Category: Identity/Religion

Posted on

Green New Deal Group, Taking Lessons From The 2008 Banking Bailout

Think recent public efforts to convince the public to act on climate change just happened? No, they are the result of years of planning, and from an organization called Green New Deal Group.

There is some real strategy at play here. Divert people’s attention with protests, riots, and public movements, and the agenda can be quietly passed. After all, how much coverage do the various treaties we sign (and bills we pass), actually get?

1. About Green New Deal Group

As in past times of crises, disparate groups have come together to propose a new solution to an epochal challenge. The Green New Deal Group drew inspiration from the ambition of President Roosevelt’s comprehensive response to the Great Depression to propose a modernised version, a ‘Green New Deal’ in 2008. It was designed to kick start a rapid transition to a new economy shaped to prevent a climate breakdown and transform a failed financial system. The Green New Deal will power a renewables revolution, create thousands of green-collar jobs across the economy and rein in the distorting and socially-destructive power of the finance sector while making more low-cost capital available for pressing priorities.

Meeting since early 2007, the membership of the Green New Deal Group is drawn to reflect a wide range of expertise relating politics and economics, and the climate, nature and inequality crises. The views and recommendations of the Green New Deal series of reports, are those of the group writing in their individual capacities.

The Green New Deal Group is, in alphabetical order:
.
Larry Elliott, Economics Editor of the Guardian, Colin Hines, Co-Director of Finance for the Future, former head of Greenpeace International’s Economics Unit, Jeremy Leggett, founder and Chairman of Solarcentury and SolarAid, Clive Lewis, Labour MP, Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP, Richard Murphy, Professor of Practice, City University, Director Tax Research LLP, Ann Pettifor, Director, Policy Research in Macroeconomics (PRIME), Charles Secrett, Advisor on Sustainable Development, former Director of Friends of the Earth, Andrew Simms, Co-Director, New Weather Institute, Coordinator, The Rapid Transition Alliance, Assistant Director, Scientists for Global Responsibility. Geoff Tily Senior Economist, TUC

Those are the people who make up the Green New Deal Group. In essence, this is the brainchild behind the eco movement in recent years.

2. GNDG Used To Reboot After 2008 Crash

In the coverage of the causes and likely future effects of the credit crunch, such grim parallels are becoming commonplace. But it’s now time to move from problems to solutions, and here too the Depression can form a useful reference point. Franklin Roosevelt’s action programme for dealing with the aftermath of the late 1920s credit crunch was threefold: first, strictly regulate the cause of the problem – the greedy and feckless finance sector; second, get people back to work, and generate business opportunities by a New Deal. This invested billions of dollars in training, better working conditions and a huge range of infrastructural projects such as highways, dams and bridges. Finally, fund this in part by an increase in taxes on big business and the rich – a measure which also had the positive effect of dramatically decreasing inequality.

Today the re-regulation of finance is even being discussed among consenting free market adults in the columns of the Financial Times. My colleague, environmentalist Colin Hines, has fleshed out the details of a Green New Deal which could help re-boot the economy after the credit crash, while putting serious money into addressing climate change.

As a result of the 2008 crash, this group decided that it would make a great opportunity to completely remake their economy, and deal with climate change in the first place. They reasoned that if banks were worth pouring trillions into, then the environment must be as well. The argument does have some merit to it.

Notice that it’s compared to the “New Deal” that Franklin Delano Roosevelt launched in the 1930s. This is not the last time that comparison will come up.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced the U.S. public to the Green New Deal in 2019, just after taking office. It wasn’t some brainstorm she had, but had been drawn up many years ago. The YouTuber, Mr. Reagan, did address that AOC was a puppet, but he missed how far back the plan went.

3. GND Group To Solve “Triple Crunch”

Can I trust the bank to look after my money? Clickety clack. How much has my house fallen in value? Clickety clack. Will high fuel prices mean I can’t keep my car on the road? Can I afford to buy enough food for the family? Clickety clack. Will I lose my job, and why is everyone making me paranoid about climate change when there’s nothing I can do about it? Clickety, clickety clack … and then back to the beginning. The “triple crunch” of a credit-fuelled financial crisis, accelerating climate change and soaring energy prices – how did we get into this mess? In the face of so many simultaneous crises, we all have legitimate questions for the governments that allowed us to sleepwalk into this situation.

The Green New Deal was dreamed up as a way to solve multiple problems, such as: (a) financial crisis; (b) climate change; and (c) energy prices all at once.

While it’s nice to see the financial crisis addressed, this group seems to miss the elephant in the room: central banking. It’s that the Government legislates in such a way that the U.S. is forced to borrow — at interest — from the Federal Reserve, a private organization. Do they not know about any of this?

4. History Of The Green New Deal

Where the Green New Deal came from
.
The idea of a Green New Deal first arose at the time of 2007-2008 financial crisis roughly simultaneously in the us and the UK. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote an article in January 2007 that suggested the approach. The same year the UK-based Green New Deal group formed, independently developing and publishing the first full proposal for a Green New Deal in July 2008. The group’s report laid out the architecture of the Green New Deal for the first time: combining reining in the power of big finance and transforming the way that government manages the economy with a plan to transform the economy and society to meet the challenges of climate change. The group also published several subsequent reports developing the idea over the following years. The Green New Deal was then taken up by the Green Party in the UK, by Green parties across Europe and by the United Nations Environment Programme. In 2018, the idea was revived by us senator Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Sunrise Movement in the US following a meeting between a member of her team and UK Green New Deal group member Ann Pettifor. When AOC published a bill for the Green New Deal with Senator Edward Markey in February 2019 the idea caught on around the world.

Far from being some sort of a revolutionary, AOC was simply the latest person assigned to run with the agenda. While it is easy to mock the GND outright, it seems that elements of it are embedded within Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset.

5. UK PM Gordon Brown Promotes GND

Moving the UK to a low-carbon economy will create 400,000 new jobs over the next eight years, Gordon Brown has told a summit in London.
.
The prime minister called for an international “green new deal” to boost the environmental sector and help lift the global economy out of recession.
.
This will increase “confidence and certainty”, he added.
.
But unions and environmental groups called for more funding for green projects, along with better regulation.
The government has set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.

When he was Prime Minister of the UK, Gordon Brown openly called for a “Green New Deal” to rebuild the country after the banking collapse.

6. Green Quantitative Easing

As the Bank of England moves closer towards announcing an unprecedented third round of ‘Quantitative Easing’, experts are calling for this newly created money to be used more productively and effectively to achieve key social and environmental objectives. During the last round of Quantitative Easing (’QE’) the Bank of England purchased £275bn worth of government bonds with money it newly created. As the Bank of England prepares the ground to inject a likely £50bn to £75bn into the economy, the UK’s Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, and Southampton University banking expert Professor Richard Werner, are calling for this money injection to be used for green projects that directly improve the environment and long-term quality of life, while creating many new jobs. Said Professor Richard A. Werner, Director of the Centre for Banking, Finance and Sustainable Development at the University of Southampton: “Many people would like money creation to be used to help the wider economy directly and to implement some badly needed green projects that would enhance the sustainability of the economy and improve the environment—as well as create new jobs.”

Green Quantitative Easing Paper

In 2012, Richard Werner submitted a proposal for “green quantitative easing”. In short, it would still involve printing off large sums of money. However, it would be spent on environmental causes, instead of being poured into banks.

7. GND Group UK Budget Submission

A Green New Deal Group briefing, The Green New Deal: Securing the Future, was sent to the Chancellor ahead of the March 2020 budget, with a letter signed by MPs from all the main opposition parties.

As the briefing, written by Green New Deal Group member Richard Murphy sets out, the Green New Deal Group have long argued that it is prudent for government to borrow (by issuing bonds) to invest in the transformation of our infrastructure and businesses while interest rates are low. The briefing shows how such government borrowing could be financed in a way that also creates a safe place for the nation’s pensions and savings, by making simple changes to existing tax incentives. Much of the £70bn saved annually in ISAs could then be invested in government-backed green bonds at an interest rate of 1.85% (the UK government’s current average cost of borrowing) and a quarter of the £100bn currently invested in pensions could be directed into Green New Deal investment.

A budget proposal was submitted to the UK Government in March 2020. It was written by the Green New Deal Group, and was able to get the signatures of many politicians.

8. Protests/Riots Partly Entirely For Show

In recent years, there have been loud environmental movements going on across the Western World. There have been efforts to shut down industries, pipelines, and society altogether. These people seem oblivious to the fact that shutting down oil (for example), would lead to a drastic reduction in their living standards.

However, this is a sleight of hand. Even though politicians appear to be turned off by the antics of violent protesters, they work behind the scenes to ensure that the goals are enacted anyway. Treaties such as Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and the Great Reset are designed to achieve many of the same goals.

BOLD Like A Leopard wrote a great piece on some of the forces acting behind the scenes. It’s well worth the time to read.

Now we look at the bigger picture. While the public is distracted by very visible protests over environmental issues, just quietly implement them behind the scenes. People likely won’t notice. They are too focused on radicals who seem hell bent on destabilization, though those are distractions.

9. Bankers Run Climate Change Movement

This will seem a cruel twist, but central banks are heavily behind the green movement. One such group is the Network for Greening the Financial System, which currently boasts 75 members.

Hard to be part of the resistance when the financial sector supports, (or at least appears to support), green initiatives. It’s unclear, however, if the banks simply co-opted the movement, or whether they were always running things from behind the scenes.

Green New Deal Group Main Page
https://archive.is/ncRvA
WayBack Machine Archives

About Us: Green New Deal Group
https://archive.is/rxRpv
WayBack Machine Archive

https://greennewdealgroup.org/2008/04/
Guardian 2008: We Wanted A Green New Deal
https://greennewdealgroup.org/2008/07/
Guardian 2008 Article On The Triple Crunch
https://greennewdealgroup.org/2009/03/
Gordon Brown Calls For Global Green New Deal
https://greennewdealgroup.org/2009/07/
The Ecologist: Bailed Out Banks Should Fund GND
Green New Deal Group Budget Proposal
Network For Greening The Financial System

AOC: This Is Our World War II
Mr. Reagan: The Brains Behind AOC
NBC On Sunrise Movement

Posted on

CCS #12(B): Green Climate Fund, And The GLOBAL Green New Deal

The Green Climate Fund is heavily pushing for countries to use this “pandemic” as a chance to implement widespread social changes. Others claim that climate change makes the world vulnerable to it happening again. If this wasn’t planned out, then at a minimum, it comes across as very opportunistic.

1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

The entire climate change industry, (yes, it’s an industry) is a hoax perpetrated by powerful people colluding against national interests. See the other articles on the scam, the propaganda machine in action, and some of the court documents in Canada. Carbon taxes are just a small part of the picture, as the issue goes much deeper than what’s reported. Also, conservatives are intentionally sabotaging their court cases.

2. Important Links

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye7bC-OSJq8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plrD1ICEFC4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtDndpaYljc

UN Framework Convention On Climate Change
Text Of 2010 UNFCCC Document
https://www.greenclimate.fund/about
South Korea: Global Green New Deal
Green Climate Fund Strategic Plan, 2020 to 2023
Mandatory Climate-Related Disclosures In New Zealand
Climate-Related Financial Disclosures In UK
https://twitter.com/theGCF/status/1308602992300560384
https://twitter.com/AniaGrobicki1/status/1324520561171521536/photo/1
https://twitter.com/antonioguterres/status/1299341836948058112

HR 109: Green-New-Deal-FINAL
The Lies Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Erin O’Toole: Build Back Stronger
Speech By Mark Carney (From 2015)

3. Green Climate Fund Conference Speakers

Letting the members speak for themselves might be the best option. They quite openly talk about how the Covid-19 “pandemic” creates an opportunity to implement broader social changes. It was never really about a virus, as that’s just an excuse. See here, here and here. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt, all of this comes across as very opportunistic.

4. UN Framework Convention On Climate Change

Background
At COP 16 held in Cancun, by decision 1/CP.16, Parties established the Green Climate Fund (GCF) as an operating entity of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention under Article 11. The Fund is governed by the GCF Board and it is accountable to and functions under the guidance of the COP to support projects, programmes, policies and other activities in developing country Parties using thematic funding windows.

The Green Climate Fund was a creation based on Article 11 of the UNFCCC, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed in December 2010.

[Article] 11. Agrees that adaptation is a challenge faced by all Parties, and that enhanced action and international cooperation on adaptation is urgently required to enable and support the implementation of adaptation actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience in developing country Parties, taking into account the urgent and immediate needs of those developing countries that are particularly vulnerable;

The Green Climate Fund was approved, (at least in principle), because of this article of the treaty.

5. What Is The Green Climate Fund?

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is the world’s largest dedicated fund helping developing countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and enhance their ability to respond to climate change. It was set up by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2010. GCF has a crucial role in serving the Paris Agreement, supporting the goal of keeping average global temperature rise well below 2 degrees C. It does this by channelling climate finance to developing countries, which have joined other nations in committing to climate action.

Responding to the climate challenge requires collective action from all countries, including by both public and private sectors. Among these concerted efforts, advanced economies have agreed to jointly mobilize significant financial resources. Coming from a variety of sources, these resources address the pressing mitigation and adaptation needs of developing countries.

GCF launched its initial resource mobilisation in 2014, and rapidly gathered pledges worth USD 10.3 billion. These funds come mainly from developed countries, but also from some developing countries, regions, and one city.

GCF’s activities are aligned with the priorities of developing countries through the principle of country ownership, and the Fund has established a direct access modality so that national and sub-national organisations can receive funding directly, rather than only via international intermediaries.

The Fund pays particular attention to the needs of societies that are highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, in particular Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and African States.

GCF aims to catalyse a flow of climate finance to invest in low-emission and climate-resilient development, driving a paradigm shift in the global response to climate change.

Our innovation is to use public investment to stimulate private finance, unlocking the power of climate-friendly investment for low emission, climate resilient development. To achieve maximum impact, GCF seeks to catalyse funds, multiplying the effect of its initial financing by opening markets to new investments.

Balanced portfolio
GCF’s investments are aimed at achieving maximum impact in the developing world, supporting paradigm shifts in both mitigation and adaptation. The Fund aims for a 50:50 balance between mitigation and adaptation investments over time. It also aims for a floor of 50 percent of the adaptation allocation for particularly vulnerable countries, including Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and African States.

Unlocking private finance
The Fund is unique in its ability to engage directly with both the public and private sectors in transformational climate-sensitive investments. GCF engages directly with the private sector through its Private Sector Facility (PSF). As part of its innovative framework, it has the capacity to bear significant climate-related risk, allowing it to leverage and crowd in additional financing. It offers a wide range of financial products including grants, concessional loans, subordinated debt, equity, and guarantees. This enables it to match project needs and adapt to specific investment contexts, including using its funding to overcome market barriers for private finance.

On the surface, all of this sounds fine. The Green Climate Fund claims that it’s raising money to deal with environmental affairs. However, it’s not so straightforward. This isn’t about preventing climate change, but about using warnings and fears about it to make money.

6. AOC: House Resolution 109, Green New Deal

Green-New-Deal-FINAL

While AOC is frequently mocked for low intelligence, the reality is that a lot of her actions are motivated by deceitfulness, not being naive. Take for example, House Resolution 109, the infamous Green New Deal. This was introduced in 2019, not long after she was elected to Congress.

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

That admission pretty much killed Resolution 109. It became clear at that point that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her staff didn’t actually believe in what they were pushing. Instead, this was a pretext to enact a much larger social agenda.

Ocasio-Cortez was just a puppet in a much larger scheme.

7. The GLOBAL Green New Deal

The head of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) on Thursday called for a global Green New Deal in which redirected financial flows usher in an age of sustainable, post-pandemic growth that takes the heat out of dangerous planetary warming.

“Climate action and COVID-19 recovery measures must be mutually supportive to be effective,” said GCF Executive Director Yannick Glemarec during an international conference in South Korea exploring how COVID-19 recovery efforts can be directed away from investments that are harming the planet towards those creating a global green economy. 

The conference focused on South Korea’s national plans to counter the effects of the pandemic through economic recovery pathways leading to future carbon neutrality, while also reflecting on how similar “Green New Deals” are being adopted across the world.

Reflecting the urgency COVID-19 has brought to the need to take climate action, conference participants considered how the paths that countries take now in recovering from COVID-19 will determine whether the world achieves the Paris Agreement goals and a net zero emissions future.

The Government of South Korea, for example, seems to have fully embraced the Green New Deal. This is at least in part as a response to the coronavirus “pandemic”.

It certainly is convenient that this “pandemic” struck when and how it did. Otherwise, people might be a lot more hesitant to embrace the radical restructuring of their economy. Let’s be clear, this is just an excuse to implement their communist agenda.

While the focus here is on South Korea, the Green Climate Fund, (and their allies), support all countries adopting some version of the Green New Deal.

8. Climate-Related Financial Disclosures

Mandatory climate-related financial disclosures are already a reality in New Zealand, and is coming to Britain as well. And we are not too far off from adopting it in Canada. This is an initiative that the Green Climate Fund fully supports, just on a global scale. If fully implemented, many businesses (globally), would have to submit disclosure forms to the UN for their approval.

9. Canada’s Industries To Be Phased Out

The United Nations has officially asked for certain industries to be allowed to die off. In Canada, this certainly means the end of oil & gas, among others. It’s not like the Conservatives, and their modified “Build Back Better” expression will do much.

Posted on

Green Horizon Summit, The New Business Model

The “Great Reset” was for a while decried as a conspiracy theory. Now, these people don’t even bother to hide their plans. Now, over the last few days, the Green Horizon Summit has been underway. One of the goals is to flesh out the details for making that reset happen.

1. More On The International Banking Cartel

For more on the banking cartel, check this page. The Canadian Government, like so many others, has sold out the independence and sovereignty of its monetary system to foreign interests. BIS, like its central banks, exceed their agenda and try to influence other social agendas. See who is really controlling things, and the common lies that politicians and media figures tell. Now, the bankers work with the climate mafia and pandemic pushers to promote their mutual goals of control and debt slavery.

2. Mark Carney, Head Of UN Climate Finance

Some quotes from the November 2020 Climate Horizon Summit. Mark Carney used to be the Head of the Bank of Canada (and later the Bank of England). Now, he heads UN Climate Action and Finance, which will force businesses and Governments into playing ball with the climate change agenda. Interestingly, he talks about Japanese pensions already being poured into this project.

Carney became somewhat infamous after his public threat that companies who don’t play along with the climate change agenda will go bankrupt.

3. Green Horizon Summit Supported By WEF

It’s time to reset the relationship between finance and the real economy. For the sake of our planet, it’s also time for public and private finance to get behind the transition to a sustainable and resilient future for all.
.
But with no UN climate conference (COP) this year owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, maintaining momentum on climate action and the economic changes required is vital. From 9-11 November, the Green Horizon Summit: The Pivotal Role of Finance will help do just that.
.
Across 10 sessions and three days, the summit will virtually convene more than 2,500 people from around the world to discuss five main themes:
.
-Reporting, Risk Management and Return
–Financing the Energy Transition
-Infrastructure and Green Growth
-Financing Resilience and Adaptation
-Nature and Net Zero
.
The programme features a line-up of more than 100 global business and climate leaders, including HRH The Prince of Wales, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, Breakthrough Energy Founder Bill Gates, ECB Chief Christine Lagarde, UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance Mark Carney and many more.

The World Economic Forum (of which Chrystia Freeland is a Trustee), supports 100% the Green Horizon Summit. It’s no surprise, given WEF is driving the “Great Reset”. The goals overlap heavily.

WEF doesn’t even bother to hide their agenda anymore. In fact, many videos of it are freely available online. It’s quite the rabbit hole.

4. Bill Gates: Founder, Breakthrough Energy

It’s not enough that Gates is involved in the abortion industry, computers, vaccines, and eugenics. He’s also pushing the climate change agenda as well.

Mukesh Ambani
Reliance Industries Limited
Chairman and Managing Director
BOARD MEMBER

John Arnold
Laura & John Arnold Foundation
Co-chair
BOARD MEMBER

Jeff Bezos
Amazon
Founder & CEO

HRH Prince Alwaleed bin Talal
Alwaleed Philanthropies
Chairman

Michael Bloomberg
Bloomberg LP
CEO

Richard Branson
Virgin Group
Founder

Ray Dalio
Bridgewater Associates
Founder

John Doerr
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Chairman
BOARD MEMBER

Bill Gates
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Co-chair
CHAIR OF THE BOARD

Reid Hoffman
LinkedIn
Co-founder

Chris Hohn
The Children’s Investment Fund
Founder

Vinod Khosla
Khosla Ventures
Founder
BOARD MEMBER

Jack Ma
Alibaba Group
Executive Chairman
BOARD MEMBER

Dustin Moskovitz & Cari Tuna
Good Ventures
Co-founders

Patrice Motsepe
African Rainbow Minerals (ARM)
Founder & Executive Chairman

Xavier Niel
Illiad Group
Founder

Hasso Plattner
SAP SE
Co-founder

Julian Robertson
Tiger Management
Founder & Chairman

David Rubenstein
The Carlyle Group
Co-founder and Co-Executive Chairman

Nat Simons & Laura Baxter-Simons
Prelude Ventures
Co-founders

Masayoshi Son
SoftBank Group Corp.
Founder, Chairman & CEO

Ms. Zhang Xin & Mr. Pan Shiyi
SOHO China
Co-founder & CEO, Chairman

Breakthrough Energy Ventures is a group of investors who are working together in a fund that is patient, flexible, and committed to the guiding principles of Breakthrough Energy – including supporting net-zero emissions technology and ensuring affordable, reliable, and clean energy for all.

On a semi-serious note: one has to ask if Gates’ desire to have less people on the planet counts as an official solution, or is just a personal preference.

5. Sean Kidney, Climate Bonds Initiative

Believe it or not, climate bonds are an actual industry, with serious backers pouring money into it. Sure, the climate bonds are bound to collapse, as they don’t offer anything tangible. However, for a time, they will make some people extremely wealthy.

6. Daniel Hanna, Standard Chartered Bank

Standard Chartered has had a long commitment to Sustainable Finance. Our approach brings together three themes. First, we believe in the critical importance of being a responsible institution through managing the potential negative impact that our activities could have through strong environmental, social and governance risk filters. Our Environmental and Social Risk Management team was first established in 1997. Second, we also believe in the power that fnance can have to catalyse a positive impact on our communities and the
environment. Our dedicated Sustainable Finance team brings together our experience and expertise in managing environmental, social and governance risk as well as spotting opportunities and structuring solutions to drive positive impact financing. Finally, we are focused on where we believe catalysing new sustainable fpnance matters most – regions where more capital is needed to drive sustainable growth and where their pathway to a low carbon future will have a major impact on the world’s ability to meet the Paris Agreement’s goal of keeping global warming well below 2 degrees.

More on the forced transition into a new economy. Standard Chartered has been around for a while, and is completely on board with the climate change agenda.

7. Noel Quinn (HSBC), Roger Gifford

Why does a bank have a climate plan?
The Paris Agreement signed by global leaders in 2015 set a goal to limit the rise in the planet’s temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2050. If that target is to be achieved, every organisation in the world has a part to play.

As a bank, we can help. The most significant impact we can have is helping clients to transition to producing lower carbon emissions through financing and investment.

We want to be the leading bank supporting the global economy in transitioning to net zero. By net zero we mean reducing emissions added to the atmosphere while increasing the amount taken out, achieving a balance that not only protects the planet but that builds a sustainable and thriving global economy.

Our international reach and global client network means we can influence and shape fundamental change. For more than 150 years we have opened up opportunities for our customers and communities. Achieving net zero is a huge opportunity the world has to take.

Complying with the Paris Accord is written right into their mission statement. This is one way to get people to implement your agenda. As a banker, simply refuse to have them as a client unless they make drastic changes. If enough bankers go along, the people are forced into making changes.

8. Christine Lagarde: European Central Bank

Climate change and the ECB
We at the ECB are exploring how we can be effective in the fight against climate change. We are working to identify the risks that climate change can present to the economy and the financial system. Climate change can affect the economy through extreme weather events and uncertainties related to the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The term “green bond” refers to debt securities whose proceeds are used to finance investment projects with an environmental benefit. There are different approaches to defining and certifying green bonds, and no global market standard has emerged so far.[2] While many green bonds are self-labelled, some jurisdictions have developed their own certification framework and others rely on various different guidelines.[3] As well as reducing transparency for investors, it is believed that the lack of standardised definitions and reporting requirements and the varying granularity of the underlying classifications are holding back supply,[4] inter alia because issuers face reputational risks and potential accusations of “greenwashing” if proceeds are not used for their declared purposes.[5] The ECB supports current EU initiatives under the European Commission’s action plan on sustainable finance to create a harmonised definition of “green” assets (taxonomy), which could improve transparency and facilitate the supply of green debt instruments.

It’s plain and obvious at this point that the bankers see this “pandemic” as an opportunity to implement a larger social agenda. It’s difficult to believe they weren’t in on it the entire time. The European Green Bonds seem to be thriving, however.

9. BlackRock: More Then Just Finance

As an asset manager, BlackRock invests on behalf of others, and I am writing to you as an advisor and fiduciary to these clients. The money we manage is not our own. It belongs to people in dozens of countries trying to finance long-term goals like retirement. And we have a deep responsibility to these institutions and individuals – who are shareholders in your company and thousands of others – to promote long-term value.

Climate change has become a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects. Last September, when millions of people took to the streets to demand action on climate change, many of them emphasized the significant and lasting impact that it will have on economic growth and prosperity – a risk that markets to date have been slower to reflect. But awareness is rapidly changing, and I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance.

The evidence on climate risk is compelling investors to reassess core assumptions about modern finance. Research from a wide range of organizations – including the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the BlackRock Investment Institute, and many others, including new studies from McKinsey on the socioeconomic implications of physical climate risk – is deepening our understanding of how climate risk will impact both our physical world and the global system that finances economic growth.

Bit of trivia here: Blackrock actually owns SNC Lavalin, which has been involved in so much corruption in recent years. Also, Laurence (Larry) Fink is a Trustee of the World Economic Forum. This company claims to take sustainability very seriously.

10. Bank For International Settlements

Although not a speaker at the Green Horizon Summit, BIS, the Bank for International Settlements, (a central bank of central banks), is on board with the green agenda. In fact, many central banks are in lockstep with the climate movement.

This is by no means all of the parties who attended the Green Horizon Summit. But it does represent a sample of the groups were part of it.

Posted on

CV #25(B): StatsCan Sending DNA Kits For Antibody Tests, Other Purposes

Statistics Canada is now mailing out DNA collection kits to random households. While this is “supposed” to be a public health measure, they clearly state that the DNA may be used for alternative purposes.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/survey/household/5339
https://archive.is/6q5pT
WayBack Machine Archive

https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/289529513
https://archive.is/mwdsh
WayBack Machine Archive

4Chan Posting Of Kit Mailed In Canada
Facebook Posting Of Home-Test Kits
Documentary On Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes

FEDERAL — LOCATIONS OF DEATH REPORTS
Covid In Canada August 16 to 22
Covid In Canada August 23 to 29
Covid In Canada August 30 to Sept 6
Covid In Canada September 7 to September 13
Covid In Canada October 4 to October 10
Covid In Canada October 11 to October 17
Covid In Canada October 25 to October 31

PCR TESTS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVkkqjnTlWc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKeMiAZ8Zu4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je3xO8e-MvQ

3. Reminder: StatsCan Raided Credit Data

In late 2018, there was a scandal because Statistics Canada had been accessing people’s credit reports. They also wanted to look into the private bank accounts of Canadians. While StatsCan frequently touts the defense that “we don’t share it with anyone”, that completely misses the point. People don’t want their bank records broken into at all.

And now, StatsCan is rolling out a major DNA sampling.

4. StatsCan Explains The DNA Kits Sent Out

As COVID-19 continues to disrupt daily life, we must manage the impacts of the pandemic, while preparing for future waves. This includes taking steps to ensure Canadians can access future treatment and vaccines. To do this, it is important that we learn as much as possible about the virus, how it affects overall health, how it spreads, and whether we are developing antibodies against it.

This unique survey will collect information in two parts. The first part is an electronic questionnaire about general health and exposure to COVID-19. The second part is an at-home finger-prick blood test, which is sent to a lab to determine the presence of COVID-19 antibodies.

Even if you do not think you have been exposed to COVID-19, your information will provide valuable answers about the virus. You will also receive a copy of your lab report, providing you with valuable information about your own health.

Your information may also be used by Statistics Canada for other statistical and research purposes.

Pretty strange how the Government will be able to tell what antibodies the body has, and if they are the correct ones, when the PCR test itself it bogus and completely inaccurate. Remember Barbara Yaffe, and her admission of 50% false positives?

How exactly will your genetic information help if there has been no exposure to the virus? What else is going on behind the scenes?

5. StatsCan Data Sharing Agreements

Data sharing agreements
For all respondents:
.
To avoid duplication of surveys, Statistics Canada may enter into agreements to share the data from this survey, including name, address, telephone number and health card number, with provincial and territorial ministries of health, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada. For Quebec residents, Statistics Canada may also enter into an agreement with the “Institut de la Statistique du Québec” to share the same information.
.
The “Institut de la Statistique du Québec” and provincial ministries of health may make this data available to local health authorities. Local health authorities will not receive any identifiers, only the postal code.
.
For respondents aged 15 years and older:
.
To reduce the number of questions in this questionnaire, Statistics Canada will use information from your tax forms submitted to the Canada Revenue Agency. With your consent Statistics Canada will share this information from your tax forms with your provincial and territorial ministries of health, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada.
.
Quebec residents will also have their tax form information shared with the “Institut de la statistique du Québec”.
.
These organizations have agreed to keep the information confidential and to use it only for statistical and research purposes.
.
Record linkage
To enhance the data from this survey and to minimize the reporting burden for respondents, Statistics Canada will combine your responses with information from the tax data of all members of your household. Statistics Canada and the ministry of health for your home province or territory may also add information from other surveys or administrative sources.
.
For Quebec residents, the “Institut de la Statistique du Québec” may add information from other surveys or administrative sources.

What all this means, is that information from your taxes may be shared with the Ministries of Health (Provincial and Federal), and the Public Health Agency of Canada. It also says that information from other surveys or administrative sources may be added, but doesn’t specify which ones.

In short, this is combining data sets to form universal profiles on people. These will include: tax information, DNA, health information, and data collected elsewhere. That doesn’t sound Orwellian in the slightest.

6. Information Sent To Advocacy Groups?

How will the data be used? Who will use it?
Objective statistical information is vital to researchers, analysts and decision makers across Canada. Results of the Canadian COVID-19 Antibody and Health Survey could be used by:
.
-Parliament and other policy makers, to track major initiatives, set priorities for prevention and research programs, and evaluate policy and program outcomes
-epidemiologists, biomedical and health service researchers, to understand trends in diseases and the relationship of observed risk factors to diseases
-public health professionals, to track preventable illnesses and evaluate the impact of prevention and intervention programs
–advocacy groups, to raise awareness and assist in their surveillance of health issues and health disparities.

The information will shared with advocacy groups in complaining of disparities in health? Why does this seem like a way to funnel money under the guise of “equity”?

It’s also rather confusing. Supposedly 48,000 people are just assigned a number, and no personal information will be connected to it. How then will it be connected to tax information, and other sources?

7. Tests Are Already Being Distributed

https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/289529513

https://www.facebook.com/100032513712949/posts/357421085351679/

8. Truth About Death Statistics In Canada

What’s most infuriating is that the truth is known that this “pandemic” is a hoax, but leaders and the media intentionally deceive us. The most recent report available, or see the archived version.

Even by the Government’s methods of screwing around with the numbers, the vast majority of people will recover on their own. At the time of writing this, Health Canada reports 218,000 recoveries nationwide. The site https://corona-scanner.com/ reports over 35 million recoveries globally. Why is any sort of vaccine needed then? What will be in it?

On Table 6, it’s reported that, as of October 31, 2020, a total 7,238 out of 7,623 deaths has been in long term care and retirement residences. That is 94.9%, or 19 out of every 20. Of course, this raises the obvious questions such as the underlying health issues many or most would have had, or the average age.

FORECASTING
Canada’s approach to modelling:
Models cannot predict the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, but can help us understand all possible scenarios, support decisions on public health measures and help the health care sector plan for these scenarios.
.
Forecasting models use data to estimate how many new cases can be expected in the coming weeks. Figure 17 below shows the projected number of cases and deaths in Canada, with a 95% prediction interval calculated to 8 November, using available data by 24 October.

The Government explicitly states that modelling cannot be used to predict the course. Then it immediately contradicts itself by saying models are used to estimate cases. Fact is: models are just guesses. They are not proof of anything.

9. PCR Tests Long Used For DNA Amplification

For some background, consider that PCR tests (polymerase chain reaction tests), have long been used for DNA amplification. This makes testing easier even when there are very small samples. Videos with extensive detail are freely available. These are just a few of them.

Note: Canuck Law owns none of these videos. Please post positive feedback on their respective YouTube accounts. They explain quite well how this process works.

10. Other Info On Silicon Valley/Theranos

Elizabeth Holmes was famous for several years as the result of her startup “Theranos”. The company was developing technology that would allow for hundreds (or even thousands) of tests to be done from a single drop of blood.

Problem is: the technology didn’t work, and never got any better. Holmes had been outright lying to investors and prospective clients for many years. The company is now dissolved. Strangely, its Twitter account is still up.

But sure, the Government is going to be able to get all kinds of results from a single drop of blood Well, they can get a DNA profile from that. And on the topic of Silicon Valley:

Anne Wojcicki is the CEO and co-founder of 23andMe. It uses home kits for DNA testing for genetic mapping. Her sister, Susan Wojcicki is the CEO of YouTube, co-founded Google, and is head of DuckDuckGo.

Also, Ancestry.com will hand over your DNA to law enforcement if they are ordered to.

Yes, this topic is a bit of a tangent, but it’s worth at least mentioning where this may go. Privacy of genetic information seems to be almost non-existent.

Statistics Canada is now mailing DNA kits to individual households. One can only guess where your data will eventually end up. Use at your own risk.

Posted on

Trudeau: Limit Free Speech To Curtail (Islamic) Violence

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau believes that we need to restrict free speech in order to prevent people — in this case Muslims — from becoming violent and injuring or killing people. He also thinks that such people have the right to keep their Canadian citizenship. (From Canuck Politics. Although a political ad, this one is entirely truthful, and worth a mention.)

1. Islam, Terrorism, Religious Violence

Check this series for more information on the religion of peace. Tolerance of intolerance is being forced on the unwilling public. Included are efforts to crack down on free speech, under the guise of “religious tolerance”. What isn’t discussed as much are the enablers, whether they are lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, of members of the media.

2. Trudeau (Sort Of) Defends Violence

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently commented on the recent terrorist attacks by Muslim migrants in France. The brutal slayings Trudeau referenced included the slaughter of three Christians at a Catholic Church in Nice, as well as the decapitation of a fourth grade teacher earlier this month.

The attacks were a response by a Muslim who answered the call to jihad against Samuel Paty, a history teacher. In his class, Paty showed a cartoon of Islam’s central figure, Mohammad, drawn by satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo.

To its credit, the French state stood firm on one of its foundational principles enshrined in law – the concept of laïcité, or official secularism. France is officially a secular state within which, people may worship as they see fit, but no religion may impose restrictions on the population for religious reasons. It also contains a strong precept of freedom of speech.

As a result of President Macron’s refusal to submit to sharia rules on images of Mohammad after the decapitation of the history teacher, leaders from the Islamic world condemned France, resulting in an increase of security globally at all French consulates and embassies.

Yesterday, Trudeau weighed in on the issue in his typical fashion, firmly taking both sides of the issue.

And yes, he certainly did.

There are always limits. In a pluralist, diverse, and respectful society like ours, we must be aware of the impact of our words, our gestures, on others. Especially toward those communities and populations that still live in a system that continues to discriminate extensively.

This article and interview are posted on RAIR Foundation, USA. Recent terrorism attacks in France had been condemned by most, but justified by some others.

Trudeau refused to completely denounce the latest act of violence. Instead, he partially defends it, claiming that people need to be sensitive when it comes to other people’s beliefs and feelings. While true, Trudeau never really condemns the violence, and plays both sides.

Ironically, Trudeau actually has a moment of pure honesty. In pluralistic, diverse societies, free speech must be limited in order to maintain social harmony. He inadvertently makes a great argument against multiculturalism.

3. Islam Used As Weapon Against West

Some very obvious questions have to be asked.

First: Why are people of such an incompatible background brought over in such large numbers? There will never be integration, especially when many have no interest in doing so. So why is this really being done?

Second: There’s a financial drain on social services, one that isn’t addressed enough. Why isn’t it openly talked about more in the public sphere?

Third: Is cracking down on free speech one of the goals? Do politicians support mass migration of Muslims in order to create chaos, and force the need to have more control? Beyond simple replacement, is destabilization an objective in drafting these policies?

Fourth: Who’s opening the floodgates in the first place? Who’s making challenges in court, lobbying politicians, and trying to influence public opinion? Who’s really calling the shots? They can’t be oblivious to the consequences of these open borders policies.

Unfortunately, these questions won’t be answered by public officials. However, this site will try to.

Thank you to RAIR, and Sassy, for the translation.

Posted on

TSCE #9(C): Canada’s Bills/Treaties Undermine Hague Convention On Child Abduction

Today is the 40th anniversary of the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. This is to focus on the civil side (such as custody issues). While this seems impressive, Canada has done much domestically and internationally to undermine and weaken the principles. Even the UN has studied the connection between illegal border crossings and smuggling, trafficking and child exploitation. Quite simply, without real borders, the Hague Convention is meaningless.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

For the previous work in the TSCE series. This is the 40th anniversary of the Hague Convention of Child Abduction. However, Governments ensure that it will continue. Also, take a look at open borders movement, the abortion and organs industry, and the NGOs who are supporting it. This is information that won’t be found in the mainstream or alternative media.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the Hague Convention treaty itself.
Hague Convention Civil Treaty
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s announcement on 40 year anniversary.

CLICK HERE, for Agenda 21, full treaty.
CLICK HERE, for Gov’t info on Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for text of Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for the many exemptions in S3CA.

CLICK HERE, for FIPA agreement Canada/China.
CLICK HERE, for previous review on FIPA.
CLICK HERE, for CD18.5, sanctuary for illegals in Toronto.
CLICK HERE, for Toronto EC5.5, human and sex trafficking resolution.
CLICK HERE, for Canadian Labour Congress on sanctuary cities.

CLICK HERE, for CANZUK International website.
CLICK HERE, for proposed expansion of CANZUK zone.
CLICK HERE, for review of new USMCA (NAFTA 2.0)
CLICK HERE, for link to official Agenda 2030 text.
CLICK HERE, for review of UNSDA Agenda 2030.
Text Of Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda
CLICK HERE, for text of New York Declaration.
new.york.declaration.2016

CLICK HERE, for Bill C-6, citizenship for terrorists.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-32, lowering age of consent for anal.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-75, reduced criminal penalties.
CLICK HERE, for 2nd review of Bill C-75 (child offences).
CLICK HERE, for asking if Gov’t actually supports trafficking.

UN Global Migration Compact (Full Text)

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

3. Quotes From Hague Convention (Civil) Treaty

Article 3
The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where –
a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and
b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or
would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.

Article 4
The Convention shall apply to any child who was habitually resident in a Contracting State immediately before any breach of custody or access rights. The Convention shall cease to apply when the child attains the age of 16 years.

Article 5
For the purposes of this Convention –
a) “rights of custody” shall include rights relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child’s place of residence;
b) “rights of access” shall include the right to take a child for a limited period of time to a place other than the child’s habitual residence.

Article 8
Any person, institution or other body claiming that a child has been removed or retained in breach of custody rights may apply either to the Central Authority of the child’s habitual residence or to the Central Authority of any other Contracting State for assistance in securing the return of the child.
The application shall contain –
a) information concerning the identity of the applicant, of the child and of the person alleged to have removed or retained the child;
b) where available, the date of birth of the child;
c) the grounds on which the applicant’s claim for return of the child is based;
d) all available information relating to the whereabouts of the child and the identity of the person with whom the child is presumed to be.
.
The application may be accompanied or supplemented by –
e) an authenticated copy of any relevant decision or agreement;
f) a certificate or an affidavit emanating from a Central Authority, or other competent authority of the State of the child’s habitual residence, or from a qualified person, concerning the relevant law of that State;
g) any other relevant document.

Article 13
Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that –
a) the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; or
b) there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.
.
The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the
child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate
to take account of its views.
.
In considering the circumstances referred to in this Article, the judicial and administrative authorities shall
take into account the information relating to the social background of the child provided by the Central
Authority or other competent authority of the child’s habitual residence.

Article 17
The sole fact that a decision relating to custody has been given in or is entitled to recognition in the requested State shall not be a ground for refusing to return a child under this Convention, but the judicial or administrative authorities of the requested State may take account of the reasons for that decision in applying this Convention.

In short, this is an international agreement to enforce child custody orders, or family disputes. Note: the children don’t have to be return if administrators determine there is some danger. Unfortunately, this seems entirely subjective.

4. Announcement From Global Affairs Canada

Statement
October 25, 2020 – Ottawa, Ontario – Global Affairs Canada
.
The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, today issued the following statement:
.
“Today, we mark the 40th anniversary of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
“Every year, in Canada and abroad, thousands of children are wrongfully taken across international borders by a parent or guardian in violation of rights of custody. This has devastating effects on families, and it is the children who suffer the most. Children must be at the heart of family justice, and mechanisms like the Hague Convention on child abduction are essential in order to assist them in these terrible situations.
.
“Canada, along with 100 contracting states, continues to support this global effort to protect children from wrongful removal or retention and return them to their country of residence. We continue to call on the global community to join us and to ratify this important convention.
.
“We are committed to working with our international partners to continue to protect children and to reinforce the operation of the convention.”

While this all sounds fine, it should be noted that Canada has done a lot, both domestically, and with international treaties to weaken and undermine the spirit of this agreement.

What other treaties or bills do this?

5. Canada’s Bills/Treaties Since 1980

Here are some of the major developments in Canada in the last few decades. All of these either weaken the borders and/or reduce the criminal penalties involved.

  • UN Agenda 21 (1992)
  • Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement (2002)
  • FIPA (2012)
  • Sanctuary cities (First in 2013)
  • CANZUK: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK (2015)
  • UN Agenda 2030 (2015)
  • New York Declaration (2016)
  • Bill C-6 citizenship for terrorists (2016)
  • Bill C-32/C-75 (2018)
  • UN Global Migration Compact (2018)
  • USMCA, NAFTA 2.0 (2020)

It doesn’t matter who’s in power. They’re all globalists.

6. Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement

CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;

ARTICLE 8
(1) The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
(2) These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
(3) The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.

Source is here. Serious question: why have Canada and the United States signed an agreement that quite clearly gives the UN a seat at the table?

The treaty was pretty ineffective anyway, given that people could still get into the country as long as they BYPASSED legal border ports. Now, thanks to the Federal Court, the agreement is effectively dead.

Of course, the tens of thousands entering Canada illegally in recent years pales in comparison to the hordes of LEGAL migrants entering under various programs.

7. FIPA Between Canada And China

FIPA largely eliminated the border between Canada and the Chinese. This means that Chinese nationals can freely enter Canada, almost without restrictions. They can also bring their own security to look after their national interests. Makes it easy to smuggle products — or people — into Canada.

8. Sanctuary Cities Forming In Canada

In 2013, Toronto became the first city in Canada to officially obtain status a sanctuary city. It was supported by “conservatives” Doug and Rob Ford. How are child custody agreements supposed to be enforced overseas when children can simply disappear in one of them?

Now list includes: Toronto, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Edmonton and others. In the 2018 Ontario election, the NDP campaigned on turning Ontario into a sanctuary province.

9. CANZUK (CDA, Australia, New Zealand, UK)

The Trans-Tasmanian Partnership is an agreement between Australia and New Zealand to let citizens work and freely travel in each other’s countries. CANZUK would essentially be an expansion of that agreement by adding both Canada and the UK. This is an actual open borders arrangement which could be further expanded.

CANZUK International was formed in 2015, and members of the CPC are some of its biggest supporters.

It’s also interesting how the justifications have changed. Previously, it was about opportunity. Now it’s about containing Chinese influence, which Conservatives allowed to grow in the first place. One obvious example is FIPA.

10. UN Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development

Agenda 2030 was signed in September 2015 by then PM Stephen Harper. It signs away more of Canada’s sovereignty to the “sustainable development agenda”, and makes mass migration across international borders even easier. So-called conservatives would be hard pressed to explain why this is okay, but why the Paris Accord and UN Global Migration Compact are so wrong. There is a lot of overlap with the content.

Worth a mention is that “Conservative” Brian Mulroney was in power in 1992 when Agenda 21 was signed in Brazil.

11. New York Declaration, UN GMC Prelude

This was signed in September 2016, just a year after Agenda 2030. The UN Global Migration Compact was largely based on this text. Both agreements are to make it easier to bring large numbers of people across borders, and to establish international standards. It’s not difficult to see how this would make child abduction and transportation easier to do.

12. Bill C-6, Citizenship For Terrorists

It cheapens Canadian citizenship when anyone can get it. This is especially true for convicted terrorists and traitors. There’s also the increased likelihood of people gaming the system to avoid being sent back, for say crimes against children.

13. Bill C-32/C-75, Reducing Criminal Penalties

If the government is concerned about the well being of children, then why would they introduce a bill to water down criminal penalties for sex crimes against children, and reduce the age of consent?

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

Bill C-75 “hybridized” these offences. What this means is that they were initially to be tried by indictment (felony), but now prosecutors have discretion to try them summarily (misdemeanor). Of course, there were plenty of Section 83 offences (terrorism) that were also hybridized.

14. UN Global Migration Compact

What is strange about the UNGMC is that its text explicitly undermines its stated goals. While the UN supposedly opposed smuggling, the agreement says people shall not be punished. And while condemning trafficking, the UN provides advice and guidance on how to do it more successfully.

15. USMCA, More Than Just Trade

The new USMCA (U.S., Mexico & Canada Agreement) is far more than just a trade agreement. It ensures that more “workers” will be coming across the borders, and cedes areas of labour rights to the UN.

16. How Does Any Of This Help Children?

Remember, this is the 40th anniversary on the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. Member states, (of which Canada is one), should take seriously the obligation to ensure that children are not taken across borders illegally, even if it’s by a parent, or some other guardian.

Instead, Canada signs treaties and passes bills that ensure that this will continue. Erasing borders, and reducing penalties does nothing to deter child smuggling. In fact, it only encourages it.

Sure, these changes don’t explicitly state moving children around illegally is a major goal (or even a goal at all). But as borders become less meaningful, this will certainly increase.