Category: Identity/Religion

Posted on

DNA Testing For Spotting Fake Refugee Families

Regardless of what a person feels about letting high levels of refugees into their country, most people will agree on one fact: they want the “family units” who enter to actually be made up of related family members.

However, as is being seen more and more, particularly in the United States, this is not the case. Adults are coming with children they claim are “their” children, but DNA testing is proving that false. In a U.S. pilot program, nearly 1/3 of professed families were not blood relatives.

Obvious questions have to be asked. Who are these children? Who are the supposed parents? Are the children being used to simply help adults along, or are they being trafficked? How are these arrangements being set up, and where? Those are just a few that need to be answered.

Bizarrely though, migrant rights groups and civil liberties groups don’t seem so concerned about those questions. Instead, they focus on what will happen to the DNA sample afterwards.

1. UN High Commission On Testing

IV. DNA testing to establish family relationships in the refugee context
.
12. …. Thus, interviewing family members should normally be undertaken as the primary means of establishing family relationships. Where documents are available, they should be used as corroborative evidence. Care should however be taken to prevent that, because of pressure to produce such documents, refugees are driven to take risky actions. These may include, for instance, desperate measures to sneak back home and/or approach the authorities of the country of origin, which could place them at risk of arrest, detention or other inordinate consequences.

13. In line with the above, UNHCR considers that DNA testing to verify family relationships may be resorted to only where serious doubts remain after all other types of proof have been examined, or, where there are strong indications of fraudulent intent and DNA testing is considered as the only reliable recourse to prove or disprove fraud.

14. Even if the existence of a blood link is not established, this may not necessarily imply an intention to commit fraud. Cultural and social dimensions of ascribing family relationships should be considered. In the refugee context, the nature of ascribing family relationships should be understood based on the refugee’s social and cultural background. UNHCR also believes that individuals will be less inclined to misrepresent non-existing blood ties if they are confident that persons whom they have always treated and considered as part of the family and with whom they have developed strong personal bonds, or where there is mutual dependency, will be considered as part of the family for purposes of family reunification.

refugee.dna.testing.unchr.1
While it does pay lip service to the idea that nations need to be secure in who they allow to enter their borders, it becomes clear that the UN High Commission on Refugees sees DNA testing as a last resort. Even in cases where there is no biological link, the UNHCR recommends “looking at the culture” of the people anyway.

2. Canadian Policy On Testing

When to do DNA testing
An applicant may be given the option of undergoing DNA testing in cases in which documentary evidence has been examined and there are still doubts about the authenticity of a parent-child genetic relationship or when it is not possible to obtain satisfactory relationship documents. A DNA test to prove a genetic relationship should be suggested by IRCC only as a last resort.

For citizenship purposes, it is only necessary to establish one parent-child relationship with a Canadian citizen parent. However, it is preferable to take samples of genetic material from both parents as it facilitates the testing process.

A relative or family member’s DNA can be useful to DNA test results for immigration purposes, even if that person is not specifically involved with the sponsorship application. In such cases, the processing office needs to be satisfied that the person is a blood relative of the sponsor and that the person’s DNA sample is collected in accordance with these guidelines.

The IRCC does require DNA testing to prove a genetic relationship, but does so only as a last resort, when family ties cannot be proven otherwise. While this may not be a huge problem for people coming in many streams, it should be required for those coming via refugee channels, especially those coming illegally.

3. CBSA Checking Ancestry Sites

Immigration officials are using DNA testing and ancestry websites to try to establish the nationality of migrants, the Canada Border Services Agency said on Friday.

CBSA spokesperson Jayden Robertson said the agency uses DNA testing to determine identity of “longer-term detainees” when other techniques have been exhausted.

“DNA testing assists the CBSA in determining identity by providing indicators of nationality thereby enabling us to focus further lines of investigation on particular countries,” Robertson said in an email.

But the process raises concerns about privacy of data held by ancestry websites, and highlights political pressure over the handling of migrants by Canada’s Liberal government. More than 30,000 would-be refugees have crossed the U.S.-Canada border since January 2017, many saying they were fleeing U.S. President Donald Trump’s immigration policies.

Again, the DNA testing appears to be a last resort to verify identity, rather than a main one. Moreover, it’s sickening how people living in the U.S. illegally are able to enter Canada and try to claim asylum. The rules aren’t meant to allow for asylum shopping.

4. Fraud Longstanding Problem In U.S.

Q: Why did the US decide to conduct DNA testing of some nationality groups applying for resettlement in the US?
.
A: PRM and DHS/USCIS jointly decided to test a sample of refugee cases due to reported fraud in the P-3 program, particularly in Kenya. This pilot program later expanded to test applicants in other parts of Africa. (See questions and answers below.)
.
Q: What rate of fraud did you discover?
.
A: The rate of fraud varied among nationalities and from country to country, and is difficult to establish definitively as many individuals refused to agree to DNA testing.
.
We were, however, only able to confirm all claimed biological relationships in fewer than 20% of cases (family units). In the remaining cases, at least one negative result (fraudulent relationship) was identified, or the individuals refused to be tested.
.
Q: Which refugees are being tested? From which countries?
.
A: We initially tested a sample of some 500 refugees (primarily Somali and Ethiopian) in Nairobi, Kenya under consideration for U.S. resettlement through the P-3 program. After that sample suggested high rates of fraud, we expanded testing to Ethiopia, Uganda, Ghana, Guinea, Gambia and Cote d’Ivoire. Most of the approximately 3,000 refugees tested are from Somalia, Ethiopia, and Liberia, as these nationalities make up the vast majority of P-3 cases.
.
It is important to note that the initial DNA testing was limited to members of families applying for the P-3 program, and not between the applicants and the anchor relative in the United States.

Even in late 2008, the U.S. State Department was reporting that on DNA testing for refugee families had interesting results. Less than 20% of cases were confirmed to be actual families. Others failed testing, or simply refused to undergo it.

Also in that same page, the State Department stated that they stopped accepting affidavits of relationship for people coming from all countries. It stopped accepting the documents and has looked for other ways to verify identity and relationships.

5. How Prevalent Is It?

Relevant part starts at about 8:00 mark in video. Conversation gets to child separation, and that entire families end up getting released. In pilot program, 30% of “families” were made up of unrelated people. Children are in fact being recycled and used to help multiple families.

The National Sentinel reported that U.S. border guards are finding a very high number of so-called families entering the U.S. illegally from Mexico, who aren’t related at all. From the Washington Examiner:

In a pilot program, approximately 30% of rapid DNA tests of immigrant adults who were suspected of arriving at the southern border with children who weren’t theirs revealed the adults were not related to the children, an official involved in the system’s temporary rollout who asked to be anonymous in order to speak freely told the Washington Examiner Friday.

“There’s been some concern about, ‘Are they stepfathers or adopted fathers?'” the official said. “Those were not the case. In these cases, they are misrepresented as family members.”

In some incidents where Immigration and Customs Enforcement told the adults they would have to take a cheek swab to verify a relationship with a minor, several admitted the child was not related and did not take the DNA test, which was designed by a U.S. company.

Nearly a third of the families coming into the U.S. as refugees aren’t in fact related. Okay, who are they really? What exactly are the children being used for? Smuggling aids for adults? Are they being recycled? Are they being trafficked? Has any money changed hands to make these arrangements happen?

6. Civil Liberties Groups Oppose Testing

The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit earlier this year to stop family separation and to require the immediate reunion of all separated children and parents. On June 29, a federal judge issued a national injunction in our class-action lawsuit, requiring the reunification of thousands. Now, we must ensure the administration heeds the court’s ruling and the policy of family separation ends once and for all. The government deported hundreds of parents without their children — without a plan for how they would be ever be found. The ACLU is working to locate every separated parent and advise them of their rights to be reunited.

We are in the courts, streets, and in Congress to hold the Trump administration accountable for the irreparable damage it has done to these young lives. We need you in this fight.

One has to wonder why, if the U.S. was such a horrible place, would people come by the tens of thousands to go there? Why would people travel for thousands of miles just to end up on concentration camps?

The tortured logic is also on display here. The ACLU wants DNA testing to be done only as a last resort, and took the Government to court on that issue. However, they also oppose separating children from parents (or at least people who “claim” to be families).

In short, the ACLU wants children and adults to remain together, and be promptly released into the United States. Yet, they oppose the one measure which would determine if they are in fact related by blood.

The ACLU is far from the only organization that opposes DNA testing, while trying to get “families” released into the mainland. It would seem logical to at least ensure that the children are with family members, but that doesn’t seem to be a concern. The priority with opposing DNA testing seems to be to keep it out of criminal databases.

Who knows how many of these children are being trafficked by their so-called parents? What about the human rights and civil liberties of the children involved? However, groups like the ACLU don’t address that.

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/refugee.dna_.testing.unchr_.1.pdf
(2) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-border-agency-migrants-dna-1.4765487
(3) http://archive.is/3qYE8
(4) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/standard-requirements/dna-testing.html
(5) http://archive.is/mD5JB
(6) https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/prm/refadm/rls/fs/2008/112760.htm
(7) http://archive.is/tzAoK
(8) https://www.thenationalsentinel.com/2019/07/15/cruz-graham-dna-testing-at-border-finds-that-nearly-one-third-of-migrant-families-are-fraudulent/
(9) http://archive.is/dEASk
(10) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/dna-tests-reveal-30-of-suspected-fraudulent-migrant-families-were-unrelated
(11) http://archive.is/fZdHY
(12) https://www.theepochtimes.com/30-percent-of-suspected-illegal-alien-families-were-unrelated-dna-tests-show_2928316.html
(13) http://archive.is/de9tr
(14) https://www.aclu.org/families-belong-together
(15) http://archive.is/7Wx0G
(16) https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention/reunify-families-dna-testing-should-be-last
(17) http://archive.is/tnSRQ

Posted on

Does The Canadian Government Actually Support Human Trafficking?

(UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Important Links

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

3. Context For This Piece

There was a story in the mainstream media today about the Trudeau Government has cut funding for the victims of trafficking and exploitation, forcing 9 centers across Canada.

For someone who repeatedly brags about being a “feminist” the hypocrisy is mind boggling. Trudeau will shovel out money (borrowed from the international banking cartel), for just about any cause, but not to help women and girls who really need it.

Beyond the shame and hypocrisy, there is a question that genuinely needs to be asked: does this government actually support human trafficking and sex trafficking in Canada? Consider some things that have happened in recent years.

  1. Agreements like the UN Global Migration Compact
  2. Even terrorists allowed back into Canada
  3. Certain ideologies embraced as “diversity”
  4. Refusing to properly enforce national borders
  5. Allowing foreign NGOs to rewrite our border laws
  6. Reduced penalties for child sex crimes
  7. Cutting funding for help for victims

The pattern this government has shown can be described as:

[A] Come off as unserious, pandering, or overly compassionate; and
[B] Divert attention away from the real objective

All of these events in isolation “could” be viewed simply as extremely incompetent governing. It may be seen as excessive pandering and virtue signalling. However, what if these events were in fact connected? Could all of these inexplicable policy moves be to promote the same goal?

To avoid confusion, let’s distinguish two things:

[I] SMUGGLED people are accomplices who willingly cross illegally
[II] TRAFFICKED people are prisoners who are brought somewhere

Much of the information has been addressed in earlier parts of the TSCE (trafficking, smuggling, & child exploitation) series above. References will be made, but feel free to go back through the individual stories for more information. The actions made by our government seem to facilitate both trafficking and smuggling.

4. Global Migration Agreements

(There is a connection between smuggling and “irregular migration”)

(UN High Commission on Refugees)

unhcr.guidelines.exceptions
UNCHR.advice.for.illegal.crossings

Objectives for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration
(1) Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence-based policies
(2) Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin
(3) Provide accurate and timely information at all stages of migration
(4) Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation
(5) Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
(6) Facilitate fair and ethical recruitment and safeguard conditions that ensure decent work
(7) Address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration
(8) Save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants
(9) Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants
(10) Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration
(11) Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner
(12) Strengthen certainty and predictability in migration procedures for appropriate screening, assessment and referral
(13) Use migration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
(14) Enhance consular protection, assistance and cooperation throughout the migration cycle
(15) Provide access to basic services for migrants
(16) Empower migrants and societies to realize full inclusion and social cohesion
(17) Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to
shape perceptions of migration
(18) Invest in skills development and facilitate mutual recognition of skills, qualifications and
competences
(19) Create conditions for migrants and diasporas to fully contribute to sustainable development in all countries
(20) Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants
(21) Cooperate in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as sustainable reintegration
(22) Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits
(23) Strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships for safe, orderly and regular migration
Also, consider the fact that the United Nations has studied the connection between illegal immigration and human smuggling. This is from a 2011 study released.

un.global.migration.compact

#4: Ensure proof of identity? That might make it easier to help get falsified documents, either from a government or a private party.

#5: Enhancing pathways for migration? Both from a legal and illegal point of view it seems open to abuse.

#9: Even though the Global Migration Compact claims to oppose human smuggling, it explicitly states (see above picture), that people who are part of smuggling won’t be prosecuted. Remember, smuggling is voluntary, unlike being trafficked.

#10: Despite wanting to monitor “irregular” routes — which are ILLEGAL entries, the UNHCR openly encourages people to enter Canada illegally, and even provides advice on how to do it. Seems pretty unhelpful to condemn human trafficking and smuggling, but then offer advice on how to circumvent local laws.

#13: Detention only as a last resort. It won’t help to deter people from bringing others in (legally or otherwise) if there are no real penalties.

#17: Sensitizing the media and promoting “proper language”. There is also a provision for pulling the funding for media deemed to be hateful. Could lodging valid criticism of human trafficking and smuggling be considered hateful?

#20: Faster, safer and cheaper remittances and “financial inclusion”? Could also double as a way to launder money out of the country, or help finance the next group of people to bring over.

2.1 Smuggling of migrants and the concepts of irregular migration and trafficking in persons
2.1.1 Irregular migration
The relationship between irregular migration and smuggling of migrants has been discussed in the literature, with most authors acknowledging the crucial role of smuggling of migrants in facilitating irregular migration.

In looking at the relationship between the two concepts, Friedrich Heckmann stresses that smuggling of migrants plays a crucial role in facilitating irregular migration, as smugglers may provide a wide range of services, from physical transportation and illegal crossing of a border to the procurement of false documents.

Yes, this seems very obvious, but let’s hammer it home. Smuggling of people across borders is directly connected to the “irregular migration” that occurs at the end. It is the end result of these actions which show no respect for national borders or sovereignty. The UN review is rather blunt on the subject.

While the UN agreements Canada signs (the 2018 Global Migration Compact is just one) are “claiming” that respect for borders is important, the truth is that they do a lot to undermine national borders. And weak borders make for easy smuggling and trafficking.

5. Repatriation Of Terrorists To Canada

Early in Trudeau’s first mandate, Bill C-6 was introduced. It prevented dual national convicted of terrorism or treason from having their Canadian citizenship stripped and being deported. While it’s true that the UN supports terrorists being able to remain (or return) to any country they hold a passport for, this government supported doing it anyway.

Beyond terrorists themselves, the government supports a continued replacement migration from areas of the world where women and girls don’t have equality rights, and abuse it rampant.

One has to ask why though. It may be to appear compassionate in the eyes of others. It may also be to bring back or normalize an ideology that has a very different idea about what it means to be an adult. In other parts of the world, women and children have little to no rights. Remember, it’s not exploitation if it’s cloaked as multiculturalism.

6. Embracing Incompatibles As “Diversity”

True, all politicians pander to get votes. However, our current government takes that issue much farther, and embraces the globohomo agenda. The current LGBTQ movement, lacking real issues to address, has gone down the path of sexualizing children. Even former supporters are abandoning the movement. Breaking down any sense of normality is not healthy for society, but this government supports it.

Several associates of Justin Trudeau are known pedophiles. True, one shouldn’t be judged by the company they keep, but there is a limit to that philosophy. Trudeau himself has had many bizarre claims levelled against him. (For the sake of limiting liability, let’s leave it at that.)

The government’s love of promoting (and financing) abortion at home and abroad is creepy. There’s something Satanic about the eugenics of children.

What is the real agenda behind pushing for the sexual liberation of children, or at least the ones who aren’t aborted? Is there some more heinous shoe yet to drop?

7. Lack Of Genuine Border Enforcement

When Federal politicians are seriously discussing the ideas of expedited work permits and health care for illegals, they aren’t serious about border security. In a similar vein, when amnesty-for-illegals pilot programs are starting up, or sanctuary cities are allowed, how does that secure the border? When we don’t have a proper entry/exit system tracking people across the border, how are we more secure?

Beyond the politicians refusing to implement real border security, NGOs like: (a) Bridges not Borders; (b) Plattsburg Cares; (c) Solidarity Across Border, and others, coordinate in helping to smuggle illegal aliens across the border. The information is easy to find, yet the authorities do nothing.

There are many theories as to why the powers that be are standing down. It could be a globalist agenda. It could be open borders. It could be to import cheaper labour.

But there is another possibility. If a group of people wanted to smuggle (or traffic) young and vulnerable people across the border, what better way to do it? Would it not be much easier to move people across the border if there is no real border control?

8. Foreign NGOs Writing Our laws

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), have been trying to effectively erase the Canada/U.S. border for a long time. They do it by going lobbying Parliament to rewrite our laws, and they do it by going to court and challenging our laws as “inhumane”. Here are 3 attempts that have been made in about the last 30 years.

FIRST ATTEMPT: KILL “SAFE COUNTRY” DESIGNATION
(a) Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3

(b) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada,
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534

(c) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236
1992.SCC.Rules.No.Standing

SECOND ATTEMPT: KILL CANADA/US S3CA
(a) 2008 ruling S3CA has no effect
Docket: IMM-7818-05
S3CA Provisions Struck Down

(b) The 2008 ruling is overturned on appeal
Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada, 2008 FCA 229
Appeal granted, S3CA restored

THIRD ATTEMPT: TORONTO CASES TO STRIKE S3CA
(a) 2017, Prothonotary Milczynski considers consolidation
IMM-2229-17, IMM-2977-17, IMM-775-17
Milczynski Considers Consolidation

(b) 2017, CJ Crampton transfers cases to J. Diner
Crampton Transfers Consolidated Cases

(c) 2017, Justice Diner grants public interest standing
Citation: 2017 FC 1131
Amnesty Int’l, CDN Councils of Churches, Refugees

(d) 2018, Justice Diner grants consolidation of 3 cases
Citation: 2018 FC 396
Cases to be consolidated

(e) 2018, Justice Diner allows more witnesses
Citation: 2018 FC 829
2018.Diner.Calling.More.Witnesses

(f) 2019, Justice McDonald says no more witnesses
Citation: 2019 FC 418
2019.McDonald.No.More.Intervenors

The above notes are from part 16 of the series, and outline 3 attempts in Federal Court that NGOs have made to eliminate the Canada/U.S. border. This is by no means all the attempts that have been made, nor is the only border that these groups try to dissolve. Note: if a border cannot effectively stop people from entering, then it ceases to exist.

With the last attempt to strike down the Safe Third Country Agreement, the Government decided instead to just let “refugees” from the United States enter anyway through regular ports of entry.

Also worth noting is that the same NGOs who go to court for “refugee rights” and “immigrant rights” are the same ones who lobby politicians against having effective borders and tight immigration rules. The lawfare is waged both in Court, and in Parliament.

Since the Federal Government seems onboard with the open borders agenda, one has to ask why. Is it a misguided gesture of compassion to the entire world? Or is it a way to reduce barriers to letting certain people in?

9. Reduced Penalties For Child Sex Crimes

In 2016, the Liberals introduced Bill C-32, which would have lowered the age of consent for anal sex from 18 to 16. This would mean striking Section 159 from the criminal code. After public outrage, the bill was allowed to die. However, the idea was simply stuffed into Bill C-75, which also reduced the potential criminal penalties for many serious crimes.

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

Bizarrely, Sections 279.02(2), and 279.03(2), which related to adults, is still an indictable offence. Guess it’s not as bad when it happens to minors.

While reducing the terrorism penalties is a messed up decision, the inclusion of these other charges largely passed unnoticed by the public. Even this website initially missed it. If it really was about pandering to Muslims (who disproportionately commit terrorism), why add these offenses in as well?

Was the focus on the terrorism offences a means to divert attention away from the watering down of child sex crimes? Is this a way to water down the penalties for people getting caught, but without making it obvious that it was the case?

10. Cutting Funding To Victims’ Shelters

The Government of Canada brags about how much it takes the matter seriously. Yet, a recent news story reported that several groups which help victims can’t get their funding renewed.

The London Abused Women’s Centre (LAWC) said programs that help over 600 women and girls who are victims of human trafficking are being cancelled after the federal government denied funding.

LAWC, in addition to other organizations, was receiving funding through the Measures to Address Prostitution Initiatives (MAPI) fund, a five-year program that ended in March 2020.

MAPI provided funding for women and girls at risk of trafficking and those who were trafficked.

While in operation, the program helped a total of 3,107 trafficked, prostituted, sexually-exploited and at-risk women and girls in London. This included individual long-term, trauma-informed service to 650 trafficked and sexually exploited women and girls, 939 at-risk women and girls who attended groups, 173 family members from across Canada looking for their missing daughters, and 1,343 at-risk women and youth through community outreach.

However, the government recently declined to renew funding for several institutions devoted to helping trafficked victims. This was particularly bitter considering how Trudeau routinely markets himself as a feminist. Despite the recent spending spree, the Federal Government doesn’t have the money available for them.

There is another way to look at this. What organizations loudly advocate for victims though? Which groups want to see this issue pushed more in the media? What people are most likely to try to track down identities of perpetrators involved? And unlike some portions of law enforcement, who is ideologically driven to put a stop to it?

One way to help keep trafficking alive in Canada is to bankrupt institutions that are devoted to fighting this injustice. Intentional or not, that is the effect.

11. Connecting The Dots

How else would one explain the series of events as described in the above section? If not a coordinated effort to facilitate human smuggling and trafficking, then what are they? Just coincidental?

Although agreements like the UN Global Migration Compact explicitly state they oppose human smuggling, the text elsewhere says otherwise. The document objects to smuggled people to be prosecuted; it demands free social services, even for illegals; pensions and social benefits are rights; access to identity documents is a right; detention of illegals is to be minimized; and so on. The compact invites people to come to the West illegally, because of the rewards it offers. And smugglers will take advantage of it.

Our government believes that anyone with Canadian identity documents should be allowed back into Canada, regardless of what crimes they may have committed abroad. Since we’re “repatriating” Canadians, maybe they’ll bring back a child or two as well.

The globohomo agenda has gotten even more bizarre, where things like drag queen story hour are becoming normalized. Sex Ed. is being pushed on ever younger children, and younger children are being encouraged to transition. Is this a deliberate plan to desensitise the public?

Our politicians (all parties) do not take border security seriously. They allow people to come illegally, and be released into the public almost immediately. Successive governments have also failed to implement a genuine entry/exit system to track people crossing. Cities like Toronto and Hamilton are “sanctuary” cities, meaning illegals can reside there and get social benefits. Is this incompetence, or does not having border security make it harder to track smuggled and trafficked people?

Not only do our politicians and courts fail to act in the interests of Canadians, they allow NGOs (often foreign ones) to rewrite our laws. Foreign NGOs are given “public interest standing” to challenge our border laws in court. Those same groups are able to legally “lobby” Canadian public officials into supporting legislation to weaken existing laws, or just not enforce current laws. Consequently, our leaders work for outsiders, not for us.

While most people were focused on the reduced terrorism penalties in Bill C-75, many offences against children were listed as well. Why would a government not want such heinous crimes to be severely punished?

Despite repeatedly professing to support women and girls (especially when they’re in need), the Federal Government recently declined to continue funding groups to aid victims of trafficking. There’s money to spend on everything, but not on groups who would fight for these victims.

If the Government doesn’t support human trafficking, what else could explain this? Or is it all unrelated?

Posted on

CV #12: Pandemic Report From 2006 Recommends Surveillance And Total Vaccinations

As of late January, 2020, Theresa Tam saw very little risk to Canadians, and that human to human transmission was not a threat

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. Important Links

(1) https://twitter.com/i/status/1221242779923374081</a
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_Tam
(3) http://archive.is/e9jwT
(4) Translated Article
(5) https://www.longwoods.com/articles/images/Canada_Pandemic_Influenza.pdf
(6)Tam.Canada_Pandemic_Influenza.2006.report
(7) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ottawa-had-a-playbook-for-a-coronavirus-like-pandemic-14-years-ago/
(8) http://archive.is/oBxhf

3. Is Theresa Tam Really Tan Yongshi?

Also check out this link, from an article that identifies Tam as “Tan Yongshi”. Credit is due to Christina Forbes for catching this is the first place.

As the chief health officer, what are the negligent duties that Ms. Tan Yongshi should step down from? In general, there are five aspects. First of all: she should be vigilant about the lack of the new crown epidemic. Wuhan was closed on January 23, and the first patient appeared in Canada on January 25. On January 30, WHO declared the new coronary pneumonia as a public health emergency, and the United States announced the closure of China the next day. At that time, the Chinese community understood the seriousness of the virus and appealed to the government to be vigilant, but Tan was indifferent to it and repeatedly emphasized that Canada’s risk was very low, thus missing the best time for prevention and control. After the closure of the United States, because Canada did not take measures, many travelers detoured to Canada to the United States. During their stay in Canada, they planted hidden dangers for the spread of the virus.

Second: Due to the contempt of Tan Yongshi and the government, the Canadian border epidemic prevention and isolation measures are useless. Among the countries in the world, Canada is the only country that has no airport temperature measurement since the outbreak. In the early stage of the epidemic, all entrants were only verbally asked whether they came from the epidemic area, and there was no requirement for isolation. Nevertheless, most Chinese are consciously isolated for 14 days. In the middle of the outbreak, although the government made a 14-day quarantine request, there was no compulsory follow-up measure. Now that the epidemic has almost peaked, the government has proposed coercive measures, but there is no guarantee of law enforcement, because the RCMP responsible for law enforcement has not issued a ticket. If it is said that Trudeau did this based on Ms. Tan ’s opinion, then Tan did not warn against the strengthening of airport detection and isolation, which is her negligence.

There appear to be translation issues, as it switches names several times. Nonetheless, it does refer to Theresa Tam as Tan Yongshi.

It would be nice to nail this down for certain. Should any reader come across this and have more information, please share. Personally, it would be nice to have more material than: (1) a Wikipedia page; and (2) an article from Google Translate.

To play some devil’s advocate, even if this is the case, it may be attempt to simply adopt a more English sounding name. Many people have done it before.

4. Critique Of 2006 Epidemic Plan

A 2006 report co-written by Dr. Theresa Tam – now the face of Canada’s COVID-19 response – predicted our current situation, and the steps needed to get out of it, with eerie accuracy. But the actual response has been very different

A pandemic sweeps across Canada in one or two months. It is spread not only by the sick, but by people who show no symptoms. There are shortages of medical supplies and the health system struggles to keep up. The peak won’t come for months, and it will be accompanied by a surge in deaths. Soon after, the country will brace for a second wave.

All of this is now true for the COVID-19 crisis, but the aforementioned scenario – a warning – comes from a 2006 federal report on pandemic preparedness. Fourteen years later, its words are eerily accurate.

Despite the prescience of such warnings, Canada and many other governments around the world significantly underestimated the severity of the coronavirus.

As recently as late January, federal officials, including Dr. Tam, said the threat of a major outbreak in Canada was very low, that measures such as travel restrictions weren’t needed, and that the risk of the virus being spread by people without symptoms was highly unlikely.

The article goes on to criticize the Federal Government’s lack of preparedness in many different ways, and in great detail. To their credit, the Globe & Mail is pretty thorough in many ways.

But what they missed in their critique is the propaganda elements within the 2006 report. They may be subtle, but they are there.

5. Contents Of 2006 Report

For vaccine program planning purposes, it is important to be prepared to immunize 100% of the population; however, the actual proportion of the population that will voluntarily seek vaccination will depend on public perception of the risk and the severity of the disease. Therefore, the demand, which will manifest as clinic attendance, will likely vary among jurisdictions and within each jurisdiction as the pandemic evolves. Previous experience with outbreak-related immunization clinics indicates that it would be prudent to prepare for an initial demand of 75% of the target population. It is recommended that planning activities also focus on delivering a two dose program to ensure that the public health response is ready to deal with this possibility.

Tam.Canada_Pandemic_Influenza.2006.report
If you go to section 2.2 (page 60 in the 550 page pdf file), it does point out an interesting fact: that the amount of people who will voluntarily take a vaccination depends on the public perception of risk.

Therefore: one can reasonably conclude from this, if the goal is mass vaccination of the public, it is necessary to get them afraid, and keep them afraid.

The Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan for the Health Sector (the Plan) consists of an introduction and a background section, followed by the preparedness, response and recovery sections, which are consistent with the general principals of emergency response. Each section aims to assist and facilitate appropriate planning for the health sector at all levels of government for the next influenza pandemic. The Plan and the annexed guidelines, checklists and other documents were developed to assist all jurisdictions with the main components of health sector planning, including surveillance, vaccine programs, use of antivirals, health services, public health measures and communications. The most effective public health intervention to mitigate the impact of a pandemic is through immunization with an effective vaccine against the novel virus, and, to a lesser extent, through the use of antiviral drugs. In addition, comprehensive planning requires that appropriate surveillance capacity is in place, and that the health sector, emergency services and communities as a whole are informed and equipped to deal with a pandemic.

This is from the PREFACE (page 21 in 550 page pdf file). It states that the best solution is a vaccine against the novel virus, and that antivirals are a lesser option. Okay, so every time there is a “novel” virus, we need to break out the vaccine testing?

The preface also states that an appropriate surveillance capacity is needed. Perhaps it could be forcing people to wear bracelets, as Theresa Tam/Tan Yongshi suggests.

The components of the 2004 edition of the Plan included surveillance, vaccine programs, antivirals, health services, emergency services, public health measures and communications. In this edition of the Plan, the emergency services component has been removed; it is now addressed as part of the preparedness for overall emergency management and coordination.

Federal, provincial, territorial and local planners are encouraged to consider the psychosocial implications of pandemic influenza when developing their plans for preparedness and response activities. It is anticipated that a component focusing on psychosocial issues will be added to future versions of the Plan.

Section 2.0 (page 54 of the 550 page pdf) openly states that surveillance and vaccine programs are to be prominent portions of this plan. It seems nothing has changed.

Jurisdictions need to be prepared to rapidly implement or modify enhanced surveillance activities. For the purpose of informing public health risk assessment and response activities, a coordinated and rapid epidemiological investigation that includes the collection, collation and analysis of detailed epidemiological, laboratory and clinical data is required. Further, rapid sharing of data and efficient communication at all levels of government are critical for facilitating a coordinated response.

At the federal level, regular environmental scanning for the detection of potentially significant ILI is conducted using official information sources for influenza surveillance (e.g. World Health Organization [WHO] and government influenza surveillance programs from other countries) and unconfirmed reports from early warning systems (e.g. ProMed and other media scanning software, such as the Global Public Health Intelligence Network).

On an ongoing basis, the newly created national expert Working Group for Vaccine Preventable and Respiratory Infections Surveillance (VPRIS-N) will be assessing surveillance systems and making recommendations for enhancements and improvements for the Interpandemic, Pandemic Alert and Pandemic Periods. Recommendations from this group are being refined on an ongoing basis; current recommendations are included in Annex N, Pandemic Influenza Surveillance Guidelines.

The report in this focuses on the need for new surveillance methods (page 56 of 550 page pdf). While avoiding specifics, it acknowledges that expanding it would be greatly beneficial.

Because surveillance data will drive the pandemic response, it is important that physicians and other health care workers are educated and updated on an ongoing basis about the importance of ILI surveillance as well as their roles in the system. Surveillance systems must be established in advance of a pandemic because there will be little time to augment capacity at the time of a pandemic. At the time of a pandemic, surveillance and laboratory-testing capacity will be reduced (e.g. due to staff absenteeism and potential supply shortages) compared with pre-pandemic periods; only streamlined, resource-efficient systems will continue to function. Special study protocols if required (e.g. to determine epidemiology or to investigate reported adverse events following immunization) at the time of a pandemic must be developed and pretested during the pre-pandemic period, recognizing that refinements may be necessary at the time of a pandemic.

However, on the next page, the report suggests that surveillance systems must be established well in advance, as it may not be possible later. Again, avoiding specifics about what that surveillance would be about?

Vaccination of susceptible individuals is the primary means to prevent disease and death from influenza during an epidemic or pandemic. The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) produces annual recommendations on the use of influenza vaccine in persons who are most at risk for influenza or those who could spread influenza to persons at greatest risk. These interpandemic recommendations are published annually in the Canada Communicable Disease Report. In the event of a pandemic, PIC, which includes representation from NACI, will provide recommendations to F/P/T immunization programs on the development, production and use of the pandemic vaccine, and priority groups for immunization. Efforts should be made to encourage all jurisdictions to adopt the national recommendations on priority groups at the time of a pandemic in order to facilitate equitable access and consistent messaging.

That’s from page 57. “Consistent messaging”??? Does that mean that government officials should keep their talking points consistent in order to prevent the public from picking out contradictions?

From page 59 of the report. In case you were wondering “recombinant vaccines” are ones that are made up of combined genetic material. Think of it as a Franken-vaxx.

Vaccines, when available, will be the primary public health intervention during a pandemic. However at the start of the pandemic, vaccines may not be available as soon as required and two doses of vaccine may be necessary to achieve an adequate immune response. Antivirals (anti-influenza drugs) are effective for both treatment and prophylaxis of annual influenza. These drugs were not available during past pandemics, but are expected to be effective against pandemic strains of the influenza virus. Antivirals will likely be the only virus-specific intervention during the initial pandemic response. Protection afforded by antivirals is virtually immediate and does not interfere with the response to inactivated influenza vaccines.

From page 61. Vaccines are to be the primary defence against an outbreak.

During a pandemic, antiviral strategies should use all the types of effective anti-influenza drugs that are available to Canadians, and should be adaptable to changing disease epidemiology and vaccine availability. If the novel virus is found to be susceptible to amantadine, which is not currently part of the National Antiviral Stockpile, it is recommended that amantadine be used for prophylaxis (not treatment) only. Oseltamivir could be used for both treatment of cases and prophylaxis. The efficacy of oseltamivir and amantadine are approximately equal for the treatment of cases infected with sensitive strains; however, amantadine is recommended exclusively for prophylaxis to minimize the development of amantadine resistance (which would render the drug ineffective) during the pandemic. The timing of the use of antivirals during a pandemic should be guided by local surveillance data.

From page 63. We think antivirals are okay, but only as long as they don’t interfere with vaccines at some point in the future.

This 550 page report is too long to go through in a single article. However, it’s morbid how much: (a) surveillance; and (b) vaccines are woven into the entire report. It reads as if the entire research was to set up a police state and drug everyone.

The Globe & Mail article referenced in the last section complained that the Federal Government was grossly unprepared considering this 2006 report. While true in some sense, the G&M authors apparently didn’t bother to actually read this report before publishing their article.

6. Vaxx/Surveillance Planned From 2004?

How long exactly has this been going on for? How long has this plan been in the works for? It can’t just be a series of random and unrelated events. Has it been going on for much longer that 16 years?

  • In 2004, this research begins.
  • In 2006, it is released. It recommends heavy surveillance, and vaccinations for everyone.
  • In 2010, Theresa Tam/Tan Yongshi participated in the film “Outbreak Of An Epidemic”, which depicted a fictional simulation of the Federal Government responding to a pandemic.
  • In 2017, Raj Saini (who is pharma lobbied), introduced M-132, to fund drug research and get drugs out to Canadians, and to the world at large.
  • In October 2019. Event 201 took place. This was the Gates-involved simulation which would see tens of millions of people die in a computer model of an outbreak.

Again, credit to Civilian Intelligence Network for digging up the 2010 film. The whole thing reads like a giant dress rehearsal for the actual shut down.

An interesting observation in the report: voluntary vaccinations will happen in much larger numbers if people feel the threat is real and imminent. That may explain all the dire warnings coming from the government.

As for Theresa Tam, is that her real name? To be fair, even if true, it could be to adopt a more “Anglo” sounding name. Still, it would be nice to know.

Posted on

Canada Already Endorsed IHRA Definition, Making It A Hate Crime To Criticise Jews

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Ontario’s Bill 168, IHRA definition.
CLICK HERE, for previous piece on UN digital cooperation.
CLICK HERE, for piece on Richard Lee and UN internet governance.

CLICK HERE, for Canada’s anti-racism strategy.
http://archive.is/MuIex
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s anti-racism report.
ARS-Report-EN-2019-2022
CLICK HERE, for the Digital Charter.
Digital Charter PDF

CLICK HERE, for the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.

2. Context For This Article

About the last piece (Ontario’s Bill 168) which would label criticism of Jews as hate speech, things are actually much worse. Things have been that way since May 2019. See this publication from the Federal Government.

To get this out of the way: I don’t know if this endorsement has any legal effect, and can be the basis for charging someone criminally or with hate crimes. Nonetheless, it is pretty chilling that any government which values freedom would entertain the idea of curtailing free speech to appease the never ending demands of this group.

We hear so often that something is “symbolic”, or not to worry because it’s “non-binding”. What then is the point of enacting or endorsing something with no real effect?

Iqra Khalid continues to be mocked (and rightfully so) for introducing M-103, the so-called blasphemy motion. This would ban Islamophobia, but without actually defining it. Yet, the Israeli lobby successfully advocates to have criticism of Jews banned as anti-Semitism — and the media says nothing. The double standard is obvious.

It’s hard to tell how much of this “anti-racism” strategy is throwing money around and virtue signalling, and how much will actually result in concrete action.

3. Anti-Racism Strategy Is Giant Slush Fund

In reading through the posted strategy, we come across the following figures. Note, there doesn’t seem to be any sign for how the spending of this money will be accountable to the public.

  • $40B for national housing strategy
  • $319M for Indigenous housing
  • $671M for criminal legal aid
  • $141.7M for youth in conflict with the law
  • $19M for black youths
  • $9M for Indigenous post secondary schooling
  • $20M/year for “sector initiatives”
  • $21M for foreign credential recognition
  • $900M more for workplace developments
  • $705M for social finance fund
  • $50M for Indigenous Growth Fund
  • $12.1M (for now) for poverty reduction
  • $25M/year union training and innovation
  • $46M (5 years) for skilled trades awareness
  • $38M for pathways to education
  • $400M/year for Aboriginal employment
  • $50M skills and partnership fund
  • $25M/year literacy training
  • $90M/year youth employment strategies
  • $12M/year for refugee and immigrant legal aid
  • $45M/year for postsecondary support
  • $40M/year on reserve income assistance
  • $10M/year for Indigenous urban programming
  • $5M/year to help Indigenous be self sufficient
  • $8M/year for family violence prevention
  • $10M/year for sports in Indigenous communities
  • $4M for arts and culture
  • $1.4M for arts training fund
  • $4M for cultural spaces fund
  • $11M/year for multiculturalism program
  • $5M/year for court challenges
  • $13M/year reintegrate Aboriginal offenders
  • $54M/year in crime prevention
  • $10M/year for violence prevention
  • $0.5M/year for cultural competency training
  • $0.3M/year for youth leadership
  • $1.2M/year for inclusivity statistics

Plenty of pork being thrown around in the 2019 anti-racism strategy. But don’t worry, everyone except whites will be able to have a victim complex.

4. IHRA Definition Adopted

Under the section of “TERMINOLOGY”, the document lists a bunch of different terms, including anti-Semitism. It comes directly from the IHRA definition of Anti-Semitism. (It is footnote #2).

Antisemitism
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

And at the bottom of the page, it specifically lists the IHRA working definition as the source.

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance “Working Definition of Antisemitism”. For further information, visit: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism.

5. IHRA Definition Of Anti-Semitism

On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:
.
Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
.
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Don’t worry. While this sounds pretty vague, it is about to get much, MUCH more detailed in what exactly counts as anti-Semitism.

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

  • Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
  • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
  • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
  • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
  • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
  • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
  • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
.
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
.
Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

Just reading the definition provided, it has to be asked: what DOESN’T make the list? What ISN’T anti-Semitism according to these people?

When it refers to anti-Semitic acts as criminal, is that in indication that criminalization of “anti-Semitism” is where they intend to go with this?

6. Jewish Media Celebrates Adoption Of IHRA Def.

The Canadian Jewish News covered the story.

The Center for Israel & Jewish Affairs covered it.

The Jerusalem Post covered it.

The Times of Israel covered it. Also note: Shimon Fogel is the President and CEO of CIJA, the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

This is of course, just a sample of what is out there. But the point is that the Israeli and Jewish presses are on top of this story (which actually happened in the Spring of 2019). Mainstream media has chosen not to cover it, but mock Muslims for THEIR efforts to limit free speech.

7. Online Censorship Coming?

From the anti-racism report issued, the topic on online policing of “hate”, whatever that may be, is addressed.

Through our engagement with communities and people with lived experiences, we heard that Black Canadians, Muslims and Jewish communities are some of the groups who experience hate crimes disproportionately. There are also growing national and international concerns around the spread of online hate speech. We have even seen its impacts here at home when six lives were lost and many others injured during a horrific shooting at a mosque in Quebec City.

Interestingly, no mention of the rampant, anti-White racism that exists in today’s society. Whites are the only racial group that it is legal to discriminate against. But do go on.

Online platforms have increasingly become a tool to incite, publish and promote terrorism, violence and hatred. The March 2019 terror attack in Christchurch, New Zealand was a harrowing reminder that we need to take coordinated action to prevent social media and other online platforms from being used in these ways. That is why Canada joined the Christchurch Call to Action – a global pledge to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online. Through the Christchurch Call, governments and online services provider are making voluntary, collective commitments to combat online hate.

On some level it seems harmless enough. But how exactly do we make sure that these new powers won’t be abused to silence those who simply express unpopular opinions?

On a related note, internet regulation has long been proposed by the United Nations, and by a former Liberal candidate, long before the digital charter.

8. What Is The Actual Effect?

I don’t know. It’s unclear whether this is just pandering and symbolic, or whether there will be some real teeth in the measure. We won’t know until someone is fined or charged under it, and fights back.

Posted on

Ontario’s Bill 168: Doug Ford To Ban Criticism Of Jews Under Guise Of “Anti-Semitism”

1. Important Links

(1) bill.168.antisemitism
(2) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-4.html
(3) https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-1/bill-168
(4) http://archive.is/PPk8V
(5) https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/
(6) http://archive.is/FMY3i
(7) https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
(8) http://archive.is/In7MJ

2. Context For This Article

Free speech is under attack again, and this time it comes from the Zionists, trying to push their version of anti-Semitism laws. Iqra Khalid was heavily criticized for pushing her Islamophobia motion, M103 a few years ago, but this gets a pass from the media and from public scrutiny. Both are horrible pieces of legislation,

3. Criminal Law Exclusively Federal

Under Section 91(27) of the Constitution, criminal law is exclusively the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. This means that the Ford Government couldn’t actually criminalize criticism of Jews, even if they wanted to. Still, it’s pretty chilling to put this on the books in Ontario, even if it is meant to be symbolic.

This is address the elephant in the room: jurisdiction in the event of potential criminal law changes.

4. Text Of Bill 168

Will Bouma and Robin Martin, the sponsors for Bill 168, which was actually a private member’s bill.

Bill 168 2019
An Act to combat antisemitism
Preamble Antisemitism is a multi-faceted problem that requires a multi-faceted strategy, encompassing a range of ministries and agencies. For that reason, it is desirable to require the Government of Ontario to implement a whole-of-government approach in combating antisemitism. As part of that approach, it is desirable to apply a consistent interpretation of Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism. Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:
.
Interpretation
1 In interpreting Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism, the Government of Ontario shall be guided by the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016. Legislation Act, 2006 amendment
.
2 Section 87 of the Legislation Act, 2006 is amended by adding the following definition: “antisemitism” has the meaning set out in the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016; (antisémitisme”) Commencement
.
3 This Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent. Short title
.
4 The short title of this Act is the Combating Antisemitism Act, 2019.
.
______________
.
EXPLANATORY NOTE The Bill requires the Government of Ontario to be guided by the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it, adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016, when it interprets Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism. The Bill also amends the Legislation Act, 2006 to adopt that working definition.

The text is pretty clear. Ontario (if this law passes) is to be guided by the working definition of anti-Semitism as provided by the IHRA. Interestingly, the bill doesn’t say what that definition is. So let’s take a look for ourselves.

What is it exactly that Ontario will be signing up for?

5. IHRA Definition Of Anti-Semitism

On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:
.
Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
.
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Don’t worry. While this sounds pretty vague, it is about to get much, MUCH more detailed in what exactly counts as anti-Semitism.

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

  • Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
  • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
  • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
  • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
  • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
  • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
  • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
.
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
.
Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

Just reading the definition provided, it has to be asked: what DOESN’T make the list? What ISN’T anti-Semitism according to these people?

When it refers to anti-Semitic acts as criminal, is that in indication that criminalization of “anti-Semitism” is where they intend to go with this?

6. Status Of Bill 168

It’s already had its second reading. Not too far to go. Considering Ford has a majority government, he should encounter little resistance in getting Bill 168 passed and signed into law.

7. CIJA Lobbied For Bill 168

CIJA, the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (the Israeli lobby), is found in the Ontario Lobbyist Registry as attempting to influence the Ford Government to pass Bill 168.

8. Double Standard For Islamophobia Motion

A few years back, there was a huge public stink when Iqra Khalid, a Pakistani Muslim and “paper Canadian”, got M-103 passed at the Federal level. This was a (supposedly non binding) motion to combat Islamophobia, but without defining what it actually was.

Why no media outrage over this? Is it because of the Jewish influence and power in the media that the story is buried? I guess that’s anti-Semitism to ask that.

Should this ever come to pass, what’s to stop the Feds (or any court) from using it as a precedent to push binding anti-Semitism laws? This is a scary step to take.

Posted on

TSCE #8(F): Bit Of History, NGOs Trying To Open Canada’s Borders For Decades

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Why Canadians Should Care

It should worry Canadians greatly when there is a sustained effort to undermine and erode our borders. The overwhelming majority of people don’t know how far back this goes. Although efforts predate these cases, this is where we will start.

On the first attempt, the Canadian Council of Churches went to court to try to get certain new legislation thrown out. This legislation would have made it harder for people to enter Canada from the U.S. and claim asylum. It went to the Supreme Court, but ultimately, it was ruled the group did not have public interest standing.

3. Court History Over The Years

Again, many more attempts have been made in recent decades to erase borders, but this article will only focus on a few of them.

FIRST ATTEMPT: KILL “SAFE COUNTRY” DESIGNATION
(a) Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3

(b) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada,
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534

(c) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236
1992.SCC.Rules.No.Standing

SECOND ATTEMPT: KILL CANADA/US S3CA
(a) 2008 ruling S3CA has no effect
Docket: IMM-7818-05
S3CA Provisions Struck Down

(b) The 2008 ruling is overturned on appeal
Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada, 2008 FCA 229
Appeal granted, S3CA restored

THIRD ATTEMPT: TORONTO CASES TO STRIKE S3CA
(a) 2017, Prothonotary Milczynski considers consolidation
IMM-2229-17, IMM-2977-17, IMM-775-17
Milczynski Considers Consolidation

(b) 2017, CJ Crampton transfers cases to J. Diner
Crampton Transfers Consolidated Cases

(c) 2017, Justice Diner grants public interest standing
Citation: 2017 FC 1131
Amnesty Int’l, CDN Councils of Churches, Refugees

(d) 2018, Justice Diner grants consolidation of 3 cases
Citation: 2018 FC 396
Cases to be consolidated

(e) 2018, Justice Diner allows more witnesses
Citation: 2018 FC 829
2018.Diner.Calling.More.Witnesses

(f) 2019, Justice McDonald says no more witnesses
Citation: 2019 FC 418
2019.McDonald.No.More.Intervenors

4. 1992: SCC Rules No Standing

1992.SCC.Rules.No.Standing
The CanLII link is here.

Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3
.
Rouleau J. dismissed the application. His judgment reflects his concern that there might be no other reasonable, effective or practical manner to bring the constitutional question before the Court. He was particularly disturbed that refugee claimants might be faced with a 72-hour removal order. In his view, such an order would not leave sufficient time for an applicant to attempt either to stay the proceedings or to obtain an injunction restraining the implementation removal order.
.
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534
.
MacGuigan J.A. speaking for a unanimous Court allowed the appeal and set aside all but four aspects of the statement of claim.
.
In his view the real issue was whether or not there was another reasonably effective or practical manner in which the issue could be brought before the Court. He thought there was. He observed that the statute was regulatory in nature and individuals subject to its scheme had, by means of judicial review, already challenged the same provisions impugned by the Council. Thus there was a reasonable and effective alternative manner in which the issue could properly be brought before the Court.
.
He went on to consider in detail the allegations contained in the statement of the claim. He concluded that some were purely hypothetical, had no merit and failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action. He rejected other claims on the grounds that they did not raise a constitutional challenge and others on the basis that they raised issues that had already been resolved by recent decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal.
.
He granted the Council standing on the following matters raised on the statement of claim

Without getting too much into the technical details, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the Canadian Council of Churches, an organization, should be granted public interest standing to strike down all or part of the immigration laws. Ultimately, the ruling was no.

Disposition of the Result
.
In the result I would dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal on the basis that the plaintiff does not satisfy the test for public interest standing. Both the dismissal of the appeal and the allowance of the cross-appeal are to be without costs.
Appeal dismissed and cross-appeal allowed.
.
Solicitors for the appellant: Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto.
.
Solicitor for the respondents: John C. Tait, Ottawa.
.
Solicitors for the interveners The Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped and The Quebec Multi Ethnic Association for the Integration of Handicapped People: Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, Toronto.
.
Solicitors for the intervener League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith Canada: David Matas, Winnipeg, and Dale Streiman and Kurz, Brampton.
.
Solicitors for the interveners Women’s Legal Education and Action (LEAF) and Canadian Disability Rights Council (CDRC): Tory, Tory, DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto and Dulcie McCallum, Victoria.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court thought that a refugee, someone with actual standing (or something at stake) should be the one making the case.

Also worth noting, consider who some of the intervenors are in this case. A lot of people who want to make it easier to get into Canada.

5. 2008: S3CA, Parts Of IRPA Struck Out

S3CA, Parts of IRPA Struck

IT IS ORDERED THAT this application for judicial review is granted and the designation
of the United States of America as a “safe third country” is quashed.

Yes, the Canada/U.S Safe Third Country Agreement was actually declared to have no legal effect. However, this is not the end of it, as we will soon see.

IT IS DECLARED THAT:
.
1. Paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United
States of America are ultra vires and of no legal force and effect.
2. The Governor-in-Council acted unreasonably in concluding that the United States of
America complied with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the
Convention Against Torture.
3. The Governor-in-Council failed to ensure the continuing review of the designation
of the United States of America as a “safe third country” as required by
paragraph 102(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
4. Paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations and the operation of the Safe Third Country Agreement between
Canada and the United States of America violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are not justified under section 1 thereof.

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS are certified as serious questions of general
importance:
.
1. Are paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and
the United States of America ultra vires and of no legal force and effect?
2. What is the appropriate standard of review in respect of the Governor-in-Council’s
decision to designate the United States of America as a “safe third country” pursuant
to s. 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?
3. Does the designation of the United States of America as a “safe third country” alone
or in combination with the ineligibility provision of clause 101(1)(e) of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is such violation justified under section 1?

If the United States is not a safe country, then why do tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people try to apply for asylum there every year?

The Safe Third Country Agreement was meant to prevent “asylum shopping” from taking place, but that is exactly what this ruling would have allowed.

6. 2009: Previous Ruling Overturned

The impugned Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement are not ultra vires the IRPA. Subsection 102(1) of the IRPA gives the GIC the power to promulgate regulations governing the treatment of refugee claims which may include provisions designating countries that comply with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. This is a broad grant of authority intended to give effect to Parliament’s expressed intent that responsibility for the consideration of refugee claims be shared with countries that are respectful of their Convention obligations and human rights. The factors to be considered before designating a country are expressly set out in subsection 102(2) of the IRPA. The applications Judge’s misapprehended concern that the GIC would have the discretion to designate a country that does not comply with the Conventions led him to transform the statutory objective of designating countries “that comply” into a condition precedent.

The applications Judge adopted a hypothetical approach to the respondent organizations’ Charter challenge, i.e. that a class of refugees would be treated a certain way if they were to present themselves at a Canadian land border port of entry. This approach went against the well-established principle that a Charter challenge cannot be mounted in the abstract. There was no evidence that a refugee would have to bring a challenge from outside Canada. The respondent organizations’ ability to bring the Charter challenge depended on John Doe. As the latter never presented himself at the border and therefore never requested a determination regarding his eligibility, there was no factual basis upon which to assess the alleged Charter breaches. The applications Judge thus erred in entertaining the Charter challenge.

[14] On December 29, 2005, the respondents launched an application for leave and judicial review seeking a declaration that the designation of the U.S. under section 102 of the IRPA was ultra vires, that the GIC erred in concluding that the U.S. complied with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and further, that the designation breached sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. For purposes of clarity, it is useful to set out in full the issues set out in the judicial review application filed before the Court:

[130] In short, a declaration of invalidity of the STCA Regulations is not required in order to ensure that they are not applied to claimants for protection at the land border in breach of either Canada’s international obligations not to refoule, or the Charter.
.
D. CONCLUSIONS
.
[131] For these reasons I would allow the appeal

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Lower Court considered a hypothetical scenario, and wrongly applied it to a Charter challenge. Put simply, Charter challenges are supposed to be ground in fact, and not “what if” situations. The ruling was overturned, and the Safe Third Country Agreement was restored.

7. 2017-Present: Toronto Challenge

Chief Justice Paul Crampton transferred 3 related cases to Justice Diner for case management. This is the same CJ Crampton who ruled that private citizens wishing to oppose the destruction of the S3CA don’t have standing.

Justice Diner granted public interest standing to 3 NGOs: Amnesty International, Canadian Council for Refugees, and Canadian Council of Churches.

Justice Diner order the 3 cases to be consolidated and tried together because of the overlapping issues.

Note: also see here, for decisions from the Federal Court in the matter above.

The case is still pending.

8. So Who Are These NGOs?

Amnesty International
ai.01.certificate.of.continuance
ai.02.bylaws
ai.03.changes.in.directors
ai.04.notice.of.financials

B’nai Brith League For Human Rights
bblhr.01.bylaws
bblhr.02.change.registered.office
bblhr.03.amendments
bblhr.04.certificate.of.incorporation
bblhr.05.director.changes

B’nai Brith National Organization
bbno.01.director.changes
bbno.02.certificate.of.incorporation
bbno.03.change.registered.office
bbno.04.notice.of.financials

Bridges, Not Borders
Bridges Not Borders, Mainpage
Bridges Not Borders, About
Bridges Not Borders, Why They Cross
Bridges Not Borders, Media Page
Bridges Not Borders, Pro Asylum Shopping

Canadian Association Of Refugee Lawyers
carl.01.directors
carl.02.change.of.office
carl.03.bylaws.2015
carl.04.notice.of.return
carl.05.certificate.of.continuance

Canadian Council For Refugees
ccr.01.2019.director.changes
ccr.02.bylaws
ccr.03.bylaws.from.2014
ccr.04.certificate.of.continuance
ccr.05.annual.return

Plattsburgh Cares
Plattsburgh Cares Main Page
Plattsburgh Cares, Humanitarian Support

Solidarity Across Borders
Solidarity Across Borders’ Homepage
SAB Supports Illegal Migrant Caravans
SAB Supports Sanctuary Cities For Illegals
SAB Calls To Open Up The Borders

These are of course not the only NGOs working to open up our borders (and other nations’ borders as well), but it does at least provide some insight.

Also, see the above links in Section #1 for other articles published on these NGOs.

9. Look At The Bigger Picture

Last fall, the story made the news that a challenge would be coming to Toronto to the Safe Third Country Agreement.

However, the Canadian media left out important information. Shocking.

First, it didn’t go into any detail on the groups lobbying for this. It wasn’t just some helpless “asylum claimants”, but an organized effort to help erase Canada’s border with the U.S.

Second, the full extent of the NGO meddling is not mentioned. True, some media DO reference the 2007 case, but not further. It doesn’t provide a complete picture of what is going on. Nor does it mention how these groups are pushing similar initiatives elsewhere. Amnesty International, for example, claims to have 7 million members pushing to bring more migrants (primarily) to the West. The Canadian Council for Refugees, as another example, spends considerable time and effort lobbying our Parliament for more refugee friendly laws.

Third, there seems little concern for the Canadian who would have their safety and sovereignty eroded should this pass. Instead, the focus is always on people coming to Canada and what their needs are.

This is lawfare: using our courts and legal system to open our borders.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress