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.
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.
A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.
This piece addresses the coronavirus “planned-emic”, but in the larger context of an attack on religion.
Over the last few months, the priorities and demands of various governments has seemed illogical, conflicting, and downright nonsensical. Here are just a few examples:
Abortion is still considered an essential service, but performing marriages is something that can wait
Interprovincial travel restricted, but foreigners still allowed in
Mass unemployment gets worse, but foreign workers still imported
Possible arrest for not “social distancing”, but criminals are released for their own safety
Religious gatherings banned, but only for some groups
Shutting down the economy and arranging bailouts for cronies is no shocker. However, there is something more nefarious at play, the destruction of Western Society. In particular, there is a continued attack on a major institution that built the West: Christianity.
It’s bittersweet that Prime Minister Trudeau constantly flouts the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms that his father implemented. There seems to be no hesitation to trample on Section 2 (fundamental freedoms).
As officials in Canada (and the U.S) see nothing wrong with forcibly shutting down religious services, the time is long overdue to fight back.
This fake pandemic is blatant, but it’s part of a larger effort. The goal is to erase the Christian founding of Canada and replace it with a mix of: nihilism; Satanism; Islam; diversity and multiculturalism. The ideology which built the West (and its old-stock) are being replaced.
But while these groups enjoy Human Rights Tribunals and special rights fighting for them, Christian groups are told they have to become secular to be ever more accommodating.
Yes, the majority are being told they can’t have an identity and must accommodate everything under the sun. Yet groups that are hostile to Christians are pandered to endlessly. This is a recipe for breaking up Western nations. This pattern applies both to religions and ethnic groups.
4. Theresa Tam Rehearsed Scenario In 2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtSgG6-96×0&feature=youtu.be
Start clip at 56:50. It will give you chills.
Thank you to Civilian Intelligence Network for digging up the film. In what can only be described as predictive programming, or a trial run, Theresa Tam “Canada’s top Doctor” takes part in a 2010 film about a fictional epidemic in Canada. Doesn’t get much more premeditated than shooting a film a decade in advance.
In the film (56:50 to 57:50) Tam talks approvingly (seeming almost giddy) about being able to enforce mandatory quarantines, using tracking bracelets, and only “worry later” about questions of an overreach. It’s difficult to make the clip look worse than it actually is. Seems that life is now imitating art.
The video also talks about mandatory vaccinations. If people refused, they can be taken “to temporary detention centers”. Again, this video was released in 2010, a decade ago.
5. Lobbying/Vaxx Agenda Behind The Scenes
CLICK HERE, for CV #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying. CLICK HERE, for CV #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation. CLICK HERE, for CV #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan. CLICK HERE, for CV #3: Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines. CLICK HERE, for CV #4: Gates using proxies to push vaxx agenda. CLICK HERE, for CV #5: Crestview Strategy, GAVI’s lobbying firm. CLICK HERE, for CV #6: people GAVI/Crestview lobbied follow Gates. CLICK HERE, for CV #7: M-132, Canada financing pharma research. CLICK HERE, for CV #8: Canada/WHO & “vaccine hesitancy” research. CLICK HERE, for CV #9: Raj Saini, lobbied by big pharma (M-132). CLICK HERE, for CV #10: pharma lobbying in Alberta legislature. CLICK HERE, for CV #11: ON Pharma; Bill 160 Not Implemented.
If you doubt that government lobbying and the pharma lobby are greatly influencing how this “pandemic” is playing out, consider the content in the above articles. The Federal Government, the Provincial Governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario (among many others), are being lobbied by drug companies.
Furthermore, “depopulation” fetishists like Bill Gates are active in the media claiming vaccines are needed. Globalists everywhere are clamoring for more control of their populations.
There is much more at stake than simply a virus or public illness. Assuming it even exists, the severe overreach cannot be explained merely by hysteria. Something else is in play.
Of course, if Western nations do impose mandatory vaccinations on their citizens, guess which groups will be predominantly impacted?
6. Court Rulings Against Christianity
This page is available on the Canadian Department of Justice website, and lists a few dozen critical cases in Charter precedent. While they may seems appealing on the surface, most are actually quite disturbing. Let’s look at some.
10. Hate speech towards targeted groups
James Keegstra was a high school teacher in Alberta who taught his students that Jewish people were evil. He also denied that the Holocaust occurred and said it was invented by Jewish people to gain sympathy. Keegstra was convicted for promoting hatred against an identifiable group based on these statements to his students.
.
Keegstra argued that the Criminal Code prohibitions on hate speech infringed his freedom of expression. The Supreme Court confirmed that the Charter protects all forms of speech, including hate speech, so long as it does not include violence. However, the majority of the Court concluded that the limits the Criminal Code placed on Keegstra’s freedom of expression were justifiable. This is because the limits aimed to protect groups targeted by hate speech and to promote positive relations in a country dedicated to equality and multiculturalism.
.
The Keegstra case serves as a reminder that freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited in situations where there is a need to balance competing interests like respect for difference, equality and multiculturalism.
That’s right. As of 1990, “Holocaust denial” is deemed to be a criminal offense, regardless of how well founded it may be. This also applies even when there no violence sought. The Court considers promoting positive relations to be more important than truth.
19. Freedom speech and equality of the LGBTQ2 community
Little Sisters was a specialized bookstore that sold books primarily to the gay and lesbian community. The bookstore imported most of its material from the United States. Customs officials classified the books and other materials as “obscene” which prevented the shipments from entering Canada. Under the customs regime, businesses and individuals in Canada were prohibited from importing “obscene” materials into Canada.
.
Little Sisters challenged the customs rules, arguing that the regime violated freedom of expression and the equality rights of the LGBTQ2 community. The Supreme Court concluded that the customs regime did limit freedom of expression, but that most of the law could be justified as a reasonable limit on this right. However, the Court found that the way that the customs officials were applying the law violated the equality rights of the customers of Little Sisters bookstore because the officials were applying a discriminatory standard to their materials compared to those aimed at a heterosexual audience.
.
This case helped pave the way for further recognition of the rights of sexual minorities in Canada and also confirmed that freedom of expression protects the right to receive materials like books. The case also highlighted that both laws and the actions of all government officials must respect the Charter.
So Customs was within its discretion to not allow obscene material into Canada. However, the gay rights screamed discrimination and had their property admitted anyway. Now that drag queen story hour is a reality, will denying child pornography now be constitutionally protected?
24. Religious freedom in school
Gurbaj Singh Multani was an orthodox Sikh student who believed that his religion required him to wear a kirpan at all times, including at school. A kirpan is a religious object worn by people of Sikh faith that looks like a dagger. Multani and his parents agreed with the school board’s request that he seal the kirpan in his clothing at all times while wearing it at school. However, the school board’s council of commissioners told Multani that he could not wear the kirpan to school even if it was sealed in his clothing because bringing dangerous objects to school violated the school’s code of conduct.
.
The Supreme Court found that the council’s decision infringed Multani’s freedom of religion. Multani sincerely believed that his Sikh faith required him to wear the kirpan and the prohibition on wearing it would have prevented him from attending public school altogether. The school board had not justified that a full ban on wearing kirpans in school was a reasonable limit on freedom of religion. There had never been a violent incident involving a kirpan at school and there was no evidence that the kirpan itself was a symbol of violence. The Court’s decision provides important guidance on the relationship between religious freedom, multiculturalism and public education in Canada. A total ban on wearing kirpans in schools ignores the importance of respect for minorities and religious tolerance in Canada’s multicultural society.
It seems that knives are a public safety issue in Canadian schools, and must be banned. That doesn’t seem to apply, though, when people of non-Christian religions complain that it’s mandatory.
29. Supervised injection sites
In 2003, health authorities in British Columbia opened a supervised drug injection site to combat the epidemic of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. In order for the operation of these sites to be considered legal, the federal Minister of Health must grant an exemption from the prohibitions of possession and trafficking of controlled substances. In 2008, the BC health authorities made an application for a new exemption before the previous one expired. The Minister denied the application. The organization that ran the site and a number of its clients argued that the Minister’s decision violated the right to life, liberty and security of the person.
.
The Supreme Court found that the Minister’s decision would prevent injection drug users from accessing life-saving health services. As a result, the health of the clients would be threatened and their lives would be endangered. Evidence showed that in over the 8 years of its operation, the safe injection site had proven to save lives with no known negative impact on public safety or health. The Minister’s decision went against the public safety objectives it was supposed to be pursuing. It was also arbitrary, meaning it had no rational connection to the government’s stated purpose of protecting lives and health. The Court ordered the Minister to grant the exemption.
Rather than getting these people real treatment, the BC Health Authorities decided that funded that taxpayer funded narcotics was a better solution. Additionally, BC would also cover the salaries and building overhead needed for this operation to function.
31. Balancing competing rights and freedoms: religious freedom and trial fairness
After N.S. was sexually assaulted, the Crown called her as a witness in the preliminary inquiry of her accused attackers. For religious reasons, N.S. asked to testify wearing a niqab, a head scarf that covers the face except the eyes. The judge ordered her to remove her niqab, but N.S. argued that making her do so would infringe her right to religious freedom.
.
The majority of the Supreme Court held that if wearing the niqab poses no serious risk to trial fairness, a witness who wishes to wear it for sincere religious reasons may do so. This case requires judges try to find a way to balance freedom of religion and trial fairness if the two rights conflict with each other. More generally, this case highlights the need for public institutions to accommodate religious difference as much as possible so everyone feels respected, while still upholding other Charter-protected rights and freedoms.
Most adults will know that a lot of information can be gleaned from facial expressions. In criminal cases, being able to properly cross examine a witness is very important. Having the face covers denies the other side the chance to fully get a read on the person. Additionally, it is extremely disrespectful to have this coming into the courts at all.
32. Sex work and the right to security of the person
Terri Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott were current or former sex workers who challenged three provisions of the Criminal Code which criminalized various activities relating to prostitution, including:
-public communication for the purposes of prostitution
-operating a bawdy house
-living off of the avails of prostitution
.
They argued that these restrictions deprived sex workers of their right to security by forcing them to work in secret, which prevented them from adopting important and life-saving safety measures, even though prostitution itself was legal.
.
The Supreme Court decided these provisions violated the right to security because they increased the serious risks sex workers faced on a daily basis. The government had not proven that the provisions were a proportionate response to the harms of social nuisance and the exploitation of sex workers. The provisions were unconstitutional because they went too far in terms of the conduct they prohibited as compared to the social harms they were supposed to address. In addition, the very serious impact of some of the prohibitions on sex workers’ safety was “totally out of sync” with the objective of the law.
The Canadian authorities have an obligation to ensure that the most degenerate and disgusting acts are performed safely. Perhaps not engaging in it at all would be safer, but who am I to judge?
So what do we have here?
Holocaust denial is an actual crime
Degeneracy allowed into Canada as gay rights
Sikhs can bring knives to school
Taxpayer funded narcotics is a human right
Muslims can conceal their faces while testifying
Laws changed to make sex work safe
Ex-pats with citizenship allowed to vote
Criminals allowed to vote while in prison
The above rulings of course are just a small piece of what has been happening in Western countries. While Christianity (the foundation of the West) is being stripped away, other groups are able to come in and use the courts to impose their ideologies.
Another important one to list is marriage being redefined. While it is arguable how much harm this causes, the gay rights movement has proceeded to demand that institutions such as churches host their weddings, and that bakers make their cakes. So much for not imposing on others.
What is obviously the best option is to stop the ever increasing demands for accommodation. Alternatively, Christians need to start militarizing the courts to have their interests protected. Being passive about it will only lead to their destruction.
Simply being tolerant and accepting of other groups does not work when they seek to replace your way of like with theirs. This is what multiculturalism brings: eventually the host(s) get replaced by the foreigners who are allowed in.
What is the consequence of laws and rulings that strip away the founding religion of the country? Eventually you end up with a group, (despite being a majority), have no real rights. And when they become a minority — as demographics shift — they will become targeted.
7. Churches Shut Down During “Planned-Emic”
Government across the West are ordering religious congregations to stope while the alleged “pandemic” is putting everyone in danger. However, it is nice to see that some are willing to defy what are illegal and unconstitutional orders. This is in the U.S., but things are starting to happen in Canada as well.
Having such incidents videotaped and splashed across the internet causes headaches for the police, who come across looking heavy handed and fascistic. It also creates problems for politicians who claim to support freedom of religion and be religious themselves.
If the court can’t or won’t act to defend these fundamental freedom, then perhaps good old fashioned shaming and humiliation will do the trick.
8. Fighting For Freedom Of Religion
Now let’s get into the Charter a little bit:This is going to be a bit out of order, though done intentionally. The purpose is to go through the mental process of standing up for your rights
Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
These are the fundamental freedoms that any modern society would have. The content of section 2 is very similar to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Without these fundamental freedoms, you are essentially living in a dictatorship. There are 2 provisions in the constitution which will help
Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances
Primacy of Constitution of Canada
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
Marginal note:
Constitution of Canada
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes
(a) the Canada Act 1982, including this Act;
(b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and
(c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
If your rights are being violated, you can cite one of — or both — Sections 24 and 52. Section 24 states that you have the right to seek a remedy in court, and section 52 states that laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no effect. (Note: The Charter is a subset of the Constitution as a whole). But, it is not quite as simple as that, and here is why:
Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Section 1 is very important here. Plainly put, it says that the government must be able to justify any Charter violation it causes in any of the further sections. While a difficult burden, it’s often not impossible to meet.
If you believe that these forced church closures violate your Section 2 rights (fundamental freedoms), you can go to court to assert that. Should you be able to prove it, the burden then shifts to the Government to establish that these violations are justified under Section 1.
Interestingly, these prohibitions seems almost exclusively aimed at Christians. Most likely, Muslims would react violently if treated the same way.
Now, would a court find that these restrictions are reasonably justified? The answer is not as clear cut as many would like. It would largely depend on information coming from the Office of Public Health, and laws such as the Quarantine Act or Emergencies Act.
Let’s ignore for the time being that this pandemic is a hoax, and that the courts are politically stacked. Let’s assume it were to play out in a fair way.
9. Quarantine & Emergencies Act
Quarantine station
6 (1) The Minister may establish a quarantine station at any place in Canada.
Marginal note:
.
Provision and maintenance of area or facility
(2) The operator of a facility in which a customs office, within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Customs Act, is located shall, when required in writing by the Minister, provide and maintain free of charge any area or facility, along with its fixtures, that the Minister considers necessary for establishing a quarantine station
Quarantine facilities
7 The Minister may by order designate any place in Canada as a quarantine facility and amend, cancel or reinstate the designation.
Well, so much for properties rights if any place in Canada can simply be deemed a quarantine station by the Minister, with no say so by the owners or tenants.
Duty to provide
8 (1) Any person in charge of a place shall, at the request of the Minister, provide that place to the Minister if, in the opinion of the Minister, the temporary use of the place as a quarantine facility is necessary to protect public health.
Marginal note:
Deeming
(2) The place is deemed to be designated as a quarantine facility.
Marginal note:
Compensation
(3) The Minister may compensate any person for the Minister’s use of the place.
Marginal note:
Consultation
(4) The Minister shall consult with the provincial public health authority of the province in which the place is situated before taking possession of it.
The Minister “may” compensate the owners for property that is seized and used but they don’t have to. Also, while the Province must be consulted, it doesn’t say they have to agree.
Arrest without warrant
18 A peace officer may, at the request of a screening officer or quarantine officer, arrest without a warrant and bring to a quarantine officer any traveller who the peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe has refused to be isolated or refuses to comply with a measure under subsection 15(3).
Offence committed intentionally
67 (1) Every person is guilty of an offence if they cause a risk of imminent death or serious bodily harm to another person while wilfully or recklessly contravening this Act or the regulations.
Marginal note:
Punishment
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both; and
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $300,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.
The problem is that so much in this Quarantine Act is discretionary, and leaves citizens with no real rights. The act is too long to cover in a single article, but the link is provided.
National emergency
3 For the purposes of this Act, a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that
(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or
(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada
and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.
Declaration of a public welfare emergency
6 (1) When the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, that a public welfare emergency exists and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures for dealing with the emergency, the Governor in Council, after such consultation as is required by section 14, may, by proclamation, so declare.
Marginal note:
Contents
(2) A declaration of a public welfare emergency shall specify
(a) concisely the state of affairs constituting the emergency;
(b) the special temporary measures that the Governor in Council anticipates may be necessary for dealing with the emergency; and
(c) if the direct effects of the emergency do not extend to the whole of Canada, the area of Canada to which the direct effects of the emergency extend.
Orders and regulations
8 (1) While a declaration of a public welfare emergency is in effect, the Governor in Council may make such orders or regulations with respect to the following matters as the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, are necessary for dealing with the emergency:
(a) the regulation or prohibition of travel to, from or within any specified area, where necessary for the protection of the health or safety of individuals;
(b) the evacuation of persons and the removal of personal property from any specified area and the making of arrangements for the adequate care and protection of the persons and property;
(c) the requisition, use or disposition of property;
(d) the authorization of or direction to any person, or any person of a class of persons, to render essential services of a type that that person, or a person of that class, is competent to provide and the provision of reasonable compensation in respect of services so rendered;
(e) the regulation of the distribution and availability of essential goods, services and resources;
(f) the authorization and making of emergency payments;
(g) the establishment of emergency shelters and hospitals;
(h) the assessment of damage to any works or undertakings and the repair, replacement or restoration thereof;
(i) the assessment of damage to the environment and the elimination or alleviation of the damage; and
(j) the imposition
(i) on summary conviction, of a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both that fine and imprisonment, or
(ii) on indictment, of a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding five years or both that fine and imprisonment,
for contravention of any order or regulation made under this section.
There are some problems with the Emergency Act, and they are much the same as with the Quarantine Act. The Act allows the Government broad, sweeping powers, with little in the way of oversight.
How does having entire cities in lockdown, and shutting down religious services make the public safer? The government knows so little about this virus, that it is cutting off the well being and livelihoods of people in the name of scaremongering.
Both the Emergency Act (1985) and the Quarantine Act (2005), have been on the books for a long time. Would invoking either of them be a reasonably justified used of limiting people’s fundamental freedoms, which are guaranteed under Section 2 of the Charter? Would the circumstances allow the infringement to be justified under Section 1?
Most people would say no. And most wouldn’t want important things — such as weekly services — shut down for such vague reasons. However, if Government agents were to CLAIM there is an ever present threat, they may be able to get away with it for a time.
While there is little interest in packed grocery stores (although that is changing), religious services need to be shut down almost entirely. This is not about public safety, but about control.
If the public officials are acting on the orders from near dictatorial politicians, and the courts are unable or unwilling to intervene, what options do we have?
10. Tips On Fighting Back
First, understand that according to Pintea v. Johns (2017), court officers now have a legal obligation to go the extra mile to ensure that self represented people get a fair hearing. It isn’t option.
Second, in most cases (criminal court) there will be a duty counsel that you can speak to — for free — to get general information on how to proceed.
Third, legal research is within the grasp of most everyone with decent reading skills. My favourite is https://www.canlii.org/en/, where there is a wealth of free information. The skill involved is a combination of searching Google and Wikipedia.
Fourth, all of the rules you need to know are freely available online. This includes the Canadian Criminal Code (if applicable), and the Rules for Civil Procedure in your Province.
This experience will be frustrating, but standing up for your rights is within the grasp of most people. You can always pay for a lawyer later if need be.
People who do get arrested, or who are ticketed for practicing their faith (or some other harmless activity) should fight back. Contest the ticket, and fight any charges. If it’s something you and you family are comfortable with, publish the incident, and feel free to out the police officer or by-law officers.
While this does seem daunting, the overwhelming majority of these cases will be quietly dismissed. Why? Because the authorities don’t want a lingering public headache.
But think it through before making a hasty decision.
11. Demographic Replacement Of Christianity
About 20% of Canada’s current population was born in some other country. With such a large presence, immigrants have had a substantial impact on Canada’s religious landscape (as in the United States, where immigrants – including those who are unauthorized – make up an estimated 13% of the total population.)
In the 1970s and 1980s, Canada’s foreign-born population was smaller, largely European and overwhelmingly Christian. In recent years, however, rising numbers of immigrants – nearly half of Canada’s immigrant population – have come from Asia, Africa and the Middle East. In the U.S., by comparison, three-in-ten of all foreign-born residents have come from these three regions.
In Canada, disaffiliation has increased markedly within some generations as they have aged. For example, one-in-ten Canadians born between 1947 and 1966 had no religious affiliation in 1981, but one-in-five are unaffiliated as of 2011. Even Canada’s older adults (those born in 1946 or earlier) have experienced gradual increases in disaffiliation; their rate of disaffiliation has gone from the single digits in the 1970s to double digits in recent years. In the U.S., by contrast, the share of people with no religious affiliation has been fairly stable within each generation over time (though disaffiliation has ticked up slightly among American Baby Boomers – those born between 1946 and 1964 – and Gen Xers – those born between 1965 and 1980).
As the geographic origins of Canadian immigrants have shifted, so has their religious makeup. A majority of immigrants (56%) who arrived during the 1970s were either Catholic or Protestant, while about a quarter were affiliated with other religious traditions, including Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, and Judaism. Since 2001, about four-in-ten (39%) new Canadian immigrants have belonged to these religious minorities, the same as the share of new immigrants (also 39%) who identify as either Catholic or Protestant. Because immigrants comprise more than a fifth of Canada’s population, the rising share of immigrants who belong to religious minorities has had a substantial impact on the religious composition of the overall population.
This 2013 report from Pew Research details Canada’s changing religious landscape over recent decades. It correctly points out that huge amounts of immigration is in fact changing the overall landscape.
12. Pop’n Replacement Is Spiritual Replacement
This seemingly absurd statement makes sense when you put it into context. Every year, Canada is bringing in large numbers of people from countries that are of a very different religious makeup. Consequently, there is a large demographic shift going on.
(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)
Note: this by no means it everyone who enters Canada in those years. In particular, it leaves out large numbers of students and temporary workers.
Nonetheless: look at who is actually staying in Canada. Each year we bring in people from India (Sikh and Hindu), China (Communist, Atheist), and various Middle Eastern and African nations (Islam). While the people coming in are not monolithic, these trends do have a significant impact on the religious demographic changes in Canada.
Interestingly, there doesn’t seem to be much of a difference in Liberal and Conservative immigration policies. Neither care about maintaining the demographic or founding ideologies of the West. Of course if you bring any of this up, you will be called a bigot.
All they focus on is:
(a) Singing the praises of diversity
(b) Perceived economic growth — ie cheap labour
13. Spiritual Replacement Is Genocide
Consider the UN Convention on preventing 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.
Despite the West being founded on Christianity, our “leaders” see nothing wrong with bringing hordes of other ideologies over. They are given free reign and protected status, while Christians must become more secular and accommodating. I wonder how tolerant these other groups will be as their numbers grow. This is all while “conservatives” crow about how tolerant they are.
Just like with replacing ethnic groups, replacing religious groups also qualifies as genocide under the 1948 UN Convention.
14. Foreign Religions Taking Over
At the Al-Quds Festival, Muslim man bragging that demographic change will lead to Sharia Law replacing Canadian Law at some point. He cites Pew Research data that suggests Muslims will have a plurality — be the biggest individual group — by 2060.
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.
How is Canada, or any nation for that matter, supposed to retain its heritage when it allows large numbers of people annually from completely different backgrounds who will soon outbreed their hosts?
Muslims maintain their religion and culture. Westerners give it all up in the name of being “diverse and tolerant”. But when push comes to shove, the stronger and more cohesive group will win, especially should civil war break out.
15. Time To Reverse This Trend
The government imposed closing of churches and other religious institutions is an attack on religion itself. None of this is necessary for public health. Instead, this is a show of force, and a show of how much contempt it holds in general for faith.
While the Quarantine Act and Emergency Act are seriously overreaching. There are ways to fight back. And the fighting back must happen. This “pandemic” is a thinly veiled attempt at seizing money and power, and was never about public safety.
Beyond this though: Christianity has been under attack in the West for a very long time. Most overtly, the population replacement agenda has led to the importation of large numbers of people (each year), who have nothing to do with Christianity. Worse still, Liberals and Conservatives (basically the same thing) see nothing wrong with bringing people — like Muslims — who are openly hostile to Christianity.
It’s beyond cliché at this point, but modern Conservatives conserve absolutely nothing. Preserving the spiritual foundations of the Western world is no exception. It’s disturbing how much pride they take in proclaiming that “we don’t play identity politics”, and that “We’re not socially conservative. We support freedom”.
It is group identity and cohesion that is the basis for a society. If Christians (or related denominations) don’t do it, they will be replaced by groups that are cohesive. Islam being an obvious example.
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 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?
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
My practice includes many different aspects of immigration, refugee and citizenship law including skilled worker applications, business immigration programs, and work or study permits.
.
I provide counsel to individuals, families and businesses in all facets of an application, notably in identifying the most expeditious manner of obtaining a visa or permit, communications with government officials, and appeals. I also have had particular success with difficult applications where clients faced considerable obstacles in obtaining or maintaining status in Canada.
.
Immigration to Canada represents opportunity but also difficulties and risks. I help clients to minimize the difficulties and risks and ensure the best possible results.
Just from the LinkedIn page we can get lots of information about David Berger. He was a Member of Parliament for several terms, is a former Ambassador to Israel, and now works for the NGO, Canadian Council for refugees.
4. Berger Pushed Asylum For UK “Refugee”
Dr. Khalid, 32, was forced into exile in London in March, along with her husband, but maintains she had always intended to seek asylum in Canada, where her relatives live.
Canada was one of the first countries to include gender-based persecution in its refugee determination process, and should come to the aid of the high-profile victim of violence, said Mr. Berger, a former Quebec Liberal MP (Westmount-St. Henri) who was posted to Israel as ambassador in 1995.
“The U.K. may not be the safest place for her,” said Mr. Berger, a lawyer who has taken Dr. Khalid’s case pro bono.
“It appears for some time Dr. Khalid has indicated she wanted to come to Canada and this is the country where she would be the happiest.”
Two interesting points about this Globe and Mail article. The first is that Mr. Berger sees nothing wrong with asylum shopping, and that refugees should simply be allowed to go where they please.
The other is that he claims the UK is not a safe country. Could this be because of their policy of bringing in huge numbers of Muslim migrants? Now the demographic shift has made the UK unsafe? In that case, why should we bring Muslims to Canada, and turn it into the UK (or essentially the 3rd world)?
5. David Berger Part Of CCR
Immigration lawyer and David Berger is a member of the Canadian Council of Refugees, an NGO that advocates for migrants. Berger is also Canada’s former Ambassador to Israel and a former member of Canada’s Parliament. “We’ve got a backlog today of 30,000 claims whereas about two years ago the backlog was 10 or 15 thousand,” he explained. He said there aren’t enough immigration judges, formally known in Canada as decision makers.
“We believe the government has to appoint more decision makers. 120 decision makers is just not enough,” Berger continued. He added that Canada is a better country for the contributions refugees make. He represents or has represented people with advanced degrees in literature and finance, images that defy stereotypes harbored by some anti-immigrant forces.
David Berger is part of the Canadian Council for Refugees, which, among other things, is working to strike down the Canada/U.S. Safe 3rd Country Agreement. If this is successful (it was initially, but overturned on appeal a decade ago), people from the warzone that is the United States will be free to waltz in and claim they are refugees, regardless of how meritless the claims may be.
6. Jewish Refugee Action Network
Overview of JRAN’s concerns
Since 2012, significant changes have been made to Canada’s treatment of refugees. For decades, Canada’s refugee system worked towards protecting people in danger and other humanitarian goals. The new changes, however, do the following: discriminate between individuals based on their country of origin or how they arrived in Canada; create serious challenges in the refugee determination process, which could lead in some cases to the deportation of individuals to their home countries and a real risk of persecution or worse; and limit certain humanitarian protections. In addition, since 2012, a half century’s old system of providing healthcare coverage to people seeking refugee status has been cut, thereby stranding thousands of people who are lawfully in Canada without emergency or life-saving healthcare.
1. Refugee Determination Process
Since 2012, changes to the refugee determination system make it difficult for many refugee claimants to prove their claims, and limits their ability to get a fair hearing due to severely shortened timelines, restrictions on appeal rights, and restrictions on other legal processes. Without a fair refugee hearing, there is a risk that people will be deported to countries where they face danger to their safety, freedom, or even their lives….
2. “Designated Countries of Origin” (DCOs)
The new Designated Countries of Origin (DCO) scheme creates a new category of refugee claimant. Refugee claimants from designated countries are not entitled to the same legal process as refugee claimants from non-designated countries. Ostensibly created to distinguish between refugee claimants from “safe” countries and claimants from other countries, in reality the DCO scheme creates a two-tiered system that discriminates between refugee claimants based on their country of origin, and limits the ability of claimants to get a fair hearing regarding their individual case….
3. “Designated Foreign Nationals” (DFNs)
Under the new designated foreign national (DFN) scheme, the Minister of Public Safety may “designate” two or more refugee claimants who arrive in Canada without the appropriate Canadian visas or documents, if the Minister believes that they have paid someone to help them enter Canada, or if they lack the papers necessary to prove their identity in what the Minister believes is a “timely manner.” Being identified as a DFN has serious consequences, including mandatory group detention for what may be lengthy periods, restrictions on appeal rights, and restrictions on gaining permanent residence status…
4. Cuts to Refugee Healthcare Coverage
In 2012, the Canadian government made drastic cuts to healthcare coverage for refugee claimants. An Order in Council took away even basic emergency and life-saving medical care from thousands of refugee claimants who have lawfully sought Canada’s protection…
The Jewish Refugee Action Network states that it is concerned about rights and social services for refugees coming into Canada. Interesting that Berger, a several term Member of Parliament, shows far more concern for the well being of foreigners than he does Canadians.
Now let’s get to what JRAN considers the “refugee issue”, and it attempts to give some historical context.
Jews as Refugees – Biblical Connection
The Exodus from Egypt, one of the central stories in Jewish tradition, is a foundation document of Jews as refugees. Having been held slaves under the pharoahs for several hundred years, the Israelites were desperate for their freedom. Their dramatic departure reached its climax at the Red Sea, when the Israelites were finally able to escape Pharoah’s soldiers and Egypt.
. Jewish law – Spiritual Connection
Jewish texts and laws provide a constant reminder about the Exodus and about the experience of slavery in Egypt. The Exodus is the central experience recounted in the Torah. It is mentioned as part of our weekly Friday night blessings, and is told in far greater detail at our annual Passover seders. At the seder, surrounded by comfort and good food, we are encouraged to remember the story as if we were the ones who had been slaves and refugees.
The experience in Egypt is repeated often in the Torah, with the explicit admonition to treat others with compassion and justice. Our Biblical laws – requiring us to provide for the widow and orphan, to treat workers fairly, and to help the foreigners in our midst – explain that we must do so because we ourselves were foreigners in Egypt. This idea is echoed more than 30 times in the Torah. Here too, we are asked to put ourselves in the position of our ancestors: slaves and foreigners in Egypt.
. Jews as Refugees – Historical Connections
The Shoah (Holocaust) was another defining moment for the Jewish people. The genocide of six million Jews was a tragedy, heightened by the indifference of those free countries who refused to admit Jews to safety on their shores. Canada is one of several countries who bear the shame of having refused to receive 900 Jewish refugees who had managed to escape Germany aboard the ocean liner St. Louis. Many Canadian Jews remember the treatment of these desperate Jewish refugees.
. Jews and Roma – Parallel Histories of Persecution
The persecution of Jews in Europe for many centuries, bears certain similarities to that experienced by the Roma people, who also faced restrictions on their employment and permitted living areas, violence, expulsions, and other forms of oppression. The Roma people, like the Jews, were the only other group legally targeted for extermination by the Nazis, and experienced their own genocide known as the Porajmos. Unfortunately, the Roma in Europe continue to suffer many forms of violence, discrimination, at the hands of bigots and fascists with the collusion of some governments.
Clearly, never missing an opportunity to play the victim narrative. David Berger is a Board Member of this group. This is the list.
JRAN Members
Honorary Members
Stephen Lewis, Honorary Canadian Co-Chair
Michele Landsberg, Honorary Canadian Co-Chair
Board Members
Rabbi Arthur Bielfeld, founder of JRAN
Ken Rosenberg, Chair
Maureen Silcoff
Mary Jo Leddy
Noa Mendelsohn Aviv
Dr. Philip Berger
Bernie M Farber
Mitchell Goldberg
Valerie Hyman
Audrey Macklin
Anna Porter
Gabriela Ramo
Avrum Rosensweig
Jon Telch
Rivka Augenfeld
Cynthia Levine-Rasky
David Berger
Mira Oreck
Hesh Troper
7. Berger, JRAN, Lobbied For “Syrian Refugees”
As a wealthy and peaceful country, we have a shared international responsibility to be a safe haven for refugees and to treat them with fairness. As Jewish Canadians, we join other faith groups, legal organizations, and settlement workers in calling on our government to do our share for the vulnerable people fleeing Syria. Specifically:
1. To put in place flexible provisions to allow family members of Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and recognized refugees to enter Canada by issuing Temporary Resident Permits, with the possibility of access to permanent residence later.
2. In close consultation and coordination with sponsorship agreement holders, to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees from refugee camps within the next year. The UNHCR recently requested countries to settle 100,000 Syrian refugees. Canada has traditionally agreed to resettle 10 per cent of UNHCR requests.
3. That all pending applications for Syrian refugees be processed expeditiously, and that in no case should the processing of a refugee claim take more than one year.
4. That processing of Syrians not replace or divert any resources from other refugee or family reunification programs.
Refugees from Syria cannot afford to lose any more time. People are in crisis, and the world is watching. Prime Minister, the government must act now. We would be pleased to meet with you or members of your staff to further discuss this urgent issue.
Yours very truly,
.
Noa Mendelsohn Aviv
Rivka Augenfeld David Berger, former Ambassador to Israel
Dr. Philip Berger
Rabbi Arthur Bielfeld
Bernie Farber
Mitchell Goldberg
Valerie Hyman
Michele Landsberg, OC
Maureen Silcoff
Jon Telch
Ken Rosenberg
The Jewish Refugee Action Network (which Berger is a Director of) was a major player in lobbying then PM Harper to take in so-called Syrian refugees.
Was Berger “ever” working for Canadians? Even during his several terms as an MP, or his tenure as Ambassador to Israel? Or was he a refugee lobbyist this entire time?
8. David Berger’s Many Roles
Canadian Bar Association (Immigration Section)
Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
Jewish Refugee Action Network
associate member of the Canadian Council for Refugees
former President of the Canadian Football League
former Member of Parliament
former Ambassador to Israel
8. David Berger’s Law Practice
David Berger, B.A., B.C.L.
David Berger, B.A. (Toronto) 1971; B.C.L. (McGill) 1975, was admitted to the Barreau du Québec in 1986.
David relies on a unique experience in elective office, diplomacy, business, and law in advising and representing his clients.
.
From 1979 to 1994, David served as a Member of the House of Commons of Canada, representing the constituencies of Laurier and St-Henri-Westmount.
.
From 1995 to 1999, David served as Canadian ambassador to the State of Israel, representative to the Palestinian Authority and High Commissioner to Cyprus.
.
Earlier in his career, from 1975 to 1979, David was executive vice-president of the Montreal Alouette Football Club, Inc. In 1978-1979, he served as President of the Canadian Football League.
David assists people in applications for temporary and permanent residence, including work and study permits and visitor visas, skilled worker applications, business immigration, family sponsorships and humanitarian and compassionate applications.
.
He represents clients in refugee claims, appeals to the Immigration Appeal Division, and judicial review applications to the Federal Court of Canada and the Quebec Superior Court.
David speaks English, French and Spanish.
. David is a member of AQAADI (L’Association Québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration), the Canadian Bar Association (Immigration Section), the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Jewish Refugee Action Network, and an associate member of the Canadian Council for Refugees.
.
David is a director of several not for profit organizations including the Canada International Scientific Exchange Program (CISEPO), the Jerusalem Foundation of Canada, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (Canada), and the Trevor Williams Kids Foundation.
9. Israel Refuses To Take Refugees
During a solidarity visit to Tel Aviv last Thursday, Netanyahu, Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan and Culture Minister Miri Regev toured south Tel Aviv and vowed that the government would “give back” the neighborhood to its Israeli residents.
Netanyahu has previously said the government would take a three-pronged approach to the issue: a security fence along the Egyptian border, which has already succeeded in significantly reducing the number of migrants who cross into Israel from African countries; increased enforcement against those employ illegal migrants and migrants who break the law; and the ministerial committee, which the prime minister said he will lead himself.
Expulsion to a third country is largely unprecedented in the Western world. Italy and Australia signed similar agreements with third-party countries — Italy with Libya, and Australia with Malaysia — but both proposals were shot down by local courts. In both cases, courts ruled the bills inconsistent with international law and the 1951 UN convention on refugees — to which Israel is also a party.
Interesting. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel claims that the migrants in the country are not refugees, and seems content to deport them. Where is the outrage of people like David Berger? If Canada should do its part to take in people in a vast humanitarian effort, why the outrage at Israel refusing to do the same?
Netanyahu wants to keep Israel a Jewish nation, and he doesn’t want hordes of very different people irreversibly changing the demographics. Yet Berger, and people like him, see nothing wrong with forcibly remaking the west.
Why isn’t the former Ambassador to Israel lobbying for Israel to take refugees and open up its borders? After all, isn’t humanity and compassion supposed to be universal? Why the double standard?
