Category: Identity/Religion

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #14: Let’s Replace The Canadian Population

Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG”
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.

1. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda Masterlist.

(CBC wants less Canadian children)
CLICK HERE, for “we’re only having 1 kids, and that’s okay”.
CLICK HERE, for beware of middle child syndrome.
CLICK HERE, for criticizing those with too many kids.
CLICK HERE, for why I only have 1 child.
CLICK HERE, for childless women changing culture.
CLICK HERE, for not teaching a daughter to be polite.
CLICK HERE, have less children to lower emissions.

(and in case you think CBC just wants less children in general)
CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism is critical to Canada.
CLICK HERE, for border walls are useless.
CLICK HERE, for nothing will stop migration.
CLICK HERE, for Europe should have open borders.
CLICK HERE, for Hungary’s Orban is a dictator for rejecting migration.
CLICK HERE, for bigot Orban wanting a Christian nation.
CLICK HERE, for Global Migration Compact is harmless.
CLICK HERE, for Canada having 100M people by year 2100.

(and to everyone’s favourite benevolent founder>
CLICK HERE, for Soros is misunderstood.
CLICK HERE, for Soros bullied out of Hungary.
CLICK HERE, for Canada joining UN, Soros, to sponsor refugees.

3. Why This Is Important


There are many, many more links on both subjects, but this should provide sufficient evidence for now. CBC, Canada’s government run “news” agency, consistently reports on both of these topics.

    CBC pushes both:

  1. Reducing Canadian birth rate; and
  2. Mass migration of foreigners

What are the consequences of these 2 initiatives? Well, when Canadians have less children, their birthrate falls, and the population declines. When you have mass migration, the declining population of Canadians is replaced by migrants and their descendants.

Think this is hyperbole? Consider these points:

  • Shame families with many children
  • Having 1 kid is okay
  • Childless is the new culture
  • Have fewer kids to save the planet

….. and on the other side:

  • Borders are immoral and pointless
  • Multiculturalism is part of Canada
  • Only bigots reject migration
  • Canada’s population needs to be much bigger

    • 4. Consider Both Narratives

    First, starting with the fearmongering piece that climate change is destructive and can only be mitigated by altering human behaviour:

    >What’s the single best decision you can make if you want to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) being released into the atmosphere?

    That’s the question UBC researcher Seth Wynes and his co-author Kimberly Nicholas set out to answer in a new paper published this week.

    Their answer? Have fewer children.

    The other three choices they identified were eating a plant-based diet, avoiding air travel and giving up personal vehicles. But by their reasoning, having one fewer child overwhelmingly outweighs all other choices, due to all of the GHGs that child would be responsible for emitting over the course of their life.

    “To put it simply, adding another person to the planet who uses more resources and produces more carbon dioxide is always going to make a large contribution to climate change,” Wynes said.

    And on the flip side of the “have fewer children” message, do you think that these people will recommend much, MUCH reduced immigration so as to reduce emissions? Nope, not a chance. From the “Century Initiative” promotion:

    If Canada sticks with current practices, our population will grow to between 51 to 53 million by the end of the century.

    A non-profit group called The Century Initiative advocates doubling that, to 100 million. That’s about triple our current population.

    “We recognize that it may be counterintuitive,” Shari Austin, CEO of the Century Initiative, told The Sunday Edition’s guest host Peter Armstrong.

    It’s the only way, she argued, that Canada can face the economic challenges ahead and strengthen its international influence.

    Currently, Canada accepts 310,000 immigrants per year. The Century Initiative suggests that number should be closer to 450,000.

    “It’s a big, audacious goal,” she conceded. But it has been done before. Since 1945 to the present day, Canada’s population has tripled.

    “A mix of people wanting to contribute to the economy and wanting to have children,” Austin explained.

    That doesn’t mean that refugees aren’t welcome.

    “We also have ethical obligations to make sure we do our fair share to help bring people to a better life,” she clarified.

    She also sees this as a way to create “a more diverse, more interesting, dynamic population.”

    “It’s an exciting opportunity to be proactive about what we want to look like in fifty years, in a hundred years. It’s also an opportunity to leave a better world for our kids and our grandkids.”

    It is interesting the contrast in the arguments.
    CBC uses ENVIRONMENTAL and HEALTH reasons to push for less Canadians to have less children. However,
    CBC uses ECONOMIC and MULTICULTURAL claims to push for more immigration (or migration)

    Nice bait-and-switch.

    To be fair, CBC does have many authors and contributors. However, the overall pattern is impossible to ignore. CBC regularly releases content pushing for Canadians to have less children. At the same time it sings the praises of open borders, mass migration and multiculturalism.

    5. George Soros Puff Piece

    The financier is also famously active as a philanthropist. Through his Open Society Foundations, he has given billions to NGOs in more than 100 countries to “build vibrant and tolerant democracies,” according to its website.

    Why is Soros controversial?

    Emily Tamkin, a staff writer for Foreign Policy magazine, compares Soros’s public image to a mirror in the Harry Potter novels. When a character looked in that fictional mirror, they would see what they desired most.

    “He’s like that, but with the thing that you revile most,” she told The Current’s Anna Maria Tremonti.

    CBC also has done many flattering puff pieces on Soros. They claim he is misunderstood, and that it is bigots projecting their own prejudices onto him. No real objectivity here.

    6. Is This Illegal?

    Under the letter of the law, probably not. But consider the following:

    Marginal note:
    Public incitement of hatred
    319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
    Marginal note:

    Wilful promotion of hatred
    (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    Does this promote hate and harm against Canadians? I would think so, but sadly no judge ever would. The CBC, which uses our tax dollars to advocate for our own replacement is just so wrong.

    7. StatsCan Aware Of Decline


    Here is a recent report:

    Fertility rates among Canadian women continue to decrease

    The total fertility rate (TFR) for 2015 was 1,563 births per 1,000 women. In 2016, the TFR was 1,543 births per 1,000 women. The TFR in Canada has shown a general decline since 2008, when it was 1,681 births per 1,000 women. The TFR is an estimate of the average number of live births that 1,000 women would have in their lifetime, based on the age-specific fertility rates of a given year.

    Taking mortality between birth and 15 years of age into consideration, developed countries such as Canada need an average of around 2,060 children per 1,000 females to renew their population based on natural increase and without taking immigration into account. The last year in which Canada attained fertility levels sufficient to replace its current population was 1971.

    While the TFR is a good indicator of fertility in Canada as a whole, this national average can hide major provincial and territorial differences. From 2000 to 2016, Nunavut was the only province or territory to consistently have fertility levels above the replacement rate, with a TFR of 2,986 live births per 1,000 women in 2016. With the exception of the Prairie provinces and the Northwest Territories, every other province and territory had TFRs during this period that rarely exceeded 1,700 births per 1,000 women.

    In 2016, for the 16th consecutive year, Saskatchewan had the highest TFR among the provinces, at 1,934 births per 1,000 women. It was followed by Manitoba (1,847), the Northwest Territories (1,793) and Alberta (1,694). British Columbia was the province with the lowest fertility rate at 1,404 births per 1,000 women, followed by Nova Scotia (1,422) and Newfoundland and Labrador (1,425).

    Sustainable Development Goals

    On January 1, 2016, the world officially began implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development — the United Nations’ transformative plan of action that addresses urgent global challenges over the next 15 years. The plan is based on 17 specific sustainable development goals.

    The Births release is an example of how Statistics Canada supports the reporting on the Global Goals for Sustainable Development. This release will be used in helping to measure the following goal:

    Forgot to mention, population control is part of Agenda 2030.

    Few Canadian Kids + Mass Migration = Demographic Replacement

    Final thought: Consider this policy idea, previously published.

    Posted on

    UN High Level Panel On Global Sustainability – Jordan Peterson Co-Authors

    Jordan Peterson contributed to the U.N. Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Sustainable Development. This certainly raises a lot of questions.

    1. Free Speech Hypocrisy

    2. Important Links

    (1) Peterson deplatforms Faith Goldy at free speech event
    (2) Peterson’s free speech cognitive dissonance
    (3) Peterson Threatens To Sue A Critic
    (4) Peterson files frivolous lawsuit against Laurier University
    (5) http://archive.ipu.org/splz-e/rio+20/rpt-panel.pdf
    (6) Sustainable Development Agenda Unformatted Final Text
    (7) https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/untaskteam_undf/HLP%20P2015%20Report.pdf
    (8) HLP P2015 Report Sustainable Development Agenda
    (9) https://www.un.org/sg/sites/www.un.org.sg/files/documents/management/PRpost2015.pdf
    (10) High Level Panel Rpost 2015
    (11) https://uscib.org/docs/GSPReportOverview_A4%20size.pdf
    (12) Resilient People Resilient Planet GSP Report Overview
    (13) https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/722600?ln=en#record-files-collapse-header
    (14) High Level Panel On Sustainable Development Peterson Named
    (15) https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/about/
    (16) Peterson Confirms UN Involvement (See 1:09)
    (17) Peterson Again Confirms UNSDA Involvement With Publication
    (18) https://nationalpost.com/news/world/jordan-petersons-popular-12-rules-book-banned-by-new-zealand-booksellers-because-of-christchurch-mosque-massacre
    (19) https://hlpf.un.org/

    Note: At the risk of this looking like a hit-piece, the right in Canada should be very wary about embracing this “free speech” warrior as one of their own.

    And what did this work ultimately contribute to?

    3. UN Agenda 2030

    Peterson’s Biography

    Raised and toughened in the frigid wastelands of Northern Alberta, Dr. Peterson has flown a hammer-head roll in a carbon-fiber stuntplane, piloted a mahogany racing sailboat around Alcatraz Island, explored an Arizona meteorite crater with a group of astronauts, built a Native American Long-House on the upper floor of his Toronto home, and been inducted into a Pacific Kwakwaka’wakw family (see charlesjoseph.ca). He’s been a dishwasher, gas jockey, bartender, short-order cook, beekeeper, oil derrick bit re-tipper, plywood mill laborer and railway line worker. He’s taught mythology to physicians, lawyers, and businessmen; worked with Jim Balsillie, former CEO of Blackberry’s Research in Motion, on Resilient People, Resilient Planet, the report of the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Global Sustainability; helped his clinical clients manage the triumphs and catastrophes of life; served as an advisor to senior partners of major Canadian law firms; penned the forward for the 50th anniversary edition of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago; lectured to more than 250,000 people across North America, Europe and Australia in one of the most-well attended book tours ever mounted; and, for The Founder Institute, identified thousands of promising entrepreneurs, in 60 different countries.

    So What’s In This Report?

    Disclaimer: The members of the panel endorse the report and generally agree with its findings. The members think that the message of this report is very important. The recommendations and the vision represent the consensus the panel members reached, but not every view expressed in this report reflects the views of all individual panel members. panel members naturally have different perspectives on some issues. if each panel member had individually attempted to write this report, she or he might have used different terms to express similar points. The panel members look forward to the report stimulating wide public dialogue and strengthening the common endeavour to promote global sustainable development.

    Let’s set this straight. The members, by and large, support the content of the report. Although there may be small discrepancies, on the whole they agree with the content.

    The panel also wishes to thank the civil society organizations that shared their valuable ideas and views during a series of consultations coordinated by the United Nations Non-Governmental liaison service. The full list of contributors from civil society is available from www.un-ngls.org/gsp. furthermore, the panel interacted at various meetings with senior representatives of the following organizations: civicUs: World alliance for citizen participation, eTc Group, the Global campaign for climate action, the huairou commission, oxfam international, stakeholder forum, sustainUs and the World resources institute.

    Interesting list of “organizations” that shared their views.

    Priority Areas For action Include:


    • delivering on the fundamentals of development: international commitments to eradicate poverty, promote human rights and human security and advance gender equality
    • advancing education for sustainable development, including secondary and vocational education, and building of skills to help ensure that all of society can contribute to solutions that address today’s challenges and capitalize on opportunities
    • creating employment opportunities, especially for women and youth, to drive green and sustainable growth
    • enabling consumers to make sustainable choices and advance responsible behaviour individually and collectively
    • Managing resources and enabling a twenty-first-century green revolution: agriculture, oceans and coastal systems, energy and technology, international cooperation
    • building resilience through sound safety nets, disaster risk reduction and adaptation planning

    1/ As with all UN causes, a virtue signal towards human rights and gender equality.

    2/ Advancing education? Propaganda in the classrooms?

    3/ Make work projects with age and gender quotas. Okay.

    4/ Advance responsible behaviour? Will there be some sort of “social credit system”?

    5/ Environmental systems to be managed globally

    6/ Disaster reduction, as in climate change I assume

    Policy Action Needed On

    • incorporating social and environmental costs in regulating and pricing of goods and services, as well as addressing market failures
    • creating an incentive road map that increasingly values long-term sustainable development in investment and financial transactions
    • increasing finance for sustainable development, including public and private funding and partnerships to mobilize large volumes of new financing
    • expanding how we measure progress in sustainable development by creating a sustainable development index or set of indicators

    This is going to be a globalist money pit, with cash flooding from all over the world to achieve some vague goals. And regulating the costs of goods and services? How very Communistic of you.

    (Page 50, Box 13): The Growing Use of Emissions Trading
    “cap and trade” emissions trading systems allow environmental damage to be reflected in market prices. by capping emissions, they guarantee that the desired level of emission reduction is achieved; and by allowing trading, they give business the flexibility to find the cheapest solutions, while rewarding investment in low-carbon technologies and innovation.

    This is the climate change scam on steroids. Carbon dioxide is not pollution, despite what the UN says. Under this scheme, “pollution” can be offset by buying credits, which of course does nothing to actually reduce emissions.

    (Page 64): Institutionalised Governance
    The present section examines aspects of governance and coherence for sustainable development at the national and global levels. it also pays special attention to holding all actors accountable for achieving sustainable development, and many of the recommendations put forward are designed to strengthen accountability at all decision making levels

    This is taking the actual decision making ability away from the people who are elected by and accountable to their citizens.

    (Page 30) Education
    67. investing in education and training provides a direct channel to advancing the sustainable development agenda. it is widely recognized as a tremendously efficient means to promote individual empowerment and lift generations out of poverty, and it yields important development benefits for young people, particularly women.
    .
    68. primary education for all, in particular, is a precondition for sustainable development. despite real progress, we are still not on track to achieving Millennium development Goal 2 by ensuring that all children, boys and girls alike, achieve a full course of primary schooling by 2015. instead, 67 million children of primary school age remain out of school and are still not receiving a primary education. The gap is especially critical for girls, who as of 2008 still made up more than 53 per cent of the out-of-school population. basic education is essential to overcoming barriers to their future employment and political participation, as women presently constitute roughly two thirds of the 793 million adult illiterates worldwide.
    .
    69. The Millennium development Goal on universal primary education has not yet been met, owing in part to insufficient funds, although other barriers exist. international means to supplement funds and support local and national efforts could help to overcome challenges such as teacher shortages and lack of infrastructure. The World bank’s Global partnership for education provides one model to help countries develop and implement sound education strategies.
    .
    70. While primary education is the foundation of development, post-primary and secondary education and vocational training are as crucial in building a sustainable future. every added year of education in developing countries increases an individual’s income by 10 per cent or more on average. studies also show that women in developing countries who complete secondary school have on average one child fewer than women who complete only primary school, leading to more economic wealth within families and decreased intergenerational poverty. Moreover, post-primary education based on a curriculum designed to develop key competencies for a twenty-first-century economy — such as ecosystem management, science, technology and engineering — can encourage innovation and accelerate technology transfer, as well as provide skills vital for new green jobs. yet today it is estimated that fewer than a quarter of children complete secondary school.

    I can’t be the only one thinking that this “global” education push will just lead to propaganda to be used against children. Rather than teaching the basics, kids will be indoctrinated about how to be good global citizens.

    Also worth noting, wherever this education takes root, it leads to young children being exposed to highly sexual content.

    4. (Page 54) Innovative Sources of Financing
    158. other innovative sources of financing can be used at the global, regional or national level as a way of pricing externalities, as well as of generating revenue that can be used to finance other aspects of sustainability. The reform of tax systems to shift taxation away from employment and towards consumption and resource use can help incentivize greener, more resource-efficient growth. Tax deductions to incentivize sustainable behaviour can also be highly effective.
    .
    159. While the political acceptability of innovative sources of finance and new fiscal measures will vary by country, as past efforts have shown, recent years have seen particular attention paid to the potential for this kind of approach to be used at the global level. The panel discussed and agreed on the need to further explore new areas of innovative sources of finance. This could build on, for instance, the work of the high-level advisory Group of the secretary-General on climate change financing. in terms of sources, a number of categories were identified by the advisory Group (see box 16).
    .
    160. a number of important sectors of the global economy are currently untaxed, despite the externalities they generate; these include emissions from fossil fuel combustion in the international maritime and aviation sectors. a tax on the most important energy-related greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, would be another economically efficient means of addressing externalities.

    recommendation 27
    161. governments should establish price signals that value sustainability to guide the consumption and investment decisions of households, businesses and the public sector. in particular, governments could:
    .
    a. establish natural resource and externality pricing instruments, including carbon pricing, through mechanisms such as taxation, regulation or emissions trading systems, by 2020;
    .
    b. ensure that policy development reflects the positive benefits of the inclusion of women, youth and the poor through their full participation in and contribution to the economy, and also account for the economic, environmental and social costs;
    .
    c. reform national fiscal and credit systems to provide long-term incentives for sustainable practices, as well as disincentives for unsustainable behaviour;
    .
    d. Develop and expand national and international schemes for payments for ecosystem services in such areas as water use, farming, fisheries and forestry systems;
    .
    e. Address price signals that distort the consumption and investment decisions of households, businesses and the public sector and undermine sustainability values. governments should move towards the transparent disclosure of all subsidies, and should identify and remove those subsidies which cause the greatest detriment to natural, environmental and social resources;
    .
    f. Phase out fossil fuel subsidies and reduce other perverse or trade-distorting subsidies by 2020. The reduction of subsidies must be accomplished in a manner that protects the poor and eases the transition for affected groups when the products or services concerned are essential.

    4. Some Reflection

    This is all about finding new ways to tax people, and regulate their behaviour. Absolutely leads to complete government control. Worst of all, it wouldn’t even be our government doing the regulating.

    The review will stop here, but please read through the document in its entirety. Anyone who supports it is no friend of freedom, or of sovereignty.

    Posted on

    UN Issues “Human Rights Compliant Guidance” For Treating Returning Terrorists

    (1) https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Human-Rights-Responses-to-Foreign-Fighters-web-final.pdf
    (2) UNCHR Human Rights Responses to Foreign Fighters or Terrorists
    (3) https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/FTF-Report-1-3_English.pdf
    (4) https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/4/7/393503_2.pdf
    (5) OSCE Guidelines for Addressing the Foreign Terrorists Fighters
    (6) https://stepstojustice.ca/steps/1-understand-grounds-detention

    “Guidance to States on human rights-compliant responses to the threat posed by foreign fighters”

    That title is a direct quote. The UN promotes “human rights-compliant responses” to terrorists who have left their country to take up arms against them, commit atrocities, then expect to be welcomed back.

    ” In June 2014, it was estimated that up to 12,000 people from more than 80 countries had travelled to Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic to join groups such as the Al-Nusrah Front and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). In September 2015, that number was thought to have grown to almost 30,000 from more than 100 countries. By August 2017, the flow of people to Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic had diminished dramatically in light of the military efforts against ISIL. In October 2017 it was estimated that over 40,000 people from more than 110 countries had joined ISIL, and that at least 5,600 of them had returned home.”

    1/ In 2014, 12,000 people across 80 countries travelled to Iraq and Syria.
    2/ In 2015, that number thought to be 30,000.
    3/ In 2017, thought to be 40,000.
    4/ At least 5,600 thought to have returned home.
    How is this not a crisis?

    “2. There is no clear profile for foreign terrorist fighters. Some are motivated by extremist ideology, while others appear more driven by alienation and boredom. Motivation may also change over time. Motivational factors may also include the desire to belong to a group or to gain peer acceptance; kinship, nationalism or patriotism; and humanitarian reasons, namely to protect the local population. Financial or material gain may also be a factor. The Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy points to prolonged unresolved conflicts, dehumanization of victims of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, lack of the rule of law and violations of human rights, ethnic, national and religious discrimination, political exclusion, socio-economic marginalization and lack of good governance conditions among the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism”

    This seems deliberately designed to avoid the obvious: above, 12,000-40,000 people were thought to have joined ISIS. You know what motivates them? ISLAM. This UN report dances around that point, and implies that any form of unhappiness or social exclusion leads to people joining.

    “3. The movement of people for the purposes of joining and supporting terrorist groups as well as their return to their countries of origin poses serious challenges to States in their efforts to prevent acts of terrorism. It is crucial that States adopt comprehensive long-term responses that deal with this threat and manage the return of fighters, and that in doing so they comply with their obligations under international human rights law. States have an obligation to protect the lives of individuals subject to their jurisdiction, and this includes the adoption of effective measures to counter the threat posed by foreign fighters. However, in its 2016 review of the Global Counter- Terrorism Strategy, the General Assembly expressed serious concern at the occurrence of violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms committed in the context of countering terrorism and stressed that, when counter-terrorism efforts neglected the rule of law and violated international law, they not only betrayed the values they sought to uphold, but they might also further fuel violent extremism that could be conducive to terrorism.”

    That’s right. The UN expects host nations to “manage” the return of foreign fighters, who — to be frank — are overwhelmingly muslim. Nations have an obligation to ensure that “their” human rights are not violated in any way.

    Curious to know: how does punishing them “further fuel violent extremism”? They are already violent, and anyone looking to join ISIS is a radical anyway.

    “5. In resolution 2178 (2014), the Security Council underscored that respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are complementary and mutually reinforcing with effective counter-terrorism measures, and are an essential part of a successful counter-terrorism effort. It noted the importance of respect for the rule of law so as to effectively prevent and combat terrorism, and that failure to comply with these and other international obligations, including under the Charter of the United Nations, is one of the factors contributing to increased radicalization and fosters a sense of impunity. The Counter-Terrorism Committee has noted the importance, as States revise legislation and policy to stem the flow of foreign terrorist fighters, to recognize that the protection of human rights and the rule of law contribute to the countering of terrorism. Arbitrary arrests, incommunicado detentions, torture and unfair trials fuel a sense of injustice and may in turn encourage terrorist recruitment, including of foreign terrorist fighters”

    This is asinine. Somehow, if nations were nice and tolerant to returning terrorists, and ensured they have all the human rights they rejected…. then people won’t turn to terrorism. Perhaps there is a flow of terrorists because host countries are weak. Something to consider.

    “7. In December 2017, the Security Council adopted resolution 2396 (2017), building on resolution 2178 (2014) and providing greater focus on measures to address returning and relocating foreign terrorist fighters and their families, and requiring States to strengthen their efforts in border security, information-sharing, and criminal justice. In order to protect public order and safety in the countries to which foreign terrorist fighters return or relocate, resolution 2396 (2017) sets out additional measures beyond those in resolution 2178 (2014), which may raise concerns from a human rights perspective”

    Interesting. Not only do we have obligations to terrorists, but to their families as well.

    ” The document then analyses the gender aspects and the situation of children affected by or involved in foreign fighter activities and provides guidance on how to ensure information exchange, data collection and analysis in conformity with human rights. The document then addresses criminal justice measures, including the definition of terrorism; prosecution, fair trial and due process rights; rehabilitation and reintegration of returnees; and special laws, sunset clauses and review mechanisms. Finally, the document provides guidance on the right to an effective remedy for those whose rights have been violated and on preventing and countering violent extremism and incitement.”

    Wouldn’t be the UN without a few gender references.

    You read that right: rehabilitation and reintegration of returnees.

    “11. Any measures undertaken to implement resolutions 2178 (2014), 2396 (2017) or other Security Council resolutions must comply with general human rights principles grounded in treaty law and customary law. This means that any measures which may limit or restrict human rights must be prescribed by law, be necessary, proportionate to the pursuance of legitimate aims and non-discriminatory. They should also be procedurally fair and offer the opportunity of legal review.“

    What do you consider reasonable then? Is leaving to go join ISIS not a valid reason for the host country to fear for the safety of its citizens, should you return? As far as legal process goes: how does one investigate in a war zone across the world?

    “13. In a limited set of circumstances, States may also take measures to temporarily derogate from certain international human rights law provisions. As noted by the Human Rights Committee, measures derogating from the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights must be of an exceptional and temporary nature. Two fundamental conditions must be met: the situation must amount to a public emergency which threatens the life of the nation; and the State party must have officially proclaimed a state of emergency. The obligation to limit any derogations to those strictly required by the exigencies of the situation reflects the principle of proportionality which is common to derogation and limitation powers.”

    Okay, from your criteria: #1 is met. These fighters are a threat to the public.
    As for #2, “why” must a public declaration be made?

    14. The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, along with regional refugee instruments,22 are the core legal instruments of the international refugee regime, complemented by customary international law and international human rights law. These instruments define the term “refugee” and establish an international framework for the protection of refugees

    These people are not refugees. UN is deliberately obfuscating here. They are terrorists, who “chose” to leave their country.

    “16. International humanitarian law is also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict and is applicable to both situations of international or non-international armed conflicts. These rules are enshrined in the four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, as well as in customary rules of international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons, civilians, who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities as well as fighters hors de combat and restricts the means and methods of warfare.“

    This is not an official war. People can’t just leave their country, join a foreign army, then expect to return afterwards. They have committed treason. It’s idiotic to claim that humanitarian law would apply to these people.

    “18. States have used different measures, whether legislative, administrative or operational, to prevent the departure of foreign fighters to conflict areas as well as to prevent their return. These could include travel bans, the seizure, retention, withdrawal and non-renewal of passports or identity cards, the stripping of citizenship, restrictions on travel or entry to territory and various types of house arrests or preventive detention. All of these measures have a serious impact on a number of fundamental human rights, including the rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement. They also raise a number of serious due process concerns if, for example, decisions are taken following secretive proceedings, in absentia or on the basis of vaguely defined criteria without adequate safeguards to prevent statelessness.“

    Here’s the thing: very few people would actually care if any terrorists were left stateless as a result. If you leave to take up arms against a nation or it’s allies, you are a TRAITOR. You have forfeited your rights to be a citizen.

    “21. The right to life, liberty and security of person is fundamental in international human rights law. It is the first substantive right protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Deprivation of liberty involves a more severe restriction on motion than merely interfering with freedom of movement. Examples of deprivation of liberty include arrest, imprisonment, house arrest, administrative detention and involuntary transportation, but may also include the cumulative effects of multiple restrictions on freedom of movement when, taken together, they would amount to a de facto deprivation of liberty. International human rights law protects against such deprivation of liberty, except on grounds of and in accordance with procedures established by law. But, even assuming that a deprivation of liberty is lawful, international human rights law also absolutely prohibits any deprivation of liberty that is arbitrary. The prohibition of arbitrary detention is non-derogable and must be understood to incorporate elements of “inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law as well as elements of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality”. The right to life is non-derogable, and the Human Rights Committee has stated that the fundamental guarantee against arbitrary detention is also non-derogable insofar as even situations that allow for derogations in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights cannot justify a deprivation of liberty that is unreasonable or unnecessary under the circumstances.”

    It would be nice if the UN at some point starts listing rights and protections that society should have.

    I’ll stop it here, but it goes on about ensuring that foreign fighters and terrorists have their human rights met. Ironic, since this group would never extend human rights or life to others.

    Noticeably absent is any concern for the populations of these countries. Returning terrorists will pose a risk to the public, most likely for life. However, the UN talks about “managing” those risks.

    Canadian Criminal Code:

    Purpose and Principles of Sentencing
    Marginal note:
    Purpose
    718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
    (a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
    (b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
    (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
    (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
    (e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
    (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

    I think that terrorism would certainly qualify under the first 3 criteria. We must (a) denounce the conduct; (b) deter the offender, and others, and (c) separate the offender from society. The other 3 are of much less concern.

    Grounds to Deny Bail

    The Crown considers 3 grounds of detention:
    Primary – You may not go to court when required.
    Secondary – You may commit another crime, or the public may not be safe while you’re out on bail.
    Tertiary – Because of the circumstances of your offence, the public might feel that the justice system is not working if you’re let out of custody.

    Terrorists would qualify on all 3 grounds.

    Regardless, the overwhelming majority of the public does not want these people coming back. Not now, not ever.

    Posted on

    Mastercard Is The Final Boss (Review)

    Video by ShortFatOtaku. This is based on the research from Nick Monroe, about payment processors refusing to do business with people based on their political ideologies.


    Matt Christiansen meets with Jacqueline Hart of Patreon. From this conversation, it becomes clear that a commitment to free speech isn’t on the agenda here.

    MasterCard partners with Mercy Corps
    MasterCard and George Soros
    MasterCard with Crossroads Foundation & World Economic Forum
    MasterCard with UNHCR for “digital aid”
    Digital Humanitarian Cash. (Long Video)

    (1) https://www.mastercard.us/en-us/about-mastercard/corp-responsibility/social-sustainability/the-mastercard-labs-for-financial-inclusion.html
    (2) https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/visa-mastercard-cut-off-all-credit-card-donations-to-us-says-us-conservativ
    (3) https://www.dailywire.com/news/34955/visa-mastercard-block-donations-david-horowitz-paul-bois
    (4) https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/mastercard_forces_funding_platform_to_drop_antijihad_activist_robert_spencer.html
    (5) https://www.mastercard.us/en-us/about-mastercard/what-we-do/privacy.html#usePersonalInfo
    (6) https://twitter.com/Mastercard
    (7) https://www.mastercard.us/content/dam/mccom/en-us/documents/mastercard-bcrs-february-2017.pdf
    (8) https://www.unfcu.org/mastercard-debit-card/
    (9) https://www.wfp.org/news/news-release/mastercard-and-theunited-nations-world-food-programme-partnership-deliver-digital-
    (10) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2018-005945_EN.html
    (11) https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/partners/?id=8095
    (12) https://www.unsgsa.org/resources/news/ceos-and-un-special-advocate-launch-private-sector-partnersh/
    (13) https://www.patreon.com/guidelines#bullying

    First Video is a stunningly thorough video from ShortFatOtaku, who does a piece concluding that Mastercard (and other credit card companies possibly) are behind the deplatforming of various online content creators. Yes, the research and leg work had been done by Nick Munroe, but it’s still quite the compilation.

    Second Video is a response from YouTuber Matt Christiansen and a call he got from a Patreon representative, regarding Patreon cancelling certain accounts

    Other Videos shows a partnership between Mastercard and various organizations which are promoting mass migration to the Western World.

    ShortFatOtaku (SFO) argues that MasterCard is behind the censorship of certain voices who are considered “unfriendly” to their agenda, which is “financial inclusion”. MasterCard wants to grow its business, and sees mass migration as a way to achieve that aim. Voices hostile to that goal are to be silenced.

    SFO is definitely correct that Mastercard is pushing for expansion (a lot into Africa), trying to get more people “financially included”. And the reasons are hardly altruistic.

    Let’s take a look at the MasterCard FAQ:

    Frequently Asked Questions
    Why is the Mastercard Lab for Financial Inclusion important?
    With two billion adults living without access to mainstream financial tools and services, there is an urgent need to speed up the creation of commercially viable products and services on a global scale.

    Why is Mastercard Lab for Financial Inclusion located in Africa?
    We believe that this region represents some of the most successful countries in terms of implementation and reach of digital financial services. While the lab is based in Kenya, it does have both regional and global reach.

    What is the Lab’s proven innovation methodology?
    We have implemented a focused, practiced and proven process that includes broad ideation as well as technical and business evaluation leading to prototyping and pilot execution and finally execution. At every step, we combine Mastercard best practices gained from operating in the payments arena for more than 50 years with leading-edge technologies.

    What does it mean to be financially excluded?
    When you are excluded, you don’t have access to the basic financial tools we take for granted like saving or borrowing money or getting insurance. It means being stuck in a cash-based economy that makes you vulnerable to increased crime, inconvenience and higher costs.

    What’s Mastercard’s strategy for meeting the challenge of financial inclusion?
    Our approach to financial inclusion is not through corporate social responsibility or philanthropy. We address it by leveraging our existing digital payments technology and applying that through public and private partnerships.

    What does a future where more people are financially included look like?
    The future is a global economy that is closer to being truly global because we’re more connected digitally and less dependent on cash. Increasing financial inclusion:
    -expands the middle class
    -generates equal opportunities
    -increases social engagement and economic mobility
    -narrows income inequality
    -empowers people

    When MasterCard talks of “financial inclusion”, they mean getting more people into banking, and into the credit system. Why do they want this? Because it grows their customer base.

    Center for financial inclusion is located in Africa? Presumably this is because Mastercard sees the most potential for growth there.

    Being “financially excluded” is touted as a danger and gross inconvenience, such as being more susceptible to being robbed, or having to pay higher fees. But there is one obvious omission: using cash means transactions are virtually impossible to trace

    Regarding the list at the end: 1/ Expand the middle class, 2/ equal opportunities, 3/ economic mobility, etc… Mastercard sets it up such that “their” services are necessary to achieve this livelihood.

    What About Payment Processors Like Patreon?

    People Who Can’t Use Patreon
    .
    Because Patreon empowers people financially, we impose restrictions not only on the types of content and projects that can be funded through Patreon, but also on which people can and cannot receive funds through Patreon.
    People Who Can’t Use Patreon
    .
    After creating a Patreon page, any creator caught in the act or convicted of making credible violent threats, committing violent crimes, child abuse, malicious doxing, coordinating nonviolent harm (such as fraud, money laundering and gambling), or encouraging others to do any of these activities, may be banned from using Patreon.
    Dangerous Organizations
    .
    People with a dangerous criminal history or a known affiliation with violent or dangerous groups (including terrorist or cyber terrorist organizations, organized criminal groups, and violent hate groups), cannot receive funds through Patreon, no matter the purpose or apparent intention of their Patreon page.
    .
    You can discuss these groups on Patreon but any creator praising or actively supporting these groups or their leaders won’t be allowed on Patreon.

    This sounds okay, but keep in mind, that these are the days when fairly innocuous comments are viewed as hate speech. Also, if people have vocal opinions on issues which are “counter” to what MasterCard, Visa, Patreon, PayPal, or some other financial processor, would they be shut down?

    More and more, the answer seems to be yes.

    Further, in the phone call between Matt Christiansen and Jacqueline Hart of Patreon, Hart states that Patreon cannot do anything they want. “We are not Visa or MasterCard.” This raises an interesting question: If Visa or MasterCard didn’t want someone spreading their views online, could they pressure Patreon to ban them?

    Who Sponsors “Financial Inclusion” at the UN?
    Again, see here.

    31 January 2018
    Last week in Davos, an influential group of CEOs from a diverse set of leading multinational companies formed a partnership to accelerate financial inclusion around the world. They were convened by the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Advocate for Inclusive Finance for Development, Queen Máxima of the Netherlands.

    Members of the CEO Partnership for Financial Inclusion represent a wide range of businesses, including banks (Rabobank, Santander), fintechs (Ant Financial, PayPal), payments technology (Mastercard), insurance (AXA), mobile network operators (Bharti Airtel, Telenor), and consumer goods companies (PepsiCo, Unilever).

    Gathering for the first time during the World Economic Forum, the CEOs agreed to use their complementary assets, expertise, and collective commitment to meaningfully expand financial services for the 2 billion people who currently have no access to basic tools such as savings, insurance, payments, or credit.

    “Advancing financial inclusion can lead to good business opportunities, and private sector-driven solutions could really accelerate our progress,” said the Special Advocate. “Expanding partnerships among this varied group of private actors will be key to increasing access and usage of financial services for underserved people.”

    Let’s see, who is on that list

    Members of the CEO Partnership for Financial Inclusion
    Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, UN Secretary-General’s Special Advocate for Inclusive Finance for Development
    Mastercard
    Santander
    Telenor
    AXA
    Rabobank
    Eric Jing, Ant Financial
    Sunil Mittal, Bharti Airtel
    PepsiCo
    Unilever
    PayPal

    ShortFatOtaku correctly points out that Jacqueline Hart had legitimate concerns about having the phone call with Matt Christiansen recorded. She wants to keep Patreon successful, while still being able to ban people at will.

    Christiansen repeatedly calls Hart out for her nonsense. He notes 3 critical points
    1/ Patreon is not a free speech platform.
    2/ Patreon is not a free market platform.
    3/ Patreon enforces its rules subjectively.

    In the card Hart lets it slip that Patreon has rules to follow. The implication is obvious “we are not Visa or Mastercard”. Patreon is forced to tow the line of “actual” payment processors. SFO concludes that the credit card companies, specifically Mastercard, is behind the selective deplatforming.

    SFO goes to very extensive detail pointing out the connections between Mastercard and other processors. He also details the staffing and relational overlap between the companies. Mass migration is not used as a humanitarian effort, but as a business venture. Obviously, people can’t be publicly criticizing and exposing it.

    It is a first class expose.

    Is Mastercard the final boss?

    In all fairness to SFO, he is partially right here. Mastercard is very much involved. Mastercard definitely is pushing for the “financial inclusion” agenda, and they are certainly pushing for the mass migration to the Western World.

    However, Mastercard is but one “boss” here. There are a great many “level bosses” to deal with here.

    Sort of like Link opening the Temple of Time Door, only to realise there were several more dunegons.

    Posted on

    UN Declaration On Rights Of Indigenous Peoples (BC and Feds)

    (BC Premier John Horgan)

    1. Important Links

    (1) https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf
    (2) http://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=8160636
    (3) http://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=8936657
    (4) http://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=9630600
    (5) https://canucklaw.ca/canadas-bill-c-69-impact-energy-navigation-acts/
    (6) https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/b-c-commits-to-being-1st-province-in-canada-to-put-undrip-into-legislation-1.5018447

    The Government of British Columbia has announced that it will enact legislation to enforce UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Currently, there is a Federal version (Bill C-262) working its way through the Canadian Senate.

    For reference, links to both C-48 (oil transportation), and C-69 (amend environmental acts) are both included. Canada is a nation that relies on resource development. Both of these bills will make these industries harder to function.

    The UNDRIP, however, although “non-binding” may now be implemented at the Federal level and/or in British Columbia. This will give veto power to any development that may occur across of near “traditional lands”.

    2. From The CBC Article

    “”We need to address reconciliation in British Columbia, not just for social justice… but for economic equality for all citizens, Indigenous and non-Indigenous.”

    Horgan’s NDP campaigned on a promise to implement UNDRIP, which includes 46 articles meant to recognize the basic human rights of Indigenous Peoples’ along with their rights to self-determination.

    Article 32 is among those in the declaration often cited by Indigenous leadership. It directs states to obtain free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous groups before approving projects that would affect their lands or territories.

    “For too long uncertainty on the land base has led to investment decisions being foregone, and I believe that that hurts Indigenous people and it hurts other British Columbians,” Horgan said on Tuesday.”

    Okay, so what is this Article 32? It is right here:

    Article 32
    1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.
    2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.
    3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.

    A/ Take steps to mitigate social, cultural or spiritual impact? Industry now has be developed “around” religion or spirituality?
    B/ Is this a right to veto any such projects? Or is this a right to demand “tolls” or “commissions”?
    C? Is this an acknowledgement that Canada doesn’t have control over its own lands?

    3. What Else Is In UNDRIP

    Article 4 Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

    Interesting. Not necessary to actually be part of a nation when it is inconvenient.

    Article 5 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.

    So it is not necessary to choose. A person “can” be part of both the state, and a separate collective, depending on what is convenient at that time.

    Article 8
    1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.
    2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:
    (a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
    (b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;
    (c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
    (d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;
    (e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.

    The UN believes that Indigenous People’s should never be forced to assimilate. UN “also” views assimilation of migrants to not be important. This will lead to fracturing and balkanizing nations.

    The next several articles go on about the host country not being forced to assimilate of change. Perhaps we can use it against future waves of migration.

    Article 27 States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process, giving due recognition to indigenous peoples’ laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems, to recognize and adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their lands, territories and resources, including those which were traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. Indigenous peoples shall have the right to participate in this process.

    If this wording is to be taken literally, it looks like parallel legal systems can be used. This makes any uniformity or justice unlikely.

    Article 31
    1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.
    2. In conjunction with indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights.

    Would be nice if the rest of Canada was entitled to keep our identity, rather than this multicultural, post-nation state that is forced upon us.

    Article 45 Nothing in this Declaration may be construed as diminishing or extinguishing the rights indigenous peoples have now or may acquire in the future.

    Okay, this list is not exhaustive, and new “rights” may be added later, or other previous rights will also be enacted.

    Admittedly, there are some good things in this declaration. However, getting any major projects going will be difficult if several groups are able to veto at any time for any reason.

    There is evident a double standard when it comes to protecting identity.

    So, what does Bill C-262 say?

    In short, it has a short introduction to adopt UNDRIP, then quotes it all

    United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
    .
    3 The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations as General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on September 13, 2007, and that is set out in the schedule, is hereby affirmed as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law.
    .
    Consistency
    .
    4 The Government of Canada, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples in Canada, must take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
    .
    National Action Plan
    .
    5 The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples, develop and implement a national action plan to achieve the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

    Like many United Nations initiatives, this looks fairly innocuous and harmless. However, once it is implemented, the actual consequences are far from clear.

    It could be a sign of goodwill, and a way to ensure autonomy.

    Or it could help destroy the Canadian economy. Time will tell.

    Posted on

    UN Global Citizenship Education

     

    1. Important Links

    (1) https://canucklaw.ca/duke-pesta-common-core-education/
    (2) https://en.unesco.org/themes/gced

    UNESCO Stated Grounds, Bases, Pretexts
    (1) https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245656
    (2) https://en.unesco.org/themes/gced/sdg47progress
    (3) https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Education/Training/WPHRE/ThirdPhase/Pages/ThirdPhaseIndex.aspx
    (4) https://en.unesco.org/preventing-violent-extremism/education
    (5) https://en.unesco.org/themes/gced/languages
    (6) https://en.unesco.org/themes/gced/rule-law
    (7) https://en.unesco.org/themes/gced/action
    (8) https://en.unesco.org/genderequality
    (9) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-4.html

     

    2. UNESCO Main Page

    UNESCO Main Page

    Global citizenship education
    While the world may be increasingly interconnected, human rights violations, inequality and poverty still threaten peace and sustainability.

    Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is UNESCO’s response to these challenges. It works by empowering learners of all ages to understand that these are global, not local issues and to become active promoters of more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, secure and sustainable societies.

    GCED is a strategic area of UNESCO’s Education Sector programme and builds on the work of Peace and Human Rights Education. It aims to instil in learners the values, attitudes and behaviours that support responsible global citizenship: creativity, innovation, and commitment to peace, human rights and sustainable development.

    UNESCO’s work in this area is grounded in its own Constitution which aims to ‘build peace in the minds of men and women,’ the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Education 2030 Agenda and Framework for Action, notably Target 4.7 of the Sustainable Development Agenda, the Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1974), and the World Programme for Human Rights Education
    (link is external)
    (2005-ongoing).

    Under the GCED umbrella, UNESCO has several special themes: Preventing violent extremism through education, Education about the Holocaust and genocide, Languages in education and the promotion of the rule of law through global citizenship education
    UNESCO collaborates with an extensive global network to disseminate GCED     including its own Category 1 institutes, other UN agencies and inter-governmental organizations, including regional organizations, most notably: the UNESCO Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable Development (MGIEP), the International Institute for Capacity Building in Africa (IICBA), the UNESCO Institute for Statistic (UIS), the Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding (APCIEU), the UNESCO Associated Schools Project Network (ASPNet) and UNITWIN/UNESCO Chairs.

    3. UNESCO Tramples on Provincial/State Jurisdiction For Education

    Sections 91/92/93 of Canadian Constitution lay out areas of jurisdiction

    Education
    Marginal note:
    Legislation respecting Education
    93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:
    .
    (1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union;
    .
    (2) All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen’s Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen’s Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec;
    .
    (3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen’s Subjects in relation to Education;
    .
    (4) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far only as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section.

    10th Amendment stresses the States’ rights

    >Amendment 10
    – Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    UNESCO’s “Human Rights” Push Violates Prov/State Rules
    Section 91(13) Property and Civil Rights in the Province — clearly Provincial matter

    Likewise in the US, human rights/civil rights are decided at the “State” level.

    UN Obsession With Immigration Intrudes Prov/State Rights
    (Note: This is somewhat off topic, but worth mentioning)

    Section 95 of Canadian Constitution

    Concurrent Powers of Legislation respecting Agriculture, etc.
    95. In each Province the Legislature may make Laws in relation to Agriculture in the Province, and to Immigration into the Province; and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of Canada may from Time to Time make Laws in relation to Agriculture in all or any of the Provinces, and to Immigration into all or any of the Provinces; and any Law of the Legislature of a Province relative to Agriculture or to Immigration shall have effect in and for the Province as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada<.p>

    CLICK HERE, for an immigration article State v Federal rights:

    Jurisdiction and the Supremacy Clause
    The federal government’s jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.
    However, many states have passed legislation that limits undocumented immigrants’ access to public benefits, directs state and local police to check the legal residence status of arrestees and other directives that affect immigrants. Lawmakers pressing for immigration-related state laws typically cite a lack of federal enforcement and the need to conserve limited state resources, while some cite security concerns.

    But are such state laws constitutional? While state lawmakers have articulated a genuine interest in limiting illegal immigration, there is no clear line in the sand. See State Immigration Laws for a regularly updated, state-by-state directory.

    Immigration Laws at the State Level
    Perhaps the most notorious state attempt at regulating immigration is Arizona’s S.B. 1070, signed into law in 2010. The U.S. Dept. of Justice (DOJ) stated in a brief that Arizona lawmakers “crossed a constitutional line” with the new law. A federal judge blocked four of the most controversial elements, including the requirement that police check the immigration status of anyone they stop or suspect is in the state illegally.

    Other states have passed laws with similar police directives, including Oklahoma and Utah. In addition to enforcement measures, many of the state laws addressing immigration mandate the use of E-Verify to check the employment eligibility of job applicants; require identification for voting purposes and impose restrictions on public benefits, such as food stamps and non-emergency medical care at state clinics.

    Lawmakers in Arizona and Indiana directly challenged the 14th Amendment’s provision granting automatic citizenship to those born on U.S. soil, proposing legislation that would do just that. Proponents of such laws argue that the amendment’s interpretation should be narrowed to exclude children who are born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants, positioning their controversial bills for eventual review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Note: Both in Canada and the US, immigration is generally seen as a Federal matter, though Provinces/States do have some wiggle room.

    Since the UN views itself as a “global citizen education” provider, it should come as no surprise that it is creeping towards having a common education curriculum.

    Local and regional control is incrementally being phased out.
    National pride is being replaced by global acceptance.

    UN Leading To Death Of Nations
    Put all this in a bigger context:

    Global citizens, with global values, a global education, and global “rights”;

    • Cultures, customs, traditions replaced by “tolerance”
    • Borders replaced by “integrated mechanisms”
    • Facilitated by global agreement for free migration;
    • A global ban on criticizing “religions” like Islam;
    • Global access to internet, but governed by the UN;
    • Endless EDA initiatives like Agenda 21, 2030, Paris Accord;
    • Governed by a world parliament

    Please read this policy idea, first posted on Canucklaw over 3 months ago. You will very likely agree with the conclusion.

    *Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress