Category: Identity/Religion

Posted on

World Domination: Connecting The Dots

How do you take over the world without war, guns, and bombs? You do it incrementally, and strategically. This guide will outline some of the major steps.

1. Important Links

This section will be empty. Instead, links are interwoven in the article. Also, Part II, will address who is behind these global takeover efforts.

2. Convention On Preventing & Punishing Genocide To Be Used As “Guideline”

No two ways about it. If you are serious about world domination, then you can’t have strong groups and populations standing in your path. The population needs to go. Either it needs to be killed off, or it needs to be “phased out”. This idea was addressed in a previous article.

He are sections of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishing Genocide:

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

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

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

This applies if there are certain groups, such as racial or ethnic, that are obstacles to the plan. Yes, we can kill them, or we can just reduce their populations, by preventing births or causing mental harm to the group.

Ironically, this convention outlines some effective “non-violent” ways to erase a group, or groups.

We will get back to this later.

3. Financing The Global Domination Mission

No doubt about it: a scheme to control the world is expensive and complex. The right people have to be in place, and the organization needed is substantial. So let’s discuss a few methods to finance our agenda.

(Option A:) Get wealthy nations to borrow extensively from private banks. Most countries have their own internal banking, which means that they effectively borrow from themselves. A much better alternative is to get nations to start borrowing from private banks, but never completely pay it back. This ensures permanent interest payments. However, we must be careful to fight any and all attempts by concerned citizens to take back control of their finances.

(Option B:) Convince wealthy nations to participate in bogus scheme such as the “climate change scam”, which is based entirely on junk science. Rather than endlessly appealing to give foreign aid (which we then steal), we should be appealing to the mutual survival instinct. Doing this can raise hundreds of billions in revenue each year. Sure there will be resistance, but we can establish some controlled opposition “Conservatives” to give the illusion of fighting for the average people. These initiatives, once established, will be profitable.

(Option C:) While using the money raised from (A) and (B) immediately seems like a good idea, we must be more strategic about it. A serious option is to loan out to developing nations, huge sums of money they cannot possibly pay back. As such, once nations begin defaulting, we can either seize assets, or “forgive debt” in return for favours. Sure this is predatory lending, and the middle class will suffer, but their leaders will be put in an impossible position.

Note: the debts that we “lend” to developing nations are not actually losses we accrued. Rather they will be from the perpetual “debt repayments”, which developed nations pay us after they started taking out private loans.

(Option D:) Make globalism more profitable and have our partners contribute to the efforts. Making mass migration more profitable leads to an almost endless supply of new customers. A wide variety of groups, can get involved, ensuring a diversified portfolio for us. By linking their business interests with our ideological interests, it will ensure these organizations are vested in our survival.

(Option E:) It doesn’t just have to be foreign aid that gets transferred outside of host nations. Many national pension funds are screaming to be invested in our global development. Sure, there are criticisms that they are underfunded and unsustainable, but the potential growth will offset any risks to the funds. If seniors object, we can always subsidize their efforts to start smoking.

(Option F:) For the purposes of trade, it is antiquated to think of it as “nations” trading. Rather, if we think of them as economic zones, trade can be liberalized much more effectively. Sure there will be job losses here and there. But it’s all for the good of the “global economy”.

4. Mass Migration Is Critical To Our Success

In order to achieve the “One World Order”, individual nations must be destroyed. Sure they may keep their flags and names, but for all practical purposes, they cannot exist. There must be no true sovereignty allowed.

This aspect has unique challenges. There are plenty of nationalists and ethno-nationalists who want to keep their race, culture, language, heritage, customs, traditions, and way of life intact. There are those who reject conservatism and libertarianism, (which favour individuality over group survival), in favour of the long term stability of their nation. We need to completely replace the host populations. Being direct and honest will not work in this case. As such other approaches are required:

(Option I:) We can buy off media outlets. The rise in internet use and citizen journalists had led to an utter devastation of traditional media outlets. This presents an opportunity never thought possible: to keep certain media solvent in return for favourable coverage of our practices.

(Option II:) We can install puppet candidates and fund parties whose populist agendas are very similar to ours. With the right rhetoric, the sheeple won’t care that we lie about the true size of annual mass migration. Nor will they care that a “right-wing populist” is only proposing a 7% reduction in current rates. With the right messaging, the patriots will overlook that forced multiculturalism and diversity has never actually been successful, and only leads to balkanization. Members of the Government and Opposition should both have their campaigns contributed to. While common in the US, campaign contribution laws shall be used fully to ensure a cooperative Congress or Parliament.

(Option III:) Straight up gaslighting can and does still work, but the citizenry is getting tired of it. This technique should be used less frequently. Not saying stop entirely, but it shouldn’t be the first tool anymore.

(Option IV:) Present mass migration as “normalized” and inevitable. Yes we will need other puppets to sign the New York Declaration, and the UN Global Migration Compact. Yes, there will be many critics, and the gaslighting should be used sparingly. There are many intellectually dishonest tactics we can use without being too obvious. Our shill media — addressed earlier — will be useful in attacking border control efforts, or even the idea of border control.

(Option V:) In order to facilitate mass migration and population replacement, we should introduce “throw-away” ideas such as repatriating terrorists to home countries. If successful, we further destabilize the nation states. If unsuccessful, we at least divert their attention away from our real goals.

(Option VI:) One subset of mass migration is promoting high levels of Islamic immigration. Given their desire to take over the world, and propensity for “playing the victim”, this will be useful. Further, the drain on resources of the host nations will make it harder for them to put up resistance. Given Muslims’ very high birthrate, and violent intolerance towards others, they can help replace the populations for us.

Note: we won’t allow the Muslims to actually take over. Rather, they will do much of the leg work for us.

Naturally, the elites will need to meet annually, to ensure a smooth post-national transition takes place.

Once mass migration is sufficiently underway, we can focus on controlling the new masses, and that leads to the next topic: education.

5. Taking Control Of Education

If the agenda is to succeed, we need to take control of the next generation, and the one after that. As noted, children are to become dependent on the schools for everything from meals, to health care, to actual parenting. Yes, the financial costs will be high, but we will pay for it out of the interest payments from the loans we grant to governments. So really, it costs us nothing.

Academia has an important role to play, which is obvious. Scholarly articles, such as those written by Frank Geels and Kirsten Jenkins will add legitimacy to what we are doing.

Another important aspect is to redefine what cultural norms are. This in turn will also help reduce the host populations, which will make it easier to replace them. One such technique is encouraging people, especially young children, to have sex changes. A further technique is to keep pushing for abortion as a “human right”. Less births will of course reduce the host nation’s population. An extra benefit is that baby parts sell for huge amounts to organizations which are sympathetic to our globalist methods.

6. Making It All Come Together

Okay, this is definitely a lot to absorb. But knowing and implementing all of these steps, what have we actually accomplished? Let’s list them:

  • We have identified ways to commit genocide against nations and their host populations without the obvious evidence of guns, bombs and war
  • We have raised money by getting nations to borrow heavily from private banks, and never fully pay it back, leading to permanent interest payments
  • We raised money via bogus environmental scams
  • We loaned out to nations who cannot pay
  • We have enlisted corporate partners in our goals
  • We have invested national pensions and other assets
  • We have eliminated borders, ensuring efficient trade
  • We have bought off an obedient media
  • We have propped up puppet politicians
  • We reduced the overt gaslighting
  • We changed the narrative to mass migration being normal
  • We normalized repatriating terrorists
  • We weaponized Islamic immigration
  • We coordinated global leadership meetings
  • We have made children dependent on schools
  • We controlled the academic output
  • We replaced traditional cultural norms
  • We centralized globalization via UN

    • This list is by no means exhaustive. However, it should serve as an introduction to global domination.

    The UN, naturally, is a great way to centralize the consolidation of the global empire. But should the UN stop being a useful tool, we have backups in reserve.

    Just remember: taking over the world is a marathon, not a sprint.

    7. Who’s Behind All Of This?

    That will be addressed in part II, a post all by itself. There are simply too many players to do it justice in one article.

    Posted on

    Abolish Human Rights Codes Entirely

    1. Previous Solutions Offered

    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.

    2. Important Links


    CLICK HERE, for the BC Human Rights Code.
    CLICK HERE, for Morgane Oger cashing in on victimhood.
    CLICK HERE, for instances of abusing human rights tribunals.

    3. Quotes From BC HRC

    Discrimination and intent
    2 Discrimination in contravention of this Code does not require an intention to contravene this Code.

    This is common throughout the various Provincial Codes. No intent is needed on the part of anyone. Contrast this with criminal law, where intent is a required element.

    Purposes
    3 The purposes of this Code are as follows:
    (a) to foster a society in British Columbia in which there are no impediments to full and free participation in the economic, social, political and cultural life of British Columbia;
    (b) to promote a climate of understanding and mutual respect where all are equal in dignity and rights;
    (c) to prevent discrimination prohibited by this Code;
    (d) to identify and eliminate persistent patterns of inequality associated with discrimination prohibited by this Code;
    (e) to provide a means of redress for those persons who are discriminated against contrary to this Code.

    A major goal is to promote a climate of understanding and mutual respect. Makes it more difficult when this “respect and understanding” are imposed by force.

    Persistent patterns of inequality? However, except the solution is often to impose quotas or affirmative action programs.

    Discriminatory publication
    7 (1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
    (a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or
    (b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt
    because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or that group or class of persons.
    (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication, a communication intended to be private or a communication related to an activity otherwise permitted by this Code.

    Good to know. However, “private” and “intending to be private” are could be open to interpretation. Also, is this not treading dangerously close to supressing free speech?

    Remedies
    37 (1) If the member or panel designated to hear a complaint determines that the complaint is not justified, the member or panel must dismiss the complaint.
    (2) If the member or panel determines that the complaint is justified, the member or panel
    (a) must order the person that contravened this Code to cease the contravention and to refrain from committing the same or a similar contravention,
    (b) may make a declaratory order that the conduct complained of, or similar conduct, is discrimination contrary to this Code,
    (c) may order the person that contravened this Code to do one or both of the following:
    (i) take steps, specified in the order, to ameliorate the effects of the discriminatory practice;
    (ii) adopt and implement an employment equity program or other special program to ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups if the evidence at the hearing indicates the person has engaged in a pattern or practice that contravenes this Code, and
    (d) if the person discriminated against is a party to the complaint, or is an identifiable member of a group or class on behalf of which a complaint is filed, may order the person that contravened this Code to do one or more of the following:
    (i) make available to the person discriminated against the right, opportunity or privilege that, in the opinion of the member or panel, the person was denied contrary to this Code;
    (ii) compensate the person discriminated against for all, or a part the member or panel determines, of any wages or salary lost, or expenses incurred, by the contravention;
    (iii) pay to the person discriminated against an amount that the member or panel considers appropriate to compensate that person for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect or to any of them.

    Yes, hurt feelings, dignity and self respect are worth money. How would you even disprove that?

    Can order someone to stop doing something, because a person said their feelings were hurt.

    For what it’s worth, is a complaint is found to be not justified it must be dismissed. That’s something.

    Exemptions
    41 (1) If a charitable, philanthropic, educational, fraternal, religious or social organization or corporation that is not operated for profit has as a primary purpose the promotion of the interests and welfare of an identifiable group or class of persons characterized by a physical or mental disability or by a common race, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, political belief, colour, ancestry or place of origin, that organization or corporation must not be considered to be contravening this Code because it is granting a preference to members of the identifiable group or class of persons.
    (2) Nothing in this Code prohibits a distinction on the basis of age if that distinction is permitted or required by any Act or regulation.

    Interesting. You can’t discriminate against people based on protected grounds, unless the entire group is devoted to promoting based on a protected ground.

    Of course, this exemption likely wouldn’t apply to men, whites, or straight people.

    Special programs
    42 (1) It is not discrimination or a contravention of this Code to plan, advertise, adopt or implement an employment equity program that
    (a) has as its objective the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups who are disadvantaged because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, and
    (b) achieves or is reasonably likely to achieve that objective.
    (2) [Repealed 2002-62-23.]
    (3) On application by any person, with or without notice to any other person, the chair, or a member or panel designated by the chair, may approve any program or activity that has as its objective the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups.
    (4) Any program or activity approved under subsection (3) is deemed not to be in contravention of this Code.

    So it is wrong to discriminate based on “protected grounds” unless those groups are considered “disadvantaged”. Then go for it.

    And from Section 41, it is wrong to discriminate against a group. That is unless you are part of a group whose main purpose is to discriminate on other groups.

    Non-compellability of commissioner and staff
    47.10 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the commissioner, and anyone acting for or under the direction of the commissioner, must not be compelled to give evidence in court or in any other proceedings respecting any information received in the course of exercising powers or performing duties under this Code.
    (2) The commissioner, and anyone acting for or under the direction of the commissioner, may be compelled to give evidence in a prosecution of an offence under this Code.

    Interesting. Staff “can” be compelled to appear for an HRT hearing, but not for Court or other matters.

    Personal liability protection of commissioner and staff
    47.11 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no legal proceeding for damages lies or may be commenced or maintained against the commissioner, or against a person acting for or under the direction of the commissioner, because of anything done or omitted
    (a) in the exercise or intended exercise of any power under this Code, or
    (b) in the performance or intended performance of any duty under this Code.
    (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person referred to in that subsection in relation to anything done or omitted by that person in bad faith.

    As long as the Commissioner and staff “claim” that everything is in good faith, then they can’t be held liable. How exactly do you prove “bad faith”?

    4. So Why Abolish Entirely?


    To summarize (using BC as a model):

    • Intent not necessary to get a finding against you
    • Discrimination okay, if it is your group identity
    • Discrimination okay, if for affirmative action
    • Encroaches on legitimate free speech territory
    • Hurt feelings are grounds for monetary compensation
    • Commissioner and staff, cannot be compelled to appear in outside hearings, REGARDLESS of the power which they are allowed to wield
    • Cannot take action against staff unless you can prove “bad faith”, an almost impossible standard
  • Terminology is broad and open to overreach

    • These tribunals are allowed to behave as courts do, and implement court-style punishments. However, there are almost no standards when it comes to deciding what is a violation.

    Ancient ideas, past their due date.

    Posted on

    Canuck Law Now Certified In Gender Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) Training (Not Satire)

    (Getting into gay marriage)

    (men, women, and non-binary….)

    (Every identity group imaginable)

    (Yes, forestry is sexist, just like construction)

    1. Important Links


    CLICK HERE, to take GBA+ course.
    CLICK HERE, for UN link to “gender inclusive language”.
    CLICK HERE, for previous “peoplekind” review.

    CLICK HERE, for the UN page on gender equality.
    CLICK HERE, for women’s human rights.
    CLICK HERE, for about UN women.
    CLICK HERE, for goal #5 of sustainable development.
    CLICK HERE, for guiding principles of UN women’s advisory, civil society groups.
    CLICK HERE, for the Commission on the Status of Women.
    CLICK HERE, for Canada’s GBA+ (Gender Based Analysis Plus)
    CLICK HERE, for declaration of women’s rights.
    CLICK HERE, for the 1995 Beijing Declaration for Women.
    CLICK HERE, for the 2017 system-strategy for gender parity.
    CLICK HERE, for gender-inclusive language
    CLICK HERE, for guidelines for gender inclusive language.
    CLICK HERE, for tools & training for gender inclusive language.

    2. About The Course

    This course is designed as a basic introduction to GBA+. You will learn to define the key concepts of GBA+ and recognize how various identity factors can influence the experience of federal government initiatives. You will learn to identify how GBA+ can enhance the responsiveness, effectiveness and outcomes of federal government initiatives while applying some foundational GBA+ concepts and processes.

    3. What Is GBA+ About?

    Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA+) is an analytical process used to assess how diverse groups of women, men and non-binary people may experience policies, programs and initiatives. The “plus” in GBA+ acknowledges that GBA+ goes beyond biological (sex) and socio-cultural (gender) differences. We all have multiple identity factors that intersect to make us who we are; GBA+ also considers many other identity factors, such as race, ethnicity, religion, age, and mental or physical disability.

    To state the glaringly obvious: this “course” embraces intersectionality, oppression complexes, and identity politics.

    Once you have completed this course, you will be able to:
    -Define the key concepts of GBA+
    -Recognize how various identity factors can influence the experience of federal government initiatives
    -Identify how GBA+ can enhance the responsiveness, effectiveness and outcomes of federal government initiatives
    -Apply some foundational GBA+ concepts and processes

    Whatever happened to treating everyone equally?

    This course is designed as a basic introduction to GBA+. Depending on previous experience, you may find the content familiar while others find it new and challenging. Also, depending on your job, you may be required to take additional training in GBA+.

    Kill me now.

    Regardless of your experience, education and current situation, this is your place to begin. The course includes video, graphic and written material for your review, as well as exercises to test your knowledge. Character profiles and case studies will assist you in applying some basic GBA+ concepts and processes. Take as much time as you require, and keep in mind that you can come back to the course as many times as you like.

    Doesn’t seem too difficult….

    You will need to score 80% or higher on this quiz to receive a certificate of completion. If you require a fourth attempt to pass the final quiz, you will be redirected to the beginning of the course.

    Where’s the cyanide when you need it?

    Now that you have gathered some information about the forest sector, it is time to seek out stakeholder perspectives on the issues of innovation and diversification in the forest sector.
    Think about which stakeholders to consider, as well as what value to place on their perspectives. For instance, if you place the highest value on consensus during your consultation and recommendation process, you risk not hearing important minority voices among your stakeholder group.
    Who is traditionally consulted? Who may get left out of the discussion, if, for example, forestry executives are consulted as a key group of stakeholders? Women and Indigenous peoples are under-represented in management positions in the forest sector and on the corporate boards most likely to seek participation in consultations. Are Indigenous leaders consulting the broader community?
    -Will the same engagement process work for all stakeholders? What are potential barriers to participation faced by different groups among your stakeholders?
    -How might socio-economic status and family responsibilities affect access to consultations? Could certain factors prevent front-line workers or women from participating in the discussion? Measures such as holding meetings during working hours might allow these groups to participate.
    -In this case, it would be particularly useful to consult those with knowledge of local ecosystems, including Indigenous forest sector organizations/representatives, community groups and other experts.

    4. Taking The Test


    Question 1 (Select the best answer.)
    Gender is:
    Roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society may construct or consider appropriate for men and women
    Biological and physiological characteristics that define men, women and intersex persons
    That’s right!

    Question 2 (Select the best answer.)
    GBA+ is conducted to:
    Examine the effects of policies, programs, and initiatives on diverse groups of women, men and non-binary people
    Ensure equality for women
    Promote pay equity
    That’s right!

    Question 3 (True or false.)
    Historical disparities do not need to be considered in the development of new policies, programs, and legislation.
    True
    False
    That’s right!

    Question 4 (True or false.)
    Before you begin developing a policy or program, you will already know whether an issue impacts diverse groups of women, men and non-binary people differently based on your individual experience.
    True
    False
    That’s right!

    Question 5 (Select the best answer. )
    Who is responsible for applying GBA+?
    The head of the organization
    Human resources officials
    Status of Women Canada
    Gender specialists
    Any official in an organization who is contributing to government initiatives
    Deputy Ministers
    That’s right!

    Question 6 (True or false.)
    Conducting GBA+ will always conclude that disparities exist between men and women.
    True
    False
    That’s right!

    Question 7 (Select all that apply.)
    Steps in the GBA+ process include:
    Checking your assumptions
    Gathering information and considering diverse stakeholder perspectives
    Consulting your organization’s Employment Equity policy
    You did not select the correct response(s).

    Question 8 (Select the best answer.)
    Which of these situations reflects bias/discrimination due to intersecting identity factors, as opposed to a single factor?
    A gay, white man is refused a construction job, even though he has all the necessary skills and experience
    An Indigenous woman is refused a job at a factory where many Indigenous men work “on the floor” in the factory and many women work in the administrative office
    That’s right!

    Question 9 (Select the best answer. )
    Parental leave policies are an example of a flexible approach because:
    Women and men are treated the same way
    Both women and men may apply
    It takes into account the evolving needs and circumstances of diverse parents
    That’s right!

    Question 10 (Select all that apply.)
    Documenting the GBA+ process can assist you with:
    Demonstrating to senior management that a thorough analysis has been undertaken in developing options
    Developing communications strategies to explain decisions
    Populating a bibliography
    That’s right!

    5. Final Thoughts


    It was possible to pass the quiz (8 of 10 questions required), on the first try, just from winging it. Just try to imagine the most SJW answers possible.

    Certificate arrived in about 10 minutes.

    The survey insisted on knowing my gender. I am a unicorn.

    Posted on

    Babylon Beaver Buys Toronto Hotel, Removes 13th And 50th Floors (Satire)

    The Babylon Beaver has purchased the Mosaic Hotel in Toronto, Ontario, as the satire news outlet diversifies and expands into real estate.

    However, the satire news outfit is taking some rather unusual steps in removing the names and numbers from certain floors. People were rather perplexed as to why.

    While it is common for large buildings to remove the 13th floor (as it’s considered bad luck), the Beaver has opted to go further, but for different reasons altogether.

    The Mosaic’s new owners opted to remove the 13th floor — at least the name — as it was seen as causing a disproportionate amount of trouble. Those problems were disproportionately above what they should be. The trouble started spreading to other floors as well.

    Violence within the hotel spread to the 50th floor, and sometimes above that. Sexual assault had been reported on the 54th floor. And interracial violence had been investigated on the 90th floor. All of these things caused the Mosaic Hotel’s reputation for inclusiveness to be tarnished.

    Previously, the Beaver had relied on statistics and data to make decisions. However, a change in management has led the company in a new direction. Now, a more holistic approach will be used.

    Despite the challenges, the Babylon Beaver is confident that this venture can work out in the long term. After all, with the outlet’s commitment to diversity and inclusion, things will only get better.

    Posted on

    Kirsten Jenkins: Humanizing Sociotechnical Transitions Through Energy Justice

    1. Go Check Out Uppity Peasants Site


    This is a fairly new site, however, it has some interesting content on it. Well researched, it will give some alternative views on how we are really being controlled. It you haven’t been there, what are you waiting for?

    2. About The Authors


    CLICK HERE, for the profile of Kirsten Jenkins. Side note: no shocker she has cited Frank Geels.

    CLICK HERE, for Benjamin Sovacool.

    He is a Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), due to be published in 2022, and an Advisor on Energy to the European Commission’s Directorate General for Research and Innovation in Brussels, Belgium.

    He has played a leadership role in winning and managing collaborative research grants worth more than $19.6 million, including those from the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. National Science Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Energy Technology Development and Demonstration Program of Denmark, the Danish Council for Independent Research, and the European Commission. In the United Kingdom, he has served as a Principal Investigator on projects funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, Natural Environment Research Council, and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

    CLICK HERE, for Darren McCauley.

    3. The Paper Itself

    Humanizing sociotechnical transitions through energy justice: An ethical framework for global transformative change
    Kirsten Jenkins, Benjamin K. Sovacool, Darren McCauley

    Not even kidding. That is the title of the paper.

    ABSTRACT
    Poverty, climate change and energy security demand awareness about the interlinkages between energy systems and social justice. Amidst these challenges, energy justice has emerged to conceptualize a world where all individuals, across all areas, have safe, affordable and sustainable energy that is, essentially, socially just. Simultaneously, new social and technological solutions to energy problems continually evolve, and interest in the concept of sociotechnical transitions has grown. However, an element often missing from such transitions frameworks is explicit engagement with energy justice frameworks. Despite the development of an embryonic set of literature around these themes, an obvious research gap has emerged: can energy justice and transitions frameworks be combined? This paper argues that they can. It does so through an exploration of the multi-level perspective on sociotechnical systems and an integration of energy justice at the model’s niche, regime and landscape level. It presents the argument that it is within the overarching process of sociotechnical change that issues of energy justice emerge. Here, inattention to social justice issues can cause injustices, whereas attention to them can provide a means to examine and potential resolve them

    This article is the first time I have encountered the term “energy justice”. Rather than simply dealing with a problem in a scientific and factual way, the authors add some social-justice element to it. The abstract doesn’t really explain how this works. Hopefully the body will.

    Thus, it calls for greater engagement with the three-tenet energy justice approach (distributional justice, procedural justice and justice as recognition) when planning for more sustainable transitions.

    Energy justice apparently consists of:

    • Distributional justice
    • Procedural justice
    • Justice as recognition

    Okay, but that doesn’t really explain what it is.

    Amidst serious sustainability challenges, transitions frameworks have evolved to either conceptualize or facilitate decarbonised energy systems that provide both security of supply and universal access to energy; a process that it is widely acknowledged will require new ways of producing, living and working with energy (Bridge et al., 2013; Heffron and McCauley, 2018; IEA, 2008; Mernier, 2007). In aiming to implement sociotechnical solutions, governments are increasingly utilising the language of transitions, and the concept has begun to feature in the energy policies of countries including Denmark, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (UK)

    Some points that should be addressed:

    • They are quite blunt (and proud it seems) that their language is filtering into government activity.
    • Provide universal supply of energy? Is this meant to be some sort of socialist or communist idea?
    • Has it sunk in that if you remove all Carbon forms of energy that it will reduce supply, and make your universal supply harder to obtain?
    • When you say a “new way of living”, does this mean reducing the standard of living in the West to ensure that everyone has access to the same amount of energy?

    Yet despite ongoing debates about ethics or justice across many fields of literature (including extended discussions between antagonist camps that have gone on across the history of political philosophy), one social element missing from transitions frameworks is explicit, practice oriented engagement with the energy justice concept and related approaches to justice concerns. Eames and Hunt (2013) draw attention to the fact that considerations of equity and justice are underrepresented within the sociotechnical transitions literature and the wider energy transitions debate, despite the fact that the concept of sustainable development, the target of many transition plans, is inherently rooted in these core notions (Hopwood et al., 2005). Transitions literatures can also fail to give due consideration to issues of landscape, health and existing property values too (Jefferson, 2017).

    More points to be looked at:

    • This seems a shameless attempt to turn what is supposed to be an environmental issue into a “social justice”, and hence blur the lines.
    • “Equity and justice” and terms that need to be rammed into discussions.
    • It appears that including “social justice” would be a way to better market their ideas. They don’t seem to make an actual connection though.
    • If a platform needs to latch on to overused buzzwords to sell itself, then it’s probably not a very good platform.

    Failure to adequately engage with questions of justice throughout the transition process is dangerous. It may lead to aggravated poverty, entrenched gender bias and non-participation as outcomes or by-products of ‘blinkered’ decision-making. Indeed, without a focus on justice, transitions may fail to acknowledge the burdens of having too much energy, such as waste, over-consumption and pollution, or from not having enough, where some individuals lack access, are challenged by under-consumption and poverty, and may face health burdens and shortened lives as a consequence of restricted energy choices (Sovacool et al.,2016a). This paper therefore utilizes the energy justice concept as a way of engaging with these ethical dilemmas within pre-existing transitions frameworks.

    More nonsense which requires a response:

    • There is an obsession with redefining terms to suit an agenda.
    • This is energy we are talking about, not poverty, gender bias, or non-participation. That’s right, they really played the “gender” card here.
    • Burden of having too much? Can I assume the solution is to force sharing? Or rather, to force “rich” nations to hand over energy supplies?
    • Engaging with these ethical dilemmas? You haven’t demonstrated any sort of cause and effect yet.

    The origins of the energy justice literature is largely reported as coming from activist accounts of energy issues using the environmental justice frame – a precursor to the energy justice concept which shares overlapping philosophical groundings

    That’s right. A bunch of activists made this up.

    Specifically, as environmental justice is commonly defined as the distribution of environmental hazards and access to all natural resources; it includes equal protection from burdens, meaningful involvement in decisions, and fair treatment in access to benefits……….. This approach forms the basis of the energy justice approach and framework. However, mentions of its core notions also appear elsewhere, including in the guise of the “three A’s” of availability, accessibility and affordability

    It reads like the sort of nonsense one would get in a gender studies class. Only thing is that “energy” is being substituted for here.

    note in this regard, that even ‘a “low-carbon” transition has the potential to distribute its costs and benefits just as unequally [as historical fossil-based transitions] without governance mindful of distributional justice’ or, as an extension, without attention to the issues of justice as recognition and due process–energy justice tenets we explore below. We argue that the energy justice concept provides one way of filling this gap.

    Here, we get into some straight up Communism. Is it true that costs and benefits don’t impact everyone equally? Yes. However, there is no practical way to do this. Either you would have to forcefully arrange differences in benefits and costs to “make things right”, or you would have to alter everyone’s standard of living so that they were equal.

    Guess the road to Hell could use a re-paving.

    Throughout, we present three main claims, each coinciding with a level in the MLP model; the niche, regime, and landscape:

    (1) That the energy justice concept can expose exclusionary and/or inclusionary technological and social niches before they develop, leading to potentially new and socially just innovation;

    (2) That in addition to using the MLP to describe regimes, the energy justice framework provides a way for these actors to normatively judge them, potentially destabilising existing regimes using moral criteria;

    (3) That framing energy justice as a matter of priority at the landscape level could exert pressure on the regime below, leading to the widespread reappraisal of our energy choices, and integration of moral criteria.

    (1) Sounds like a way to vilify or outcast technology that is scientifically sound, because it doesn’t meet their criteria.
    (2) Appears to be a method of using peer pressure and social pressure as a way of destabilizing systems.
    (3) Comes across as more overt propaganda.

    This governance focus means that the socio-technical literature increasingly acknowledges the political dynamics related to the process through which innovations scale, diffuse or entrench. We focus here on the most prominent socio-technical transitions framework, the multi-level perspective (MLP). The MLP takes the form of a series of nested levels, the niche, regime, and landscape

    Nothing scientific. Purely political manoeuvering.

    Analysis through the energy justice lens reveals that although electric vehicles (EVs) do have laudable environmental (and social) attributes, they can be exclusionary in the sense that they can perpetuate already widening gaps between the wealthy and poor, as well as potentially raising new forms and geographies of injustice – distributional and justice as recognition concerns.

    I thought the point was protecting the environment. But here, they talk about how electric cars will not impact everyone equally, even if they do have considerable environmental benefits. Again, is this an argument in favour of socialism or communism?

    Equal opportunity v.s. equal outcome.

    In addition to applications in niches, the energy justice framework can support the current role of the MLP to describe regimes by providing a means for policy actors to normatively judge them—exposing unjust practices and resultantly, increasing regime ‘humanisation’. We illustrate this first through the exploration of nuclear power and hydroelectric power production, regimes in which there is some consensus that technological development and lock-in raises issues of justice, or injustice. We identify that the metrics, frameworks, or checklists presented above – as well as the three-tenet framework of energy justice more generally – provide a means of normatively judging both planned and current energy and future sociotechnical regimes, leading to potential re-evaluation of our energy selection criteria. These approaches also recognise the need to politicise the actualisation of energy justice itself.

    Finally some honesty. This is a political agenda.

    And working to “humanize” a movement? What happened to simply relying on scientific consensus?

    4. Conclusions From The Paper

    Energy decisions are all too frequently made in a moral vacuum, culminating in a strong normative case for combining the literature on sociotechnical transitions with concepts arising from energy justice. Moreover, we illustrate that energy justice can play a role at each level of one of the more expansive sociotechnical transitions frameworks, the MLP. Within this latter contribution, (1) the energy justice concept could expose exclusionary niches, (2) provide a means for actors to normatively judge regimes, and (3) through the framing of energy justice at the landscape level foster the reappraisal of our energy choices and integration of moral principles. Across all stages of this argument, we present a case for not only mitigating environmental impacts of energy production via sociotechnical change, but doing so in an ethically defensible, socially just way.

    To repeat, this is not about environmental protection. It is about blending a social justice causes and lingo into an unrelated topic.

    Our caveats come as recognition of the intricacies of politics and political processes around energy transitions and energy justice. For as Meadowcroft (2009) highlights, long-term change is likely to be even messier and more contested than the transitions literature discusses. Indeed, there are likely to be political aspects that approaches such as the MLP are ill equipped to negotiate, and trade-offs that a tenet approach to energy justice cannot entirely resolve.

    This may be the most honest thing they say. Politically, this is a very tough sell. They also admit that there “energy justice” approach will not answer the hard questions.

    Nonetheless, they still cover those facts in academic jargon.

    5. My Own Thoughts

    The authors keep repeating that they are just “framing the issue”. In reality, they are publishing propaganda.

    There is nothing scientific that the paper adds. There is no building on previous work, or fact checking of previous research. It is entirely about manipulating people to their cause by pretending it is a “social justice” issue. This is blatant activism, masquerading as science.

    I also noticed a lot of overlap with the Frank W. Geels article. Do they merely cite each other, or do they just republish the same articles over and over again?

    This environmental movement seems to have a lot of self-inflicted problems. For example, this obsession with “energy justice” and other non-issues actually stonewalls progress that they could have made.

    Posted on

    Court Of Appeal Rules Doctors Must Provide Abortions/Euthanasia, or Provide Referal

    (article from Christian Legal Fellowship)

    (Lifesite news also covered this)

    1. Other Articles on Abortion/Infanticide

    (1) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-universities-fighting-against-free-speech-and-free-association-in-court/
    (2) https://canucklaw.ca/the-new-lindsay-shepherd-statistics-are-now-violence-infanticide-2/
    (3) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-part-3-ny-virginia-to-legalise-up-to-birth-abortion/
    (4) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-part-4-leave-no-survivors/
    (5) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-5-un-endorses-abortion-as-human-right-even-for-kids/
    (6) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-6-fallout-and-some-pushback/

    2. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for Ontario Court of Appeals ruling, May 15, 2019.
    CLICK HERE, for the Ontario Divisional Court ruling, January 31, 2018.
    CLICK HERE, for R.v. Oakes (balancing test)
    CLICK HERE, for Carter v. Canada (struck down assisted suicide laws).
    CLICK HERE, for Ontario Human Rights Code.
    CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Charter.
    CLICK HERE, for some Charter cases.
    CLICK HERE, for Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 (standard for review)

    Miscellaneous Articles
    CLICK HERE, for woman who tries to drown newborn gets only 1 year.
    CLICK HERE, for a Maclean’s article on “assault on women’s rights”.
    CLICK HERE, for Roe (as in Roe v Wade), becomes anti-abortion activist.

    3. Brief Introduction


    The case above is one of Ontario doctors refusing to provide certain “reproductive health services” (a.k.a. abortion), and “medical assistance in dying” MAiD (a.k.a. euthanasia). Not only did they refuse to provide these services, they refused to help with the referrals procedures to others who would.

    The Appellants refused on religious grounds. They claimed that requiring them to participate in these “medical services” violated their consciences and religious convictions. To be fair, we are talking about killing unborn children, eldery, and terminal patients. The other extreme would be more disturbing.

    Their regulatory body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, says if they won’t perform such “health care services”, then they must help the patients get referred to doctors who will.

    The Ontario Divisional Court agreed that this was the case. And now the Ontario Court of Appeals has upheld that ruling. Will this go to the Supreme Court of Canada? We will see.

    4. Court of Appeal Exerps

    E. Issues
    [57] The appeal raises the following issues:
    (1) What is the applicable standard of review and is the Doré/Loyola framework or the Oakes framework applicable to this case?
    (2) Do the effective referral requirements of the Policies infringe the appellants’ s. 2(a) freedom of conscience and religion?
    (3) Do the effective referral requirements of the Policies infringe the appellants’ s. 15(1) equality rights?
    (4) If there is an infringement of the appellants’ Charter rights and/or freedoms, is it justified under s. 1 of the Charter?

    Standard Of Review

    [59] The normal rules of appellate review of lower court decisions, articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 (CanLII), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, apply on this appeal. Questions of law are reviewed on a correctness standard, and questions of fact and mixed fact and law are reviewed on a standard of palpable and overriding error: Housen, at paras. 8, 10, 36-37. The Divisional Court’s selection and application of the correctness standard to the Policies is a question of law and is accordingly reviewed by this court on a correctness standard.

    If it is a question of fact, the standard is “overriding palpable error”. In essence, Appeals Courts tend to “give deference” to the Trial Judge since he/she is in a much better position to actually judge the case.

    In questions of law, the standard is the correctness of the law itself.

    In questions of mixed law and fact are viewed more towards “overriding palpable error”.

    Religious Freedom

    [62] In Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32 (CanLII), [2018] 2 S.C.R. 293, at para. 62, the Supreme Court adopted the definition of religious freedom expressed in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at p. 336:

    [T]he right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination.

    [63] At para. 63, the court set out the requirements of the test:
    [F]irst, that he or she sincerely believes in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion; and second, that the impugned state conduct interferes, in a manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial, with his or her ability to act in accordance with that practice or belief.
    This was the test applied by the Divisional Court, referring to Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 (CanLII), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551, at para. 56. See also Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567, at para. 32.

    [64] The sincerity of belief and interference are conceded. But the College contends that the interference is trivial and insubstantial and does not contravene s. 2(a).

    [65] I disagree. To explain my reasons, it is necessary to examine the appellants’ beliefs and their objections to performing or referring patients for the procedures at issue.

    All parties agree the beliefs are sincere. The College says it is trivial, while the Panel disagrees.

    Section 15 and Equality

    [87] The Divisional Court referred to the two-part test for establishing a breach of s. 15(1) articulated in Taypotat, at paras. 19-20: (1) whether, on its face or in its impact, a law creates a distinction on the basis of an enumerated or analogous ground; and (2) whether the impugned law fails to respond to the actual capacities and needs of the members of the group and instead imposes burdens or denies benefits in a manner that has the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating or exacerbating their disadvantage.

    [88] The focus of the inquiry is “whether a distinction has the effect of perpetuating arbitrary disadvantage on the claimant because of his or her membership in an enumerated or analogous group” such that it is a “discriminatory distinction”: Taypotat, at paras. 16, 18; and Quebec (Attorney General) v. A., 2013 SCC 5 (CanLII), [2013] 1 S.C.R. 61, at para. 331

    [89] Applying this test, the Divisional Court dismissed the appellants’ claim that the Policies infringe their equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter. Without deciding whether the Policies create a distinction on the basis of religion, the Divisional Court held that the Policies do not have the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating or exacerbating a disadvantage or promoting prejudice against religious physicians. Nor do they restrict access to a fundamental social institution or impede full membership in Canadian society.

    To put it mildly, the Courts have decided that not all “equality rights” are treated equally. In other words, it is okay to discriminate on the basis of “protected grounds” as long as it falls within certain guidelines.

    Allowed Under Section 1?

    [97] The onus at this stage is on the College to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the infringement of the appellants’ freedom of religion is a reasonable limit, demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society: Multani, at para. 43.
    [98] In Oakes, at pp. 135 and 138-39, Dickson C.J. articulated a framework for the s. 1 analysis, which can be summarized as follows:
    (a) the Charter-infringing measure must be “prescribed by law”;
    (b) the objective of the impugned measure must be of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom;
    (c) the means chosen must be reasonable and demonstrably justified – this is a “form of proportionality test” which will vary in the circumstances, but requires a balancing of the interests of society with the interests of individuals and groups and has three components:
    (i) the measure must be rationally connected to the objective – i.e., carefully designed to achieve the objective and not arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations;
    (ii) the means chosen should impair the Charter right or freedom as little as possible; and
    (iii)there must be proportionality between the salutary and deleterious effects of the measure.

    This is a fairly lengthy section, but this lays out the groundwork for determining whether Charter violations can otherwise be “saved”. Are there justifiable public interests in the breaches that are affirmed? Ultimately, the Court of Appeals said yes. These violations were justified on other grounds.

    [186] The Fact Sheet identifies options that are clearly acceptable to many objecting physicians. Those who do not find them acceptable may be able to find other practice structures that will insulate them from participation in actions to which they object. If they cannot do so, they will have to seek out other ways in which to use their skills, training and commitment to patient care. I do not underestimate the individual sacrifices this may require. The Divisional Court correctly found, however, that the burden of these sacrifices did not outweigh the harm to vulnerable patients that would be caused by any reasonable alternative. That conclusion is not undermined by the fresh evidence before this court. Even taking the burden imposed on physicians at its most onerous, as framed by the appellants, the salutary effects of the Policies still outweigh the deleterious effects.

    [187] As the Divisional Court observed, the appellants have no common law, proprietary or constitutional right to practice medicine. As members of a regulated and publicly-funded profession, they are subject to requirements that focus on the public interest, rather than their interests. In fact, the fiduciary nature of the physician-patient relationship requires physicians to act at all times in their patients’ best interests, and to avoid conflicts between their own interests and their patients’ interests:

    5. Closing Thoughts


    This is the heart of the conclusion:
    (A) Doctors have other options
    (B) Doctors can alter their practice
    (C) Public interest comes first
    (D) Medicine is a publicly regulated profession.

    One thing needs to be pointed out though: just because something is LEGAL, doesn’t make it MORAL. Abortion and euthanasia are killing. Period.

    Although both abortion and assisted suicide have no criminal penalties against them, there are still huge scientific and moral arguments against both. This will be a topic for a coming piece.

    If a person believes that carrying out just “health care services” amounts to murder, that is okay. But wouldn’t referrals of such procedures make a doctor an accessory to murder? Although one degree removed, the moral objection would be the same.

    Bottom line: provide the service, or refer to someone else who will. You’re here to serve the public.