Category: Identity/Religion

Posted on

IBC #6(D): 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.

Posted on

Sex-Selective Abortion And The Mental Gymnastics Of “Conservative Inc.”

Modern conservative politicians make it clear that they will take money and votes from social conservatives, but will never advance their interests in any real way. Abortion is a major issue, but not the only one. They act as a form of controlled opposition.

1. Other Articles For Abortion/Infanticide

While abortion is trumpeted as a “human right” in Western societies, questions have to be asked: Why is it a human right? Who are these groups benefiting financially, and why are so they so fiercely against free speech? Do these groups also support the open borders industry, or organ trafficking? Not nearly enough people are making these connections.

2. Mental Gymnastics In Abortion Policy

CPC Policy Declaration 2018

The CPC explicitly states in their policy declaration to support no legislation to regulate abortion. However, MPs support Private Member’s Bill C-233, to ban the practice of sex-selective abortion (which would target female babies). But that contradiction is not the only problem.

Today’s “conservatives” have no issue with killing babies itself. However, they are adamantly opposed to letting them be killed simply for being female. The obvious answer is that Conservative politicians don’t actually care about the lives of the unborn, but just virtue signal to show how feminist they are.

Side note: it seems the CPC’s stance on euthanasia is to do nothing. They won’t expand access for assisted suicide, but they won’t do anything to restrict or roll it back either.

3. Conservatives: Only Fund Local Genocide

From the Canadian Press. Trudeau announces that Canada should be fund abortions globally. Conservatives object to the “globally” part, not the “abortion” part of it.

A slim majority of Conservative convention delegates voted Saturday against a resolution backed by anti-abortion campaigners while at the same time affirming the party’s opposition to using Canadian foreign aid to fund abortion services abroad — a mixed bag result for social conservatives.

Other controversial resolutions, including a push to limit citizenship rights for those born in this country to non-Canadian parents and an endorsement of moving Canada’s embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, received overwhelming support.

The abortion resolution, No. 65, would have struck from the party’s policy book a pledge that a Conservative government would not support any legislation to regulate abortion, something added under former prime minister Stephen Harper to reassure some Canadians that the Conservative Party did not have a “hidden agenda” to legislate an abortion ban.

More gaps in logic. Many conservatives don’t have a problem with using taxpayer money to kill CANADIAN children, but they oppose using public funds to exterminate FOREIGN children. So it’s not about principles, but simply how tax dollars are used.

The article refers to the August 2018 CPC Policy Convention. Of course, it wouldn’t be a conservative gathering without some pandering to Israel. In this case, the moving of an embassy.

4. Summer Jobs Grant Attestation

Ineligible projects and job activities:
Projects consisting of activities that take place outside of Canada;
Activities that contribute to the provision of a personal service to the employer;
Partisan political activities;
Fundraising activities to cover salary costs for the youth participant; or
Projects or job activities that:
restrict access to programs, services, or employment, or otherwise discriminate, contrary to applicable laws, on the basis of prohibited grounds, including sex, genetic characteristics, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression;
advocate intolerance, discrimination and/or prejudice; or
actively work to undermine or restrict a woman’s access to sexual and reproductive health services.

Please note the following definitions:
As per section 2.1 of the Canada Summer Jobs Articles of Agreement, “project” means the hiring, administration of, job activities, and organization’s activities as described in the Application Agreement.
To “advocate” means to promote, foster, or actively support intolerance, discrimination, and/or prejudice.
To “undermine or restrict” means to weaken or limit a woman’s ability to access sexual and reproductive health services. The Government of Canada defines sexual and reproductive health services as including comprehensive sexuality education, family planning, prevention and response to sexual and gender-based violence, safe and legal abortion, and post-abortion care.

Conservatives claimed to oppose the move to make the attestation mandatory for groups where their social beliefs conflicted with official government policy. To be clear though, this was framed as a free speech issue, not because the beliefs they held may be valid. See this piece for more information on the topic.

5. “Social Conservative” Leslyn Lewis

This weekend, Ontario-based political activist Tanya Granic Allen distributed an email making the case that social conservatives should not support me in the upcoming CPC Leadership election because of my past involvement with the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF).

They knew I held strong pro-life beliefs, and I hoped to be a balancing influence on the Board. After a few months of earnestly trying to make a difference, it was clear that it wasn’t the best fit all around, and we wished each other well, and I chose to conclude my term early with the Board.

I have chosen to be upfront with my pro-life views, and the fact that I will personally advocate for a law that fights the misogynistic practice of sex-selective abortion.

In the recent CPC leadership race, Leslyn Lewis promoted herself as a social conservative. She (sort of) defended her previous membership with Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF). Problem is, LEAF is far more extreme than she is letting on, so the membership makes no sense. One would have to wonder why she became a director without doing any research on the firm — or why they would pick her.

Interestingly, Lewis condemns the practice of sex-selective abortion as “misogynistic” for targeting girls, but she doesn’t condemn the practice of abortion overall.

A much more likely explanation is that Lewis ideologically agrees with the pro-death LEAF, but simply reinvented herself for perceived political gain.

Lewis also claims to oppose funding foreign abortions, but stays quiet on the topic of financing domestic ones.

6. What Conservative Inc. Really Stands For

To sum up, these are the official party positions of mainstream “conservatives” in Canada. Try to wrap your heads around them.

[1] We have no issue with the principle of abortion, and will pass no legislation against it, as long as children aren’t killed specifically for their gender.

[2] We don’t have a problem with paying to abort Canadian children, but we believe that killing children abroad is a waste of taxpayer money.

[3] We don’t agree with the principles that many religious groups stand for. We oppose the summer grants attestation requirement purely on free speech grounds.

[4] Yes, abortion leads to an overall lower birth rate, but we can just continue to import a replacement population to fill in the gaps.

Posted on

A Look Back At FIPA, And Selling Sovereignty To China

Erin O’Toole was a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade in 2014. It’s clear from these quotes that he doesn’t see a problem selling out Canada’s sovereignty to China with the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA). In fact, he glosses over just how bad this arrangement really is. All of the Conservatives did.

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/9/22/erin-otoole-1/

1. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

The other posts on outsourcing/offshoring are available here. It focuses on the hidden costs and trade offs society as a whole has to make. Contrary to what many politicians and figures in the media claim, there are always costs to these kinds of agreement. These include: (a) job losses; (b) wages being driven down; (c) undercutting of local companies; (d) legal action by foreign entities; (e) industries being outsourced; (f) losses to communities when major employers leave; and (g) loss of sovereignty to foreign corporations and governments. Don’t believe the lies that these agreements are overwhelmingly beneficial to all.

2. Important Links

(1) https://openparliament.ca/debates/
(2) https://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/9/22/erin-otoole-1/
(3) https://archive.is/p2fkV
(4) WayBack Machine Archive
(5) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/fipa-agreement-with-china-what-s-really-in-it-for-canada-1.2770159
(6) https://archive.is/C6Xvi
(7) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/china-chine/fipa-apie/index.aspx?lang=eng&_ga=2.159712829.1468063288.1601709213-445290716.1601709213
(8) https://archive.is/wC5ed
(9) WayBack Machine Archive

3. Other “Conservatives” Support FIPA

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2013/4/18/ron-cannan-3/

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2013/4/18/rob-merrifield-3/

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/6/4/lois-brown-7/

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2013/4/18/james-moore-3/

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2013/4/18/michael-chong-1/

4. Quotes From FIPA Agreement

Article 5
Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment
1. Each Contracting Party shall accord to investors of the other Contracting Party treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investors of a non-Contracting Party with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
2. Each Contracting Party shall accord to covered investments treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of investors of a non-Contracting Party with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
3. For greater certainty, the “treatment” referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article does not encompass the dispute resolution mechanisms, such as those in Part C, in other international investment treaties and other trade agreements.

Article 6
National Treatment
1. Each Contracting Party shall accord to investors of the other Contracting Party treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the expansion, management, conduct, operation and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
2. Each Contracting Party shall accord to covered investments treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of its own investors with respect to the expansion, management, conduct, operation and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
3. The concept of “expansion” in this Article applies only with respect to sectors not subject to a prior approval process under the relevant sectoral guidelines and applicable laws, regulations and rules in force at the time of expansion. The expansion may be subject to prescribed formalities and other information requirements.

Article 11
Compensation for Losses
Investors of one Contracting Party who suffer losses in respect of covered investments owing to war, a state of national emergency, insurrection, riot or other similar events, shall be accorded treatment by the other Contracting Party, in respect of restitution, indemnification, compensation or other settlement, no less favourable than it accords in like circumstances, to its own investors or to investors of any third State.

Local laws — environmental protection, for example — which are seen as harmful and detrimental to business interests will be considered grounds to submit a claim for compensation.

Article 23
Consent to Arbitration
Each Contracting Party consents to the submission of a claim to arbitration in accordance with the procedures set out in this Agreement. Failure to meet any of the conditions precedent provided for in Article 21 shall nullify that consent.

Disputes won’t be heard in any open or transparent way. Instead arbitration that is largely secret will be resolving disputes.

Article 35
Entry into Force and Termination
1. The Contracting Parties shall notify each other through diplomatic channels that they have completed the internal legal procedures for the entry into force of this Agreement. This Agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the following month after the second notification is received, and shall remain in force for a period of at least fifteen years.
2. After the expiration of the initial fifteen-year period, this Agreement shall continue to be in force. Either Contracting Party may at any time thereafter terminate this Agreement. The termination will be effective one year after notice of termination has been received by the other Contracting Party.
3. With respect to investments made prior to the date of termination of this Agreement, Articles 1 to 34, as well as paragraph 4 of this Article, shall continue to be effective for an additional fifteen-year period from the date of termination.
4. The Annexes and footnotes to this Agreement constitute integral parts of this Agreement.

So the agreement itself lasts for at least 15 years. Then, we are required to give a 1 year notice, at which time, Articles 1 to 34 will lapse in another 15 years. All in all, this agreement will then last a minimum of 31 years. This is an entire generation away from being able to really terminate.

5. What Is Canada Getting With FIPA?

The secrecy shrouding the much-delayed Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) with China makes it hard for experts, let alone average Canadians, to figure out what benefits this country will see from the deal.

-Canadian governments are locked in for a generation. If Canada finds the deal unsatisfactory, it cannot be cancelled completely for 31 years.
-China benefits much more than Canada, because of a clause allowing existing restrictions in each country to stay in place. Chinese companies get to play on a relatively level field in Canada, while maintaining wildly arbitrary practices and rules for Canadian companies in China.
-Chinese companies will be able to seek redress against any laws passed by any level of government in Canada which threaten their profits. Australia has decided not to enter FIPA agreements specifically because they allow powerful corporations to challenge legislation on social, environmental and economic issues. —-Chinese companies investing heavily in Canadian energy will be able seek billions in compensation if their projects are hampered by provincial laws on issues such as environmental concerns or First Nations rights, for example.
-Cases will be decided by a panel of professional arbitrators, and may be kept secret at the discretion of the sued party. This extraordinary provision reflects an aversion to transparency and public debate common to the Harper cabinet and the Chinese politburo.
–Differences between FIPA and the North American Free Trade Agreement may offer intriguing loopholes for American lawyers to argue for equal treatment under the principle of Most Favoured Nation.

The CBC covered the story and raised several legitimate concerns over this deal. Secrecy aside, it’s difficult to see what (if any) real benefits Canada gets from it.

6. China Buying Up Assets Across Canada

This is too long to do justice here, but Canadian laws make it easy for foreigners to buy property in Canada. This applies regardless of whether they live here, or even intend to. The Chinese in particular are taking full advantage of that.

7. Putting China Over Canadians

This isn’t really related to FIPA, but still good to point out: even so-called “populists” can be globalist shills. Here is no different. How does making it easier to import cheap Chinese products keep industries and jobs in Canada? However, China has more freedom and less government in recent decades.

8. CANZUK To Counter Chinese Influence?

CPC Policy Declaration August 2018

Have to love the mental gymnastics here. CPC Leader Erin O’Toole spoke in support of CANZUK in the 2018 Policy Convention. He explicitly stated he wanted to “let more and more countries” into the agreement. Fast forward 2 years, and he wants to accelerate CANZUK to stop the growing Chinese influence ….. that he supported in 2014. Way to be consistent.

9. Can O’Toole/CPC Actually Be Trusted?

How can anyone trust Erin O’Toole?
(a) He has no qualms about selling sovereignty to China.
(b) He supports CANZUK — and expanding the zone.
(c) CANZUK is now just a way to counter China, who is still here.
(d) Heenan Blaikie was Trudeau Sr.’s and Chretien’s old law firm.
(e) He is an ex-Facebook lobbyist.
(f) He openly shills for foreign powers like Israel.
(g) He supports even more draconian measures than Trudeau.
(h) His Chief of Staff is a Director at Sick Kids Hospital.
(i) CPC supports the temp-to-PR pipeline.

10. Objection To FIPA Pushed, No Real Debate

See here, here and here for original source material. There were people who opposed the sellout by the Conservatives.

11. Conservative Politicians Are Globalists

One would think that “conserving” in the sense of trade meant protecting local industries, and protecting communities from having major employers shipped overseas.

However, that is not the case. What passes for conservatism is really just “corporatism”, putting those interests over that of the local population. There are far more important things than stock prices and overall profits.

Ask them to “conserve” the makeup, culture, language, traditions, or heritage of a country, and that’s being racist. After all, Canada is make up of abstract values (that few can agree on), not any sort of identity.