothonotaries the standard applicable to similar orders by motions judges. I am supported in this view by our decision in Imperial Manufacturing, where we applied the Housen standard in reviewing the discretionary decision of a motions judge, namely her determination of a motion for particulars regarding certain allegations made in the Plaintiff’s statement of claim.

(29) In this case, Prothnotary Milczynski made both errors of fact, and errors of law.

(30) First, the errors of fact. The biggest one is the stating that the Plaintiff is making bald assertions, is being argumentative, and is stating personal opinions. This is completely wrong.

(31) People are coming into Canada illegally, that has been thoroughly documented. The fact that it happens, and estimates about the scale and costs are all public knowledge. Yet Prothonotary shrugs this off as “opinion”.

(32) The Statement of Claim (as I understand it) is not supposed to include evidence. That is to come later. Moreover, when responding to the motion to strike (via Rule 221) evidence is not supposed to be submitted, so that was not an option. How is a Plaintiff supposed to prove these facts when the Statement is struck out prior to it being allowed in? It was offered to do, if the Claim were allowed to be amended, but that didn’t happen.

(33) Prothnotary Milczynski’s ruling that facts were just “personal opinions” was a palpable error. It was an overriding one, causing the case to be thrown out prematurely.

Personal Standing

(34) The Government of Canada cited (Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United v. Attorney General of Canada, 2010), arguing that a personal, private stake in the matter must be shown. Okay.

(35) From a purely financial point of view, the Plaintiff does not want to see her tax dollars being spent on people who have no right to be in the country in the first place. This includes people circumventing the law by going around official border crossings. While this seems superficial and cold, it is an improper use of taxpayer money. It was shown in earlier exhibits that social services “are” being accessed.

(36) Moving beyond that, letting people into the country who are unscreened is a danger to the Plaintiff’s well being. True, not everyone is violent, however the Plaintiff has an expectation that the Government will take reasonable steps to ensure the identities and security risks of people entering the country. Simply entering the country from the “warzone” of the United States claiming to be a refugee does not ensure her safety. Moreover, it is unclear what, if any, medical screening these people have undergone prior to coming to Canada. Again, they just show up and claim to be fleeing persecution.

(37) Also, allowing fake refugees to enter from the United States cheapens the Plaintiff’s citizenship. Being Canadian is supposed to come with privileges and rights that are unique to Canadians. Simply allowing anyone into Canada from the U.S. who “identifies” as a refugee undermines the process, and weakens what it means to be Canadian.

(38) Previous Counsel, Aman Owais, made the extremely false and disingenuous argument that because the Plaintiff is not a refugee she has no right to intervene, as her rights are not at stake. This was an intentional straw-man argument. It was never about getting the Plaintiff into Canada as a refugee, but about protecting her (and Canada as a whole) from abuse of the refugee process.

(39) Regarding a public standing (Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United v. Attorney General of Canada, 2010), has issued a 3 point test to determine standing:
(a) the existence of a serious justiciable issue;
(b) whether the Plaintiff has a real or genuine interest in the matter;
(c) whether the proceeding is an effective means of bringing it to the court

(40) First point, yes there is a serious, justiciable issue. Maintaining an actual border with the power to exclude people is important. Prothonotary Milczynski has stated that it is not a sufficient issue to bring to court. Wrong. As stated in the earlier submissions, we have borders for a reason, and it is to protect the citizens from outsiders. This is not xenophobic, but simple reality. How can the Government offer its citizens any level of safety and security if it cannot control who comes into the country? Only the most obtuse or contrarian person would argue that there is not serious issue about having borders that exclude people without a right to be in the country.

(41) Far from being the work of a “busybody”, asking the Court to enforce existing laws is vital to the well being of the nation. Indeed, being able to secure its perimeter is arguably the most important function a Government should have. Instead, it is fighting efforts to compel it to do so.

(42) Second point, yes, the Plaintiff has a genuine interest in the matter. She is concerned over the problem of illegal immigration into Canada, which is largely at — but not exclusive to — Roxham Road. She in concerned about the money being spent on this (both her and others), the security risk that large numbers of illegals pose, and the cheapening of the Canadian citizenship. It is nonsense to suggest that bringing this matter to the court — at her own time and expense — isn’t a real interest. Protecting your nation’s borders isn’t “busybody” work, it’s what any true patriot should see as important.

(43) Third point, is this an effective means of bringing it to the Court? Yes. What is being asked of the Court is to order the Government of Canada to enforce existing laws and to stop illegal immigration into this country. This case only covers ILLEGAL immigration, which as should be obvious, is illegal. Courts get asked to enforce laws, or order enforcement every day. The only difference here is the scale of the enforcement that is being asked of it. And if not the Court, then who exactly is to remedy a problem when the Government itself won’t act?

(44) Rules 17 and 25 of the Federal Courts Act give the Plaintiff the ability to file here. The Federal Court does have jurisdiction

17 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act or any other Act of Parliament, the Federal Court has concurrent original jurisdiction in all cases in which relief is claimed against the Crown.
Extraprovincial jurisdiction

25 The Federal Court has original jurisdiction, between subject and subject as well as otherwise, in any case in which a claim for relief is made or a remedy is sought under or by virtue of the laws of Canada if no other court constituted, established or continued under any of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 has jurisdiction in respect of that claim or remedy.

(45) Think about how ridiculous this matter is: the Government of Canada has to be taken to court to enforce its own laws regarding border security. The Court is being asked to force the Government to enforce its own laws. The Judiciary has long been recognized as a “check and balance” against the Legislative and Executive Branches of Government.

(46) Prothonotary Milczynski made an error of law when ruling that the Plaintiff had no standing, wither publicly or in private to bring the case. She seems to view it as an opinion that nations need borders.
Unjust Enrichment, Unconscionability

(47) The Plaintiff also raised the issue of unjust enrichment. If you accept the fact that fake refugees are coming into Canada and receiving social benefits (as was demonstrated in the “facts” section), then how is this not unjust enrichment? How is taking something that one is not entitled to anything but unjust? Courts have the power to prevent this sort of thing from happening, and typically they do.

(48) Beyond unjust enrichment, consider the doctrine on unconscionability. If the Safe Third Country Agreement is to be worded — as the Government suggested before — that putting this loophole was intentional, does that not violate good public policy? Should agreements that act against public interest not be amended or voided as appropriate. If that was the case (and it appears to be just another excuse) then the agreement was invalid to begin with.

(49) Prothonotary Milczynski made an error of law when not appropriately considering the argument of unjust enrichment, or unconscionability

(50) Prothonotary Milczynski also erred in law when striking out a matter that is not simple, or established law. It is well established that this is not appropriate

(51) In Hanson v. Bank of Nova Scotia, the Ontario Court of Appeals reversed an order to strike out a Statement of Claim, stating that:

In my opinion, none of the above conclusions should be made at this stage of the proceedings. The threshold for sustaining a pleading under rule 21.01(1)(b) is not a high one. Much of the argument before us was directed to the lack of a factual underpinning for the causes of action alleged, particularly as to the damages issue. This is a matter to be resolved on the evidence called at the trial: see Temilini v. Ontario Provincial Police (Commissioner) (1990), 1990 CanLII 7000 (ON CA), 73 O.R. (2d) 664, 38 O.A.C. 270 (C.A.). It is also accepted that the fact that a cause of action could be a novel one is not a bar to its proceeding to trial: see Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959, 74 D.L.R. (4th) 321. The categories of relationships giving rise to fiduciary duties are not closed nor are the categories of negligence in which a duty of care is owed: see Guerin v. R., 1984 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335 at p. 383, 13 D.L.R. (4th) 321 at p. 341; International Corona Resources Ltd. v. LAC Minerals Ltd., 1989 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574 at pp. 596-97, 61 D.L.R. (4th) 14 at p. 61, and 34 Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th ed. (1980), para. 5 at p. 8

(52) Although this case was an Ontario one, the same principle can be applied to Federal cases as well. Even if there are deficiencies in the Statement of Claim, they can usually be cured by filing an “amended” Statement of Claim. That must always be considered when asked to strike out. This is settled by a great many cases.

(53) In the COMER case, it was argued, that:

[30] The Plaintiffs remind the Court of the general principles to be applied on a motion to strike. The facts pleaded by the Plaintiffs must be taken as proven: Canada (Attorney General) v Inuit Tapirasat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] 2 SCR 735; Nelles v Ontario (1989), DLR (4th) 609 (SCC) [Nelles]; Operation Dismantle Inc., above; Hunt, above; Dumont v Canada (Attorney General), 1990 CanLII 131 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 279 [Dumont]; Trendsetter Developments Ltd v Ottawa Financial Corp. (1989), 32 OAC 327 (CA) [Trendsetter]; Nash v Ontario (1995), 1995 CanLII 2934 (ON CA), 27 OR (3d) 1 (Ont CA) [Nash]; Canada v Arsenault, 2009 FCA 242 (CanLII) [Arsenault]. A claim should be struck “only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading is bad beyond argument” (Nelles, above, at 627), or where it is “‘plain and obvious’ or ‘beyond doubt’” that the claim will not succeed (Dumont, above, at 280; Trendsetter, above). It is inappropriate to strike a claim simply because it raises an “arguable, difficult or important point of law” (Hunt, above, at 990-91), or because it is a novel claim: Nash, above; Hanson v Bank of Nova Scotia (1994), 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA), 19 OR (3d) 142 (CA); Adams-Smith v Christian Horizons (1997), 14 CPC (4th) 78 (Ont Gen Div); Miller (Litigation Guardian of) v Wiwchairyk (1997), 1997 CanLII 12256 (ON SC), 34 OR (3d) 640 (Ont Gen Div). Indeed, in the law of torts in particular, this may make it critical that the claim proceed so that the law can evolve in response to modern needs (Hunt, above, at 991-92). Matters not fully settled by the jurisprudence should not be decided on a motion to strike: R.D. Belanger & Associates Ltd v Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd (1991), 1991 CanLII 2731 (ON CA), 5 OR (3d) 778 (CA). The Plaintiffs say that, in order to succeed, the Defendants must produce a “decided case directly on point from the same jurisdiction demonstrating that the very same issue has been squarely dealt with and rejected”: Dalex Co v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman (1994), 1994 CanLII 7290 (ON SC), 19 OR (3d) 463 (Gen Div). Furthermore, the Court should be generous with respect to the drafting of the pleadings, permitting amendments before striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA); Toronto-Dominion Bank v Deloite Hoskins & Sells (1991), 1991 CanLII 7366 (ON SC), 5 OR (3d) 417 (Gen Div). Finally, the Claim has to be taken as pleaded by the Plaintiffs, not as reconfigured by the Defendants: Arsenault, above.

[31] The Plaintiffs say that the Prothonotary correctly stated the test on a motion to strike, but wholly misapplied it by determining substantive matters that should have been left for the trial judge, striking the Claim despite acknowledging that it was a “novel” and “complex” one, and making an erroneous ruling on the application of the Charter.

(56) This reasoning absolutely applies here.
(a) No previous ruling, on point, was ever argued by the Defense. They never attempted to claim that this has been settled.
(b) To reiterate, claims made by a Plaintiff must be taken as proven, at least initially.
(c) New cases do result in laws changing over time, and the Courts accept that principle.
(d) Claims cannot be struck simply because they are difficult to prove.
(e) Claims cannot be struck simply because they are novel.

(57) The Federal Court has the powers (under 47(1) and 53(1) and (2) of Federal Courts Rules), to ask with a wide degree of discretion and to make orders it views as just. If there were errors or confusion in the original Statement of Claim, it would have been better corrected by allowing an Amended Statement of Claim. Prothonotary Milczynski erred in not at least allowing the option. Certainly whether the Federal Government can be ordered to enforce its own laws regarding border security is an issue worthy of the Court’s attention.

(58) Striking out a claim in such an important and complex matter should be above the ability of a Prothonotary, and it is.

Negligence

(59) Also worth noting is that failing to secure the border could be viewed as negligence by the Court. Negligence, broadly speaking, is a 3 part test:
(a) A duty of care is owed
(b) That duty of care is breached
(c) Harm results from breaching the duty of care

(60) I would argue that the Government does owe a duty of care to the Canadian public. Securing the Federal borders and excluding people not legally allowed to enter is the essence of that duty. By allowing illegals into the country, the Government is breaching that duty of care. Yes, harm is resulting. This comes from taxes being used to support illegals, reduced security of the people, and the general cheapening of the Canadian citizenship.

Peace, Order, Good Government (POGG, Section 91)

(61) The Plaintiff submits that allowing people to enter Canada illegally, and at taxpayer expense, violates the POGG Doctrine. Morally, the citizens of Canada have as much of a right to safety as does any genuine refugee, and that letting in large numbers of “undocumented migrants” puts their safety at risk. Also, if the intent is to provide safety for those fleeing persecution, making it easy for individuals who may be after them (gang members, abusive husbands, w/e) to follow them into our country is doing no one any favours. We can’t provide safety to people fleeing persecution if anyone can enter as well

(62) We have no business in taking in so many people when we already have a housing shortage on our hands. crowding our homeless citizens out of the shelters by filling them with border crossers is morally reprehensible, particularly in light of our harsh winter climate. to do so is to argue that any one “refugee” from the other side of the planet is more worthy of shelter than a given, homeless Canadian; and given the disproportionately high rates of indigenous men and women among the homeless population, this ought not to be a perception for the government to continue to reinforce

(63) Yes, there are some generalizations in the above paragraphs, but we have obligations: both to Canadians, and to legitimate refugees. Simply letting people bypass border controls is not a good way to govern a country.

Self Represented Litigants/Accused People

(64) Since the Supreme Court ruling of Pintea v. Johns, (which endorsed the statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) (online) established by the Canadian Judicial Council), it has been practice for courts to go the extra mile to ensure that procedurals rules are not used to unjustly hinder. The ruling also allows for Court officials to explain rules and options to self-represented persons.

(65) Opportunities to amend a claim, or make changes as the Court requires, are granted all the time to lawyers. A self-rep should be given no less consideration. If anything, Courts should be inclined to cut them a break.

(66) This is not an attempt to have the Court “make my case”. Rather, it is to ensure the issues originally raised (illegal immigration) actually have their day in Court. Since our Federal Government seems to have little interest in enforcing our borders, it’s time for another opinion.

Summary Of Errors

(67) Prothonotary Milczynski made overriding, palpable error in ruling the facts alleged by the Plaintiff were bare assertions, and personal opinions. No opportunity to introduce evidence had been available up to that point.

(68) Prothonotary Milczynski further made several errors of law including:
(a) wrongly applying the standard of public and private standing. It assumes that there is no public or private interest by the Plaintiff in stopping illegal immigration, and hence ruled on the entire case. An overreach.
(b) Striking out the Statement of Claim when facts alleged by the Plaintiff were supposed to be taken as proven, at least in preliminary stages. This is well settled case law.
(c) Striking out the Statement of Claim in a matter that is complex and complicated. That is a serious overreach for a Prothonotary. They are not judges, and not supposed to behave as such. Again, settled case law.
(d) Not allowing the Plaintiff an attempt to prove the facts alleged in the Statement of Claim, or allowing an amended Statement to be filed. Again, facts alleged are supposed to be taken as true in early stages.
(e) Not at least considering the claims of: unjust enrichment, unconscionability, negligence or any constitutional question. However, she ruled everything to be opinion anyway.
(f) Not giving any consideration to a self-represented litigant, consistent with the Pintea v. Johns principles.

PART IV: AUTHORITIES

[1] Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform v. Canada, 2014 FC 380 (CanLII)
[2] Hanson v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA)
[3] Hospira Healthcare Corporation v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, [2017] 1 FCR 331, 2016 FCA 215 (CanLII)
[4] Housen v. Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 SCR 235, 2002 SCC 33 (CanLII)
[5] Pintea v. Johns, [2017] 1 SCR 470, 2017 SCC 23 (CanLII)

The Frankfurt School: What’s Behind Cultural Marxism, Feminism

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for ThoughtCo, on Frankfurt School of Critical Theory.
CLICK HERE, for UToronto, MA Program, Women’s Studies.
CLICK HERE, for University Of Toronto, Gender Relations, Feminist Theory.
CLICK HERE, for a previous article on the wage gap.
CLICK HERE, for Harvard lawsuit against racial quotas in admissions.
CLICK HERE, for 11 year old wanting puberty blockers.
CLICK HERE, for Post Millennial article on Vancouver Rape Shelter.
CLICK HERE, for purging “Shia/Sunni” from terrorism reports.
CLICK HERE, for Islamic culture of violence and sexual exploitation.

2. Context For The Article

Cultural Marxism, and ideologies such as feminism are often criticized as complete nonsense. It’s pointed out that they use garbage arguments, half truths to justify themselves, and end up fragmenting society.

While this is all true, an interesting piece of the puzzle is left out: what are the origins of these beliefs? Did they grow organically, or was there something more organized helping it along? Also, were these good intentions gone awry, or is there malevolent intent behind these theories?

3. Articles On The Subject

  • Aesthetic Theory, (Theodor W. Adorno)
  • Culture Industry Reconsidered, (Theodor W. Adorno)
  • Critical and Traditional Theory (Horkheimer)
  • Critique of Instrumental Reason, (Max Horkheimer)
  • Dialectic of the Enlightenment (Adorno and Horkheimer)
  • Knowledge and Human Interests (Habermas)
  • One-Dimensional Man (Marcuse)
  • Structural Transformation and the Public Sphere, (Jürgen Habermas)
  • The Aesthetic Dimension: Toward a Critique of Marxist Aesthetics, (Herbert Marcuse)
  • The Authoritarian Personality, (Theodor W. Adorno)
  • The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (Habermas)
  • The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (Benjamin)
  • Towards a Rational Society, (Jürgen Habermas)
  • Traditional and Critical Theory, (Max Horkheimer)
  • The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, (Walter Benjamin)

4. From ThoughtCo Site

The Frankfurt School was a group of scholars known for developing critical theory and popularizing the dialectical method of learning by interrogating society’s contradictions. It is most closely associated with the work of Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse. It was not a school, in the physical sense, but rather a school of thought associated with scholars at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt in Germany.

In 1923, Marxist scholar Carl Grünberg founded the Institute, initially financed by another such scholar, Felix Weil. The Frankfurt School scholars are known for their brand of culturally focused neo-Marxist theory—a rethinking of classical Marxism updated to their socio-historical period. This proved seminal for the fields of sociology, cultural studies, and media studies.

In 1930 Max Horkheimer became the director of the Institute and recruited many of the scholars who came to be known collectively as the Frankfurt School. In the aftermath of Marx’s failed prediction of revolution, these individuals were dismayed by the rise of Orthodox Party Marxism and a dictatorial form of communism. They turned their attention to the problem of rule through ideology, or rule carried out in the realm of culture. They believed that technological advancements in communications and the reproduction of ideas enabled this form of rule.

Their ideas overlapped with Italian scholar Antonio Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony. Other early members of the Frankfurt School included Friedrich Pollock, Otto Kirchheimer, Leo Löwenthal, and Franz Leopold Neumann. Walter Benjamin was also associated with it during its peak in the mid-20th century.

One of the core concerns of the scholars of the Frankfurt School, especially Horkheimer, Adorno, Benjamin, and Marcuse, was the rise of “mass culture.” This phrase refers to the technological developments that allowed for the distribution of cultural products—music, film, and art—on a mass scale. (Consider that when these scholars began crafting their critiques, radio and cinema were still new phenomena, and television didn’t exist.) They objected to how technology led to a sameness in production and cultural experience. Technology allowed the public to sit passively before cultural content rather than actively engage with one another for entertainment, as they had in the past. The scholars theorized that this experience made people intellectually inactive and politically passive, as they allowed mass-produced ideologies and values to wash over them and infiltrate their consciousness.

Marxism (as prescribed by Karl Marx), was a way of “making” everyone equal via Communism. The Government would control the means of production and in effect, run all industries. Everyone who make the same amount of money, regardless of profession or work ethic. Everyone would have access to the same level of Government run social services.

In theory, this sounded great, as everyone would get their basic needs met. In practice, however, the only way to run such a system is by force, and to take away free will. Few people are willing to work hard when there are no rewards for doing do, hence the system falls apart. True, everyone will have access to the same services, but to the same “poor” services.

Cultural Marxism takes those same principles and applies them on a cultural level, despite having extremely harmful effects. This is because “oppression” is often viewed as the root cause of a difference, not simply difference in groups.

How does this destructive ideology manifest itself? Let’s take a look at a few examples of claiming “injustice” where no such thing exists.

5. Long Debunked “Gender Pay Gap”

This was addressed in a previous article. Feminists (a sub-group of cultural Marxists), have long claimed that women are on average are paid less. As proof, they often point to government statistics that show that on average, the hourly wage is more for a man than for a women.

However, feminists don’t want to ask WHY women are, on average, paid less than men. Such an omission completely derails their arguments. Men on average, work in more physical, dangerous, and skilled positions. They work full time more often than women do, and on average, are employed for longer periods of time. Also, there are more likely to take fields in college or university (like STEM or business), while arts and humanities are dominated by women. These differences go a long way towards explaining differences in pay.

Despite these obvious answers being easily available, the “gender-pay-gap” is still widely trumpeted in academia and feminist circles. It’s as if the people behind these theories, the Cultural Marxists, don’t want to see it properly addressed.

One such example is here, of a brainwashed feminist. She knows men are not women, but assumes that women earning less is patriarchy. Great use of her BA/MA in gender studies.

Of course, cultural Marxism also pushes the idea that women have to have careers in order to be happy with their lives, and that motherhood is a form of submission into traditional gender roles. Fact is, we need women to be mothers in order to keep the next generation of society going. Population replacement via mass migration is not really a good idea.

6. Abortion Agenda

This area has been brought up repeatedly on the site. To boil it down, cultural Marxists have been pushing the idea that abortion (or killing your unborn children) is actually a form of empowerment to be embraced by women as a whole. This is morbid, as it completely devalues human life.

See here, see here, see here, and see Trudeau, for some examples of accepting viewpoint diversity.

Also worth noting is that the organ trafficking industry — or baby chop shop — is an extremely lucrative market. So there is definitely a financial incentive as well for pushing infanticide.

7. Affirmative Action, Racial Differences

The topic of affirmative action was covered, in this article on Harvard University being sued for having racial quotas. Harvard, like many schools, engages in affirmative action, or have “quotas” for how many people in certain groups get in. The rationale is that “oppression and inequality” get factored into these decisions. But isn’t that inherently unfair to other groups of people?

2 other possibilities could explain the disparity in admissions.

(a) Differences in culture: if a particular group has such a culture that on average does not value education, it seems likely that far fewer people from that culture will successfully pursue academia. It is not discrimination, but the result of personal choices.

(b) Biological differences in racial/ethnic groups: as unpopular as it is to say, there are biological differences between groups, and it includes differences in IQ. This has been researched ad nauseum, but the findings are immediately condemned by many as being racist. Average IQ of whites is around 100, while Jewish and Asians are even higher. IQ in Central and South America is often in the 80s, while in Sub-Saharan Africa, it is in the 70s. Certainly, no one has control over how they were born, but these differences do exist.

Despite IQ and work ethic differences across various groups, cultural Marxists keep insisting that differences in academic entry, graduation, and accomplishment is due to systemic racism and discrimination. It’s as if they don’t want the truth to be told.

8. Promoting Gay/Trans Agenda

Not only are segments of society actively promoting the idea that people should become the opposite sex if they feel uncomfortable, they push it in children as well. This comes despite the enormous health risks, the suicide rates, and the inability to have children in later stages of life.

One recent trend is the push for allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports, despite the remaining physical advantages. This will undoubtedly help to ruin women’s sports along the way.

Another development was to block funding, for a rape relief shelter in Vancouver, as it wasn’t interested in letting trans-women in. This is nonsense. Rather than being available to help the vast majority of victims, it will now be available to help no one. Good job.

There is the idea of people living their lives as they are, (controversy notwithstanding). Then there is throwing your weight around and demanding society accommodate you.

9. Increasing Islamization

Islam has such strong influence in Canada today that our government pussyfoots around calling Islamic terrorism for what it is. Our leaders crow about diversity being a great thing, but never get into the sexual violence and exploitation that is so rampant in Islam.

This is on top of Bill C-75, which waters down penalties in Canada for terrorism. This is on top of Bill C-6, which revoked a previous law to deport “Canadians” who were dual citizens, but convicted for terrorism or treason.

Also, please note the incessant demands by Muslims to accommodate their way of life, their religion, and their culture. Note, this accommodation will never be reciprocated.

Islam is completely incompatible with the West, and with every other culture in general. However, cultural Marxists just keep telling us not to be bigots and embrace diversity. Feminists as well, openly embrace Islam, despite is going against everything they claim to believe in. LGBTQ groups support Islam too, despite the fact that Islam openly calls for gays to be killed?

Why is this nonsense embraced, when it is so contrary to Western ideals? What is behind it? Who is behind it?

10. Cultural Marxism A Weapon Against Us?

Consider the long term implications of cultural Marxism. Yes, there is some stereotyping, but largely this is true. Consider the points raised in #5 to #9

(A) Women who become feminists are very likely to reject Western society as a whole. They will hate themselves, and men in general. Rather than having children and perpetuating the species, many will remain childless. Instead, they will believe the lie that career is the key to every woman’s happiness.

(B) Rather than embracing children, killing their unborn children is now seen as totally acceptable. It is framed as “reproductive care” and of “my body, my choice”. The obvious result from this is a much lower birth rate, and population decline.

(C) Instead of promoting a meritocracy, we water down any and all standards in the name of being inclusive and tolerant. Actual skill, experience, and competence take a backseat to being diverse.

(D) Push the gay and trans agenda, especially in children. Forget the emotional and psychological harm that comes of it. Remember as well: gay couples cannot have children, and people who have transitioned fully cannot have children with anyone anymore.

(E) Embracing and making excuses for Islam projects the false image that it is compatible with Western society. Never mind the huge cultural clashes that do go on. And never mind that Muslims have a birthrate that far exceeds Western couples. An attempt to out-breed us?

Is there a pattern here? Although cultural Marxism encompasses other ideas, there is a trend here. These initiatives involve Western, European people having less children — or none at all. The solution of course, will be to import a “replacement population”, who will outbreed and eventually replace Europeans.

The founders of cultural Marxism, why do they do this? Are they of a certain group that has a very strong in-group preference? Is the goal of cultural Marxism to inflict great damage across the West? Is it designed to completely destroy the West?

U.N. Population Replacement Agenda: Tracing The Steps

(UN considers replacement migration — not higher birthrates — to be the solution to declining populations)

(UN Population Division still hard at work)

(The UN Global Migration Group)

(Other important replacement migration meetings)

(Agreed outcomes on population)

1. Important Links

Other Canuck Law Articles
CLICK HERE, for replacement migration since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism violates convention against genocide.
CLICK HERE, for Harvard research on ethnic “fractionalization”.
CLICK HERE, for research into forced diversity.
CLICK HERE, for the 2016 New York Declaration.
CLICK HERE, for the 2018 Global Migration Compact.

UN webpages worth a read
CLICK HERE, for the UN Population Division website.
CLICK HERE, for the UN research into replacement migration
CLICK HERE, for Gov’t views & policies.
CLICK HERE, for participant contact info.
CLICK HERE, for Russian replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for European replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for Korean population decline.
CLICK HERE, for various conferences.
CLICK HERE, for the “About” page.
CLICK HERE, for “resolutions” from the UN Population Division.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention on Prevention and Punishing Genocide.
CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact.

2. Some Context For The Article

This should be obvious, but nations should look after their own affairs. It is beyond creepy that the United Nations not only has an interest, in population management, but regularly holds conferences on the subject. Shocking yes, but keep reading. The proof is undeniable.

Furthermore, this is not a one time event. It has been going on for the better part of a century now.

3. Kalergi Plan of the 1920s

This video was originally posted by YouTuber Black Pigeon Speaks, but was taken down. In short, the Kalergi Plan, (named after Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi) is a scheme to impose multiculturalism on nations, and breed out individual races.

The rationale behind it is the idea that race and ethnicity were the root causes of much violent conflicts. If everyone was of a single race, this would be eliminated.

Peace through ethnic cleansing. It’s nonsense like this that actually makes Hitler seem normal by comparison.

4. Implementing Kalergi Via Multiculturalism

Here are some quotes from the 1948 UN Convention on Prevention and Punishing Genocide. It was designed to prevent groups from committing atrocities against each other, and provide some means for punishment should it happen.

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Now, on the surface, nothing seems objectionable here. After all, who “doesn’t” oppose measures to stop people from committing genocide against another? All of this seems sensible.

However, there is another way to look at it. Instead of committing overt violence against a group, more subtle measures could be introduced. These would be measures that would bring about the same effects.

An obvious on is replacement migration. Try to reduce the birth rate in one country by various means, such as claiming it’s to prevent climate change. Then, once the population starts dropping, introduce “replacement” migration to make up for the shortfall.

Another common technique is the concept of multiculturalism. Let’s be honest here. Multiculturalism is a fantasy that has no basis in reality. Trying to get very different cultures to live together never works out. It ends with either:

  • Balkanization/Enclaves
  • Parallel societies
  • Erosion of the host culture
  • Tension and/or violence
  • Some combination of the above

Still one more technique is to implement laws which guarantee social cohesion will never take place. These include affirmative action or quotas in schools or employment. There can also be laws to erode or erase parts of the group identity, ensuring tension will never go away.

What if this type of system was deliberately inflicted, by trying to mix incompatible groups?

5. UN Global Migration Group

  • Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)
  • International Labour Organization (ILO)
  • International Organization for Migration (IOM)
  • Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
  • United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
  • United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
  • United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)
  • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
  • United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women)
  • United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
  • United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
  • United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
  • United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
  • United Nations Regional Commissions
  • United Nations University (UNU)
  • World Bank
  • World Health Organization (WHO)

Source is here. These organizations meet regularly to discuss global migration issues, as the name implies.

It’s also interesting the sheer number and range of UN groups involved with this “Global Migration Group”. Education, higher education, trade, research, refugees and labour all affiliated with it.

6. Rome Population Conference (1954)

World Population Conference
Rome, 31 August- 10 September 10 1954

The First World Population Conference organized by the United Nations was held in Rome in 1954 to exchange scientific information on population variables, their determinants and their consequences. This eminently academic Conference resolved basically to generate fuller information on the demographic situation of the developing countries and to promote the creation of regional training centres which would help to address population issues and to prepare specialists in demographic analysis.

Source is here.

7. Belgrade Population Conference (1965)

World Population Conference
Belgrade, 30 August-10 September 1965

The Second World Population Conference was organized in 1965 by the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population (IUSSP) and the United Nations; most of the participants were experts in the field. The focus at this international meeting was on the analysis of fertility as part of a policy for development planning. This Conference was held at a time when expert studies on the population aspects of development coincided with the start-up of population programmes subsidized by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Source is here.

8. Bucharest Population Conference (1974)

The World Population Conference was hold in Bucharest, Romania, from 19 to 30 August 1974. Representatives of 136 Member States attended (more than 1400 persons). The draft of the World Population Plan of Action, prepared by the Population Division with the assistance of an advisory committee of experts, had been reviewed by the Population Commission and discussed at the five regional meetings. The draft was amended by the working group and adopted by the plenary.
At the time the UN had 138 Member States. Family planning was being promoted by 59 countries.
The World Population Plan of Action had four parts:
-background;
-principles and objectives;
-recommendations for action, and
-recommendations for implementation.

Negotiations tended to make aspects of population policies weaker and aspects of social and economic development stronger. The Conference became polarized between the ‘incrementalist’ position of a group of Western States (including US, UK, Germany) that believed that rapid population growth was a serious impediment to development, and the ‘redistribution’ position, followed by a group of developing countries led by Argentina and Algeria that believed that the population problem was a consequence and not a cause of underdevelopment and that it could be solved by a new international economic order focusing on the redistribution of resources

Source is here.

9. Mexico City Population Conference (1984)

Mexico City hosted the second International Conference on Population between 6 – 14 August 1984. It was attended by representatives of 147 Member States (the UN had 157 Member States). At the time 123 countries promoted family planning.
The Conference adopted the Recommendations for the Further Implementation of the WPPA. Several key Member States had changed positions compared to those they had in 1974. The United States now considered population a neutral phenomenon for development. Many developing countries, including Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria and Pakistan expressed their firm support for family planning and population programmes. Many developed countries, including Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom stated their willingness to increase their support for population programmes. The United States stated its policy of not funding any programmes facilitating abortion.

Source is here.

10. Cairo Population Conference (1994)

Building up towards the Cairo Conference
Population Commission as Preparatory Committee
The Preparatory Committee met three times. At its first session (4-8 March 1991) the Committee set the objectives of the meeting and defined the issues to be discussed; agreed to take account of the outcomes of recent United Nations global conferences; and considered the assignment or responsibilities to United Nations bodies, intergovernmental organizations and NGOs. At its second Session (1-21 May 1993), in which observers from 185 NGOs were present, the Preparatory Committee agreed to establish a new programme of action to replace the WPPA and the Mexico recommendations to guide action on population in the next 20 years and directed the Secretariat to hold a substantive debate on the concept and structure of the proposed Recommendations of the Conference. At its third session (4-22 April 1994) the Preparatory Committee discussed the ‘Draft Final Document: Programme of Action of the Conference’ prepared by the Secretariat.

The International Conference on Population and Development
The International Conference on Population and Development was convened in Cairo, Egypt, from 5 to 13 September 1994. It was attended by 179 governmental delegations from UN Member States, 7 observers at governmental level, the European Union and several hundred NGOs. Several thousand media representatives covered the Conference.
The Conference adopted the Programme of Action, which emphasized the fundamental role of women’s interests in population matters and introduced the concepts of sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. A new definition of population policy was advanced, giving prominence to reproductive health and the empowerment of women.

Source is here.

11. Coordination Meetings (2002-2015)

First coordination meeting, 2002
Second coordination meeting, 2003
Third coordination meeting, 2004
Fourth coordination meeting, 2005
Fifth coordination meeting, 2006
Sixth coordination meeting, 2007
Seventh coordination meeting, 2008
Eighth coordination meeting, 2009
Nineth coordination meeting, 2010
Tenth coordination meeting, 2011
Eleventh coordination meeting, 2012
Twelth coordination meeting, 2013
Thirteenth coordination meeting, 2014

12. Expert Meetings, Population Control

A series of expert meetings, has been held by the United Nations over the last 20 years. All of these involve population control and management.

13. New York Declaration (2016)

The actual text is here for the New York Declaration of 2016. Basically this is a “warm-up” to the infamous GLOBAL MIGRATION COMPACT. In fact, most of the text here appears in the 2018 UN GMC, just worded a bit differently.

Here, are the main points in the NY declaration. They were covered in a previous piece, so I won’t be going into detail here.

14. Global Migration Compact (2018)

That was also covered here, and this document is the original source material. A plan to help move some 258 million (yes, million) people from one country to another, and to enshrine new “rights” for these migrants. Of course there is the vile “OBJECTIVE 17(c)” which effectively criminalises criticism of migration and allows media outlets to be shut down.

15. Replace S. Korea Population

E. Conclusion
There is no doubt that the elderly will increase and the absolute size of the total population will decline in the future. Although the UN projected the size of net immigrants in Korea will remain constant in the future, it cannot be ensured that such maximum sizes are the most optimum in terms of the socio-economic, environmental and other factors. In other words, the criteria for projection of the numbers of net immigrants should be determined, taking into account all the factors to be included in addition to demographic factor.

However, experts agree that the change in population size and structure, specifically population ageing, will require an influx of foreign labor migrants to keep the national productivity that will help accommodate the promotion of quality of life for the whole population. Specifically, it provides an opportunity to emphasize to policy-makers that the future population policies need to be integrated with health, welfare and social security related policies.

Since the female participation in economic activity is still low in comparison with those in western countries, the policy for increasing women’s economic participation will play an important role in compensating for the expected shortage of labor, through which the support for the increasing old persons can be helped. As a matter of fact, the Korean government has made efforts to improve conditions for encouraging female’s employment; which include improvement on gender discrimination in employment and increases in compatibility of women’s work with child rearing.

The UN has been researching, among other places, South Korea. It recommends mass migration to stem the declining population, which is no surprise. Let’s get women working more, hence decreasing the amount of Korean children who are born. Of course, when the numbers drop, further replacement migration is always possible.

This report never seems to value the ethnic and cultural homogeny that S. Korea has. There is no emphasis on maintaining its identity. Instead, keep pushing for more and more replacement migration.

16. Replace The Russian Population

D. CONCLUSIONS In Russia, like in most industrial countries, the balance of births and deaths will most likely be such in the first half of the 21st century that the natural population increase will be negative. If the country’s population will continue to depend largely on the natural reproduction, it will unavoidably decrease in size and will age rapidly. These two trends might be counteracted only by an inflow of immigrants, to a larger or smaller extent, depending on the volume and composition of immigration flows.

Nevertheless, Russia could unlikely avoid the arrival of large immigration inflows. On one hand, their inevitability is dictated by the internal demographic situation in Russia. While unfavorable consequences of the population aging are not so dramatic as sometimes imagined, and those actually present may be largely neutralized by economic and social policy measures, the population decrease will present Russia with a very hard choice. It should either succumb to a continuous aggravation of the already meager population / territory ratio, or to widely open its doors to immigration.

Both solutions bear unwelcome consequences, so the lesser of two evils should be chosen. On the other hand, the future developments cannot be predicted without taking into account the demographic situation outside Russia, particularly the overpopulation beyond its southern frontiers. This overpopulation together with the increasing mobility of the populations in the neighbouring countries will unavoidably produce a growing migration pressure, at least in the form of illegal migration, that will become more and more difficult to hold in check and which will compel Russia to respond with expanding the legal immigration possibilities.

As with South Korea, the UN recommends that Russia replace its population in order to “save itself”. Interestingly, the solution is never to have more local births. It is always mass migration.

17. Replace The European Populations

The analysis of recent developments in cohort fertility profiles indicates that a return of European fertility levels to, or close to, replacement level is not in the making. Even if the pace of postponement in western counties slows down or stops altogether, only a modest rise in TFRs is to be envisaged. This rise, furthermore, strongly depends on the amount of fertility recuperation at older ages (i.e. past age 30), and except for the Scandinavian countries, this recuperation has been inadequate, and strongly so in a number of large EU-countries (Spain, Italy, Germany). In Eastern and Central Europe the steep fertility decline is predominantly a feature of the 1990s, and caused by a fertility reduction in all cohorts, irrespective of the stage of family building or age. Also in these countries the degree of fertility recuperation, particularly for the post-Communist generations, will be crucial in establishing more acceptable levels of period fertility. Finally, policy measures directly aimed at influencing fertility have had clear, but only temporary effects, and also sustained policies producing sometimes large income transfers in favour of families with children have not had any substantial effects either.

The prospect of long term sub replacement fertility had to revive the issue of replacement migration sooner or later. In this respect the UN-report (2000) drew widespread media attention all over Europe, but the unfortunate feature was that the media zoomed in on the results of only one simulation, i.e. the one maintaining a constant PSR at all times till 2050. Much earlier formal demographic analysis (e.g. Blanchet, 1988) had indicated that such age structure equilibration leads to impossible outcomes, in contrast to longer term views with less stringent constraints. However, the latter still lead to record immigration intakes of over 1.0 million p.a. from 2025 onward for the EU as well as for the remainder of Europe. Moreover, the efficiency of such a replacement migration remains limited if not complemented by other measures such as the rise of labour force participation rates. The latter is particularly needed in countries, both in and outside the EU, that had a considerable reduction in male activity rates above age 50 or have a small female labour force participation expressed in full time equivalents. Finally, replacement migration into the EU needs to be directed especially toward the countries with the largest fertility deficit, including Italy and Spain who have only more recently become immigration countries. Hence, the million or so extra immigrants should by no means be spread evenly within the EU territory

In this last article, Europe is recommended to ramp up their mass migration to fulfill labour shortages. It’s always the same solution, isn’t it?

18. Thoughts On The Topic

This replacement migration plan is disturbing beyond belief. It is a globally coordinated effort to replace the host populations throughout the developed world, and to maintain control over the new ones. It reads like some plot in a children’s cartoon. However, it is actually happening.