Category: Immigration (Canada)

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #10: Promoting World Hijab Day

(Windsor Hospital promoting “World Hijab Day”)

This is the 10th piece in the open-ended series “CBC Propaganda”. For those who don’t know, CBC (a.k.a. the “Communist Broadcasting Corporation” or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”) is a state funded media outlet, which taxpayers are forced to pay. This costs in excess of $1 billion annually.

CLICK HERE, for the CBC article itself.
THE PROPAGANDA MASTERLIST is available here.

“Windsor Regional Hospital is celebrating World Hijab Day, a day marked since 2013 to encourage women of all backgrounds to try on a hijab.
.
The hospital’s diversity committee will have booths set up at the Met and Ouellette campuses, explaining why the hijab is worn and visitors will be invited to try one on.
.
Lina Chaker, who volunteers with the Windsor Islamic Association, sees the day as an invitation for people to see how wearing the hijab influences their daily life.
.
“[The hijab] means something different for every single person,” said Chaker.
For her? It’s a way to strengthen her relationship to God.
.
People who are unfamiliar with the hijab or have questions are more than welcome to ask questions, according to Chaker.
.
Ruaa Farhat, a 4th year social work student at University of Windsor, echoes that sentiment.
“It’s understandable, because some people just don’t know,” said Farhat.
.
Commonly asked questions include: do you sleep with it on? To which the answer would be no, she doesn’t.
.
Any misconceptions?
.
Farhat and Chaker both started wearing the hijab at around 6th grade.
.
“A lot of times we think about people being pressured to wear the hijab. But I think over here in Canada, the trend is actually people tell you not to wear it,” said Chaker.
.
Hijab hacks: Two Windsor women share advice on World Hijab Day
.
VideoHow to: Lessons in hijab wrapping for non-Muslims
.
She remembers her family telling her that she was still young, that she didn’t need to wear it. And her mother was worried about her being bullied in school if she wore one.
.
Farhat said she’s had to explain that it’s so liberal in Canada and that there’s no pressure.
.
“So the fact that I am wearing it, shows that I’m doing it out of my own will,” she said. She feels wearing one is a representation of her true self.
.
Farhat and Chaker say there are many styles to the hijab and people wear it in many ways.
.
“Some people like certain colours more than others,” said Chaker. She personally prefers not to use pins and to have fewer layers.
.
To learn more about the hijab, people are invited to stop by the Met Campus Friday from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., and the Ouellette Campus Friday from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.”

One thing to note: CBC has disabled the comments on this article.

Okay, what could be wrong with this? What is wrong with promoting it? Anyway, this group seems nice enough.

One “very small” detail gets omitted here:

In parts of the world, where Muslims are a majority, wearing the hijab is MANDATORY. It isn’t OPTIONAL for those women. If CBC were actually an objective media outlet, it would mention that

(Source is here.)

(Source is here.)

(Source is here.)

These are just a few examples of media coverage of punishment for women removing these headscarves. Any quick internet search will reveal thousands of such articles.

Of course, these strict dress codes only apply to women, not to men. Yet, Western feminists are deafeningly silent on this double standard. Perhaps by comparison, Western women have nothing to gripe about.

Rather than go into detail, I will leave it to the reader to do their own research. Why “promote” the hijab in the west, while it is clearly “oppression” under Islamic rule?

CBC, which again, gets over a billion dollars of Canadian taxpayer money every year “should” be broadcasting a far more balanced view on the subject. But objectivity seems non-existent.

Final note: CBC seems to have ignored a story it posted a year and a half ago, because it obviously doesn’t fit the narrative.

Posted on

Loophole in Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement

CLICK HERE, for full text for the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement.

THE UNDERSTANDING

From the opening of the agreement


EMPHASIZING that the United States and Canada offer generous systems of refugee protection, recalling both countries’ traditions of assistance to refugees and displaced persons abroad, consistent with the principles of international solidarity that underpin the international refugee protection system, and committed to the notion that cooperation and burden-sharing with respect to refugee status claimants can be enhanced;

DESIRING to uphold asylum as an indispensable instrument of the international protection of refugees, and resolved to strengthen the integrity of that institution and the public support on which it depends;

NOTING that refugee status claimants may arrive at the Canadian or United States land border directly from the other Party, territory where they could have found effective protection;

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;

AWARE that such sharing of responsibility must ensure in practice that persons in need of international protection are identified and that the possibility of indirect breaches of the fundamental principle of non-refoulement are avoided, and therefore determined to safeguard for each refugee status claimant eligible to pursue a refugee status claim who comes within their jurisdiction, access to a full and fair refugee status determination procedure as a means to guarantee that the protections of the Convention, the Protocol, and the Torture Convention are effectively afforded;

The wording is pretty clear here. Canada and the United States view each other as safe countries. If you land in one country, you “should” not be able to hop to the other and claim refugee status.

It is of interest to read in particular, articles 4, 5, 6

ARTICLE 4
Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, the Party of the country of last presence shall examine, in accordance with its refugee status determination system, the refugee status claim of any person who arrives at a land border port of entry on or after the effective date of this Agreement and makes a refugee status claim.
Responsibility for determining the refugee status claim of any person referred to in paragraph 1 shall rest with the Party of the receiving country, and not the Party of the country of last presence, where the receiving Party determines that the person:
-Has in the territory of the receiving Party at least one family member who has had a refugee status claim granted or has been granted lawful status, other than as a visitor, in the receiving Party’s territory; or
-Has in the territory of the receiving Party at least one family member who is at least 18 years of age and is not ineligible to pursue a refugee status claim in the receiving Party’s refugee status determination system and has such a claim pending; or
-Is an unaccompanied minor; or
-Arrived in the territory of the receiving Party:
With a validly issued visa or other valid admission document, other than for transit, issued by the receiving Party; or
Not being required to obtain a visa by only the receiving Party.
The Party of the country of last presence shall not be required to accept the return of a refugee status claimant until a final determination with respect to this Agreement is made by the receiving Party.
Neither Party shall reconsider any decision that an individual qualifies for an exception under Articles 4 and 6 of this Agreement.

Makes clear about a formal point of entry. However, those who value sovereignty will note with concern there are many exceptions to keep alleged “refugees” in Canada far longer.

ARTICLE 5
In cases involving the removal of a person by one Party in transit through the territory of the other Party, the Parties agree as follows:
Any person being removed from Canada in transit through the United States, who makes a refugee status claim in the United States, shall be returned to Canada to have the refugee status claim examined by and in accordance with the refugee status determination system of Canada.
Any person being removed from the United States in transit through Canada, who makes a refugee status claim in Canada, and:
whose refugee status claim has been rejected by the United States, shall be permitted onward movement to the country to which the person is being removed; or
who has not had a refugee status claim determined by the United States, shall be returned to the United States to have the refugee status claim examined by and in accordance with the refugee status determination system of the United States.

It appears clear cut. You cannot country shop from one to another, and there is a specific agreement to remove those people who try.

ARTICLE 6
Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement, either Party may at its own discretion examine any refugee status claim made to that Party where it determines that it is in its public interest to do so.

So, either Canada or the United States could remove anyone at any time if deemed in national interest.

HERE is the problem:

Where the Agreement is in effect
The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:
-at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
-by train or
-at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S.

As if plain and obvious, this only applies to border crossings entries. This means that fake refugees can bypass the agreement simply by entering anyplace other than an official border crossing.

That has been happening, by the thousands. See HERE, see HERE, and HERE.

One obvious solution would be to declare the “ENTIRE BORDER” a point of entry. However, there seems to be little willpower in Ottawa to do that.

In fact, Prime Minister Trudeau has no issues with calling a racist anyone who questions the open border.

Posted on

Democracy Without Borders: A Call For A Globalist Gov’t

(Open call for 1-world government)

“We strive for a democratic world order in which citizens participate beyond national boundaries.”

At least they are being upfront about it.

CLICK HERE, for the main site

Let read some more about what this organization wants to do


We, the Peoples
The UN believes that democracy belongs to its universal and indivisible core values and principles. The UN Charter begins on the promising opening words: “We the peoples.” However, one will seek in vain for a means by which ordinary people can play a role in the world organization. It is high time that the UN allows citizen-elected representatives to participate in its deliberations.

An Incremental Approach
Initially, states could choose whether their UNPA members would come from national (or regional) parliaments or whether they would be directly elected. Starting as a largely consultative body, the rights and powers of the UNPA could be expanded over time as its democratic character increases. In the long run, the assembly could develop into a real world parliament.

A Global Campaign
Democracy Without Borders coordinates the global Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly that was launched in 2007. The campaign is supported by various civil society organizations as well as by individuals from 150 countries, among them nearly 1,500 current and former members of parliament and numerous distinguished personalities from all walks of life.

The UN believes that democracy belongs to universal values & principles

CLICK HERE, for a review of “The New Nationalism”, by Steve Turley. He makes a very compelling argument for what really binds societies together.

ETHNO-NATIONALIST: The people are what matters, be it: heritage, culture, common language, traditions, way of life, and often ancestry, are the necessary elements for a cohesive society. EN is commonly thought to be a racial supremacist ideology, but that just isn’t the case.

CIVIC-NATIONALIST: The multicultural way of life. The cohesive unity that ethno-nationalists stress is not nearly as important as more abstract beliefs such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and acceptance rather than assimilation of newcomers.

Civic nationalists claim (rightly), that their society promotes tolerance and diversity. Ethno nationalists claim (rightly), that there is nothing that holds them together, and that people will just form groups which do reflect their identities. These 2 ideologies are in fact arguing different things.

It becomes clear that this group promotes the idea of “values” rather than “identity”. But what values exactly? And if a “culture” or “religion” has values which are completely incompatible, do we just accept it as “diversity?

It is time the UN allows citizen-elected representatives to take part in the deliberations? Why is that? What is wrong with keeping democratic voices within the nations themselves? Of course, if 51% of nations decide to impose rules that the other 49% vehemently oppose, that would technically be “democratic”.

This was launched in 2007, more than a decade ago? Then why has there been no public debate on the issue?

“As humanity struggles with mass violence, mass migrations and the widening effect of climate change, the international system inaugurated nearly 75 years ago to manage such global problems seems to be crumbling. The United States has turned its back on the United Nations Human Rights Council and the Paris climate accord. It openly attacked the International Criminal Court. During the UN General Assembly, Donald Trump publicly stated that “nations must defend against threats to sovereignty … from global governance.”

The UN Human Rights Council, as of the time of this publishing, includes:
1/ Afghanistan;
2/ Bahrain;
3/ Bangladesh;
4/ China;
5/ Cuba;
6/ Democratic Republic of the Congo;
7/ India;
8/ Iraq;
9/ Nigeria;
10/ Pakistan;
11/ Qatar;
12/ Rwanda;
13/ Saudi Arabia;
14/ Somalia;
15/ Tunisia

So why exactly should the US take this “Human Rights Council” seriously?

The “climate change scam” does nothing to prevent climate change. It is just a giant wealth transfer scheme. No wonder Trump left.

As for the UN Global Migration Compact, it is a globalist agreement to normalize mass migration. In fact, the UN cites 258 million migrants. Not refugees. Migrants.

“Fortunately, efforts by others to reinvigorate the multilateral system are underway. Last November, President Emmanuel Macron convened the inaugural Paris Peace Forum, to “offer the opportunity to reflect on world governance while we commemorate the end of World War I and recognize our collective responsibility.”

Poor example to cite Macron. Efforts may be underway, but there is at least as much pushback. Nationalists won’t tolerate the one-world vision Macron promotes. Nor is the European Army idea going over too well.

“Call for a global leaders summit in 2020
Among the initiatives gathered in Paris was Just Security 2020, which builds on the Albright-Gambari Commission on Global Security, Justice and Governance and calls for a global leaders summit in September 2020, the 75th anniversary of the UN’s founding.

The suggested summit offers a chance to contemplate the international system as a whole and its anchor, the UN. This gathering could adopt innovations to make the UN better prepared for current and future global challenges and more resilient amid America’s withdrawal from global leadership.”

Cute to use the 75th anniversary of UN founding. But that is the least of it.

Logistical question: given the money that the United States has been pumping in for the last 75 years, approximately 25% of all payments globally that leaves a major gap. Furthermore, you seem to assume that no other nations will leave. Very unwise.

“For the summit to achieve meaningful changes, a new coalition of smart like-minded civil society groups and states is urgently needed. The UN 2020 Initiative has built a broad effort advocating for such a leaders summit. Through consultations, policy research and engaging government delegations, the coalition represents what is needed to ensure that UN reforms meet 21st-century challenges.”

Like minded in what way? You need to specify. Will leader with nationalist views be shunned?

Despite the initiative’s growing influence, in September last year, Russia and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) succeeded in removing from a new UN General Assembly Resolution, A/RES/72/313, language seeking preparations for the 75th anniversary with an eye to “further strengthen the Organization and improve its work.” Russia and NAM countries, such as Algeria, appear already concerned about a summit agenda that could run counter to their national interests.”

Now we get to some good stuff, though it seems shrugged off. Several other nations are worried about a summit that runs counter to their national interests. The US may be the least of your worries.

“Rebuilding multilateralism
Rather than resign themselves to these near-term diplomatic setbacks, concerned civic groups and governments should be inspired by President Macron’s recent call, in his address to the General Assembly, to “rebuild multilateralism,” which he sees as a “challenge . . . for our generation.” In addition, German foreign minister Heiko Maas proclaimed that the United Nations thrives on the pledge of “Together First”, a slogan which is now the name of a civil society campaign launched at the Paris Peace Forum.

Further, the Spanish foreign minister Josep Borrell stated in an op-ed that the 75th anniversary of the United Nations in 2020 “may be a good moment to analyse at a summit some institutional changes necessary to increase its legitimacy and effectiveness, such as the reform of the Security Council to make it more representative and limit the use of the vetoes of the great powers, or the establishment of a parliamentary assembly, thus strengthening the role of civil society and the democratic dimension of the multilateral system.”

What Are the Goals for 2020?
To reverse the recent inroads made by populist and authoritarian forces worldwide, it is time for governments, scholars, activists and others to reiterate the need for multilateralism and to recognize the pursuit of justice and security as critical for achieving peace and prosperity. This approach is spelled out in our new book, Just Security in an Undergoverned World.”
This is Orwellian style double speak. Populists who listen to their people have made inroads, and this is a bad thing? What happened to being accountable to your citizens?

The pursuit of justice and security as critical? Sounds like a totalitarian state. Or rather, post-national state.

And to be clear: are populists and authoritarians 2 different things? Or do you conflate them?

“In examining threats and opportunities at the intersection of security and justice through the prism of “just security,” we developed these proposals:

I’m almost afraid to read further.

“Make key changes in UN Security Council membership and engagement. The UN’s approaching anniversary should encourage give and take, which could break the political logjam that has long hampered efforts to make the Council more effective and representative. For example, a small amendment to the UN Charter’s Article 23 could allow nonpermanent members (e.g., Germany and India) to be re-elected for consecutive terms. And the Council’s permanent-five members (Britain, China, France, Russia and the US) should again be encouraged to restrain — or at least to publicly justify — their use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities against civilians.”

Break the political logjam? Okay, this seems more like tweaking a system.

Britain, France, China, US & Russia should be encouraged to refrain (or at least justify) using their veto in cases of mass civilian atrocities? With this statement, you have basically justified “scrapping” the entire UN Security Council.

“Create a “G20+” as part of a new framework for global economic cooperation. Every two years at UN headquarters, the G20 forum should engage the other 173 member countries of the world body to ensure greater institutionalized coordination — with the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization and others — and more prioritizing on crucial issues for the world economy. This new G20+ configuration could also strive to prevent the spread of cross-border financial shocks, promote the reduction of economic inequality and foster the inclusive growth that is necessary for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.”

Integrating nations with globalist organizations? Integrating nations into one umbrella organization? How is that working out for the European Union?

“Establish a UN parliamentary network as an advisory body under UN Charter Article 22. The network would engage parliamentarians from their own legislatures to advise the General Assembly on UN governance, from reducing extreme poverty to nuclear nonproliferation. It would also complement other work to develop a transnational democratic culture, including the European Parliament’s recent recommendation to establish a UN parliamentary assembly.”

The European Union supports a proposed UN Parliament? That I believe. And yes, efforts are underway to launch such a project. Although, with the vast amount of difficulty the EU is having, why would a UN Parliament fare any better? European nations at least have similar cultures and heritages, something that obviously wouldn’t hold for a “global” parliament.

“A New ‘Smart’ Coalition
At the start of his tenure, in January 2017, UN Secretary-General António Guterres launched internal reviews on peace and security, development and management sectors, and in late July he appointed Jens Wandel, a veteran UN administrator, to carry out the reforms. While the reviews recommended long-overdue changes to the UN system, they are only the first wave of transformations to come.

A new kind of smart coalition that taps the ideas, networks and abilities of diverse players must step up, alongside Guterres, to ensure that the UN’s 75th anniversary commemoration in two years becomes a turning point and not an anticlimax. Constructive criticisms of the UN from the right and the left should be heeded to weigh and adopt bold structural reform ideas. All this can help enable a modernized system of governance to better grapple with the crises now facing humankind.

This piece was originally published at Passblue under a CC BY-ND 4.0 license. This version includes a few updates made by the authors.”

So, is this the group behind the United Nations Parliament? They certainly support it.
Groups like this need to be exposed, if nations are to be kept intact.

Nationalists: Put “their” nation’s well being first
Globalists: Sacrifice their nation for some “greater good”

Seems simple enough, but this group will never entertain, let alone accept the nation-state.

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #8: Border Walls Are Useless. People Will Go Around

(Walls are pointless. Don’t even bother)

CBC, a.k.a The “Communist Broadbasting Corporation”, or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”, is a government funded “news” organization. It receives about $1.5 billion annually to spew out anti-Canadian stories. Taxpayers don’t get a say in the matter.

CLICK HERE, to reach the CBC Propaganda Masterlist. It is far from complete, but being added to regularly.

A lot to go through on this on.
CLICK HERE, for the article.
CLICK HERE, for the full transcript.

Quotes From The Transcript

AMT: Last week President Trump tweeted some statistics that he claims bolster his case. He wrote – and I’m quoting here – “There are now 77 major or significant was built around the world with 45 countries planning or building walls”. And then he continued: “The 800 miles of wars that have gone up in Europe since 2015 have been almost 100 percent successful.” Well as is usually the case for Donald Trump’s tweets some people took issue with those facts. What is true is that the United States is not the only country building walls and fences to protect its border.

Okay, are Trump’s facts wrong? Are border walls not going up across the globe?

SOUNDCLIP
[Music]
NEWSCASTER1: The race is on to get Hungary’s border fence ready by the end of month. It’s being built by prison inmates.
NEWSCASTER1: You’re still on Norwegian soil. Just over there. And you are in Russia. And while this fence is just a few hundred meters long, campaigners for refugees say it’s become something of a symbol of Norway’s changing attitudes.
NEWSCASTER2: The IDF is constantly improving its defensive capabilities. One of those being a wall being built between Lebanon and the 20 some Israeli communities adjacent to the border.
NEWSCASTER3: The King and county town of [unintelligible] clan elders say the border barrier has helped. This is what is meant to keep out Al Shabab fighters based in Somalia, part of a larger government project to protect the porous border

None of the examples cited here seem at all unreasonable. All are meant to reduce the flow of illegal immigration. “Illegal” immigration is something which globalists openly call for, since they don’t believe in sovereign nations.

“AMT: Well my next guest is someone who has studied many of the wars going up around the world right now. And Elisabeth Vallet fundamentally disagrees with Donald Trump. She says more walls are being built not because they work but in spite of the fact that they do not. Elisabeth Vallet is an adjunct professor and scientific director in geopolitics at the Raoul-Dandurand Chair at the University of Quebec at Montreal are and she joins us from Montreal. Hello.
.
AMT: What was your reaction when you saw Donald Trump tweeting those statistics about walls?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: I had seen statistics quoted by extreme right groups before and marginal blogs. I thought I would leave them alone since they didn’t need more exposure. But when the president did so, and argued that they were working, the fact that he was distorting my research really bothered me. And I thought that I had – not as an activist which I am not, but as a researcher – I had to set the record straight.”

Wanting to defend you borders and nation from massive amounts of illegal immigration is “far-right”? An issue that seems to be conflated here: Do you see border walls as 1/ immoral, or 2/ impractical? These are two very different arguments. And not an activist? Good to hear, but we will see.

“AMT: So can you break it down for me? How much of what Mr. Trump had to say was correct?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: So first of all he used the uproar that of our research. There are 77 walls that have been announced, are built so far credibly announced. And 70 of them have been built so far. And [unintelligible] countries have indeed built 70 border walls in the world. So that part was straight. The part about the 100 percent efficiency is that adequate, even in Europe. Because all those walls, some of them, are designed to prevent migration in Hungary are in Norway, but some of them are also designed to keep Russia at bay. This is in the Baltic states are Ukraine. So you’ve got different walls, different functions and in all cases what a wall does? Is a wall will redefine the geo-politics of the area and the geo-politics of the flows? So far while it may look like it is working, but actually it will just reroute and redefine the flows. Sometimes those flows that were taking place in the open will just be more underground, so more dangerous for the people that are trying to cross the border. But in the end they are not working. And this is why usually when you have a wall then you will have military deployed around the wall and technology and robots, drones and sensors. Because a wall per se doesn’t achieve anything apart from scarifying at the borderlands and ruining the local economies.”

We have different walls, different functions, and in all cases, what a wall does? Granted geo-politics differs form region to region. However, the function is the same: to prevent people from illegally crossing.

People will just go underground and it’s more dangerous? So what? You act as if illegal crossings and immigration are human rights.

Walls don’t achieve anything other scarifying at the borderlands and ruining local economies? Considering the amount of benefits that get paid out CLICK HERE, for one example, it could be argued that illegal immigration “strains” local economies.

And what about the rights of citizens to have an independent state and to not be forced to put up with illegal immigration? Do those voices not matter? Or are they all “far-right”?

“AMT: So can you give us an overview of some of the more significant walls that exist and are being built around the world?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: Well we could speak about countries that are literally fencing themselves and India is one of them. India has a huge fence with Pakistan, but of course with Bangladesh. They are actually fencing Bangladesh out of the peninsula. Of course you have the U.S. Mexican border which is fenced, walled on a third of the border. The one between Israel and the West Bank is also an interesting one. Israel was among those countries that is trying to fence itself, fortify itself literally. And then you will find other walls. You spoke about the one between Kenya Somalia. There is one between Botswana and Zimbabwe. Those in the Fergana Valley in Central Asia between China and North Korea. So you have those border walls across the world. A lot of them, the majority of them, has been built after 9/11 and a lot of them has been built after the Arab Spring.
.
AMT: So what do you see is driving the construction of those what?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: There are three reasons why you Bill borrow walls. Few of them now are being built for peace keeping, border enforcing reasons. It’s a way to end a conflict that has no end; between the two Koreas, between the Turkish and Greek part of Cyprus, in a way between India and Pakistan, Ukraine and Russia. Even between Israel and the West Bank it is a way to define a border that if we had a two state solution picking up that would be the final border. And then you have two reasons that dominates the discourse. One of them is smuggling and terrorism and the other one is migration. But those reasons sometimes alternate or overlap. So it’s pretty hard to distinguish them. So two third of them are built for that purpose. “

Walls are being built for peace keeping and border enforcement? Are those people far-right racists as well?

Smuggling and terrorism are 2 valid concerns? Agreed.

Sometimes for migration? Illegal immigration “is” a serious problem in the west. And if you make it a human right, then anyone can migrate. In fact, you acknowledge here that there is overlap between immigration, smuggling and terrorism.

You seem unaware that you are actually debunking your own arguments against walls.

“AMT: We all remember the Berlin Wall coming down. In fact it was 30 years ago this year. I’ve got a clip here that I’d like you to hear. These are two Germans talking about what it felt like to stand on top of the Berlin Wall after the crowds started streaming across the border.
.
AMT: Elisabeth Vallet, how did the fall of that iconic wall affect our ideas around the usefulness or function of walls?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: Well actually if you remember in 1989 it opened a almost a hippie era of international relations, where we believed that it was the end of borders me. Maybe even the end of state sovereignty or even the fading sovereignty of the state. We believed that peace would be dominating and that conflicts would be solved by the international community. It actually showed the good the positive aspects of globalization. And we overlooked the negative aspects of globalization. And when 9/11 arrived, it’s as if that negative aspect of globalization showed its face. And that’s when the only solution to that, governments came up with the one only solution which was building border fences, because there is no way to retain globalization, to contain globalization.”

This quote is so disingenuous that it needs to be called out all on its own. The Berlin Wall was put up in the 1960s by the Soviet Union to keep people in Berlin from leaving. To keep them prisoners. It was not about preventing illegal immigration “into” East Germany.

You thought that breaking down a wall imprisoning people would lead to the end of state sovereignty? You are delusional. Again, you conflate 2 completely different purposes.

Building border fences is the only way to contain globalism? You make that sound as if it’s a bad thing. It would only be bad if you believe nations shouldn’t have sovereignty.

“AMT: Donald Trump has talked about how he wants the border to be impenetrable. What do you think would happen if we had more rigid borders like that?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: Basically nothing because there is always a way to go around. You will see those pictures of ramps where you can drive cars to go over the U.S. Mexican wall which is huge. You will see drones going above. You will see even there is that one catapult that was actually fixed on the border wall to send drugs on the other side. They found a tunnel last week and through the city of Nogales. So there are always ways to go around. And one thing is, the wall doesn’t change a thing in the U.S. case since most of the trucks are coming into the U.S. through their regular ports of entry. So the world doesn’t help anything, doesn’t change anything. A border cannot be impenetrable. I would even say that a border is not meant to be that way.”

First, assuming everything she says is true, should a nation not “try” to defend its borders and independence just because people will try to sneak in? Border defence is difficult, so to heck with it, I suppose.

Second, she is not making a “moral” argument against border walls, but rather a “impracticality” argument. As outlined in earlier comments, she cites: 1/ open conflict; 2/ smuggling; 3/ terrorism, not to mention 4/ mass migration. All of the above are certainly valid reasons to invest heavily in border security.

There is another interview with a historian, David Frye, but compared to the first interview, there is little to criticise.

Overall though, it is interesting how often CBC has open-borders and illegal immigration supporters doing interviews. The globalist slant is very obvious here. Perhaps some balance, or at least provide tougher questions next time.

Posted on

UN Parliamentary Assembly Proposed (a.k.a Global Government)

(The globalist UN, showing its true colours once again)

(In 2007, the Canadian House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee voted to endorse the idea of the UN Parliament. Stephen Harper was Prime Minister. Self-identified “populist” Maxime Bernier would soon be the Foreign Affairs Minister, and say nothing.)

(Seriously, this was previously approved in 1993?)

(1) https://en.unpacampaign.org/proposal/
(2) http://archive.is/GMgwO
(3) https://en.unpacampaign.org/supporters/survey/
(4) http://archive.is/KpIqW
(5) https://en.unpacampaign.org/supporters/overview/?mapcountry=CA&mapgroup=mem
(6) http://archive.is/P7ZS9

(7) https://en.unpacampaign.org/meetings/november2007/
(8) http://archive.is/NKaj8
(9) http://archive.is/kRdVJ
(10) https://en.unpacampaign.org/meetings/november2008/
(11) http://archive.is/z1jUo
(12) http://archive.is/tNX9Z
(13) https://en.unpacampaign.org/239/establishment-of-a-global-parliament-discussed-at-international-meeting-in-new-york/
(14) http://archive.is/5lMyX
(15) http://archive.is/dXbo6
(16) https://en.unpacampaign.org/265/declaration-calls-for-intergovernmental-conference-on-un-parliament/
(17) http://archive.is/dXbo6
(18) https://en.unpacampaign.org/311/post-2015-agenda-should-include-elected-un-assembly-to-strengthen-democratic-participation/
(19) http://archive.is/xloAX
(20) archive.is/I4Mtb
(21) https://en.unpacampaign.org/files/declaration/en.pdf

To all the conspiracy theorists who believe that the UN is proposing setting up a one world government, your fears just became validation.

The UN formally proposes to do exactly that.

2. Quotes From Site

The proposal of a UN Parliamentary Assembly
.
The proposal of a UN Parliamentary Assembly
.
In this age of globalization, more and more issues have a global dimension that requires global cooperation. At the UN and other international fora, governments come together to negotiate and decide on policies that affect us all.
.
The UN Charter begins on the promising opening words: “We the peoples.” However, one will seek in vain for any clause in the document that specifies a means by which ordinary people can play a role in the organization’s deliberations and decision-making.
.
The bodies of the UN and international organizations are occupied by officials who are appointed by the executive branches of national governments. In view of the growing importance of international organizations and their decisions, this is no longer sufficient.
.
A United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) for the first time would give popularly elected representatives a formal role in global affairs. As an additional body, the assembly will directly represent the world’s citizens and not governments.
.
Initially, states could choose whether their UNPA members would come from national parliaments, reflecting their political spectrum and gender equality, or whether they would be directly elected. Eventually, the goal is to have all members directly elected.
.
Starting as a largely consultative body, the rights and powers of the UNPA could be expanded over time as its democratic legitimacy increases. The assembly will act as an independent watchdog in the UN system and as a democratic reflection of the diversity of world public opinion.
.
In the long run, once its members are all democratically elected, the assembly could be developed into a world parliament which – under certain conditions and in conjunction with the UN General Assembly – may be able to adopt universally binding regulations.
.
In short, the UN should evolve from what many believe to be a generally ineffectual “talk-shop” into a viable democratic and legislative body.

Okay, let’s break this down a bit:

”In this age of globalization, more and more issues have a global dimension that requires global cooperation. At the UN and other international fora, governments come together to negotiate and decide on policies that affect us all.”

So what? This seems to deliberately conflate cooperation with sovereignty. Nations can and do discuss and cooperate on issues all the time. This is a solution to an artificial problem.

”The UN Charter begins on the promising opening words: “We the peoples.” However, one will seek in vain for any clause in the document that specifies a means by which ordinary people can play a role in the organization’s deliberations and decision-making.”

Searching in vain for any clause that says ordinary people can play a role in decision making? Is this a good thing? Shouldn’t people have some ability to influence decision making?

”The bodies of the UN and international organizations are occupied by officials who are appointed by the executive branches of national governments. In view of the growing importance of international organizations and their decisions, this is no longer sufficient.”

How so? Do we not want people who are directly chosen by the host nation to be taking part in such discussions?

”A United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) for the first time would give popularly elected representatives a formal role in global affairs. As an additional body, the assembly will directly represent the world’s citizens and not governments.”

Logistical question: how do you decide if a leader is ”popularly elected”? Military dictators frequently hold sham elections and win close to 100% of the vote.

Further, what if the values of a block of nations (such as the 50+ members of Islamic nations) democratically overrule nations which believe in human rights?

”Initially, states could choose whether their UNPA members would come from national parliaments, reflecting their political spectrum and gender equality, or whether they would be directly elected. Eventually, the goal is to have all members directly elected.”

If they are not being directly elected by their people, then who is electing them? Should the UN get to decide who ”represents” the Nation of Canada, the US, Australia, or Japan?

”Starting as a largely consultative body, the rights and powers of the UNPA could be expanded over time as its democratic legitimacy increases. The assembly will act as an independent watchdog in the UN system and as a democratic reflection of the diversity of world public opinion.”

Ah, non-binding and consultative bodies which eventually become legally binding? Kind of like the UN Global Migration Compact.

How exactly would there be ”oversight” when this would effectively take away actual representative government from host nations?

”In the long run, once its members are all democratically elected, the assembly could be developed into a world parliament which – under certain conditions and in conjunction with the UN General Assembly – may be able to adopt universally binding regulations

.

In short, the UN should evolve from what many believe to be a generally ineffectual “talk-shop” into a viable democratic and legislative body.”

How would this possibly be democratic? It takes control even further from the public. If you think your MP or MPP or MLA or Senators don’t represent you now, how would you gain more representation from being even further removed.

3. UN Claims To Have Conducted Research

CLICK HERE, for survey results

Survey on a UN Parliamentary Assembly
survey graphic -donought -readyOn behalf of the British Broadcasting Corporation BBC, in 2004/05 the research institute GlobeScan conducted representative surveys in 18 countries representing 61% of the world population.

In one of the questions concerning reforms of the United Nations, participants were asked about their opinion on “creating a new UN Parliament, made up of representatives directly elected by citizens, having powers equal to the current UN General Assembly that is controlled by national governments.”

On average, 63% supported the reform proposal, while only 20% rejected it. For the first time, this survey provides empirical evidence that the world’s citizens overwhelmingly support the establishment of a directly elected world parliament.

Country results
In every surveyed nation the supporters of a UN Parliament significantly outnumbered the opponents. Overall, support to opposition margins show overwhelming majorities in all nations favoring the creation of a UN Parliament.

Let’s see: Only 18 countries were surveyed

UN claims these 18 countries represent 61% of the population.

UN Claims that 63% of populations surveyed support global government
1/ Argentina
2/ Australia
3/ Brazil
4/ Canada
5/ Chile
6/ China
7/ Germany
8/ Great Britain (UK)
9/ India
10/ Indonesia
11/ Italy
12/ Mexico
13/ Phillipines
14/ Poland
15/ Russia
16/ South Korea
17/ Turkey
18/ USA

Assuming the numbers are true, that means that all but 18 countries were left out of the survey

It means that 39% of national populations were not consulted at all

It means that 37% (of consulted nations) oppose the measure.

A better level might be to use (0.63)*(0.61) = .03843 = 38%
(A tad silly, but this research is not representative)

Assuming this research is even accurate, that would mean that only 38% would support such a measure. Of course, the site doesn’t list any of the SAMPLE SIZES, which would help give a more accurate picture.

Were 100 people interviewed in each country? 1,000? 10,000? Can we see the questions that were asked?

Of course, none of this addresses the central question: why is it that there has been no public consultation on us signing away our sovereignty? Shouldn’t we have the final say?

Wait, globalists don’t care what people think. Now it makes sense.

4. Globalist Politicians In Canada

Justin Trudeau, and Elizabeth May are on here. Jagmeet Singh probably would be, if he actually was an M.P.

Members of Parliament from Canada
Diane Bellemare
Senator, economist and politician from Quebec, Canada

(2013-12-17)

Carolyn Bennett
MP, Canada
(2009-07-07)

Sheri Benson
Member of Parliament for Saskatoon West, Canada
(2017-03-10)

Daniel Blaikie
MP, Canada
(2017-03-06)

Rachel Blaney
MP, Canada
(2016-10-26)

Sean Casey
Member of Parliament, Canada
(2011-09-01)

François Choquette
MP, Canada
(2011-06-09)

David Christopherson
Member of Parliament, Canada
(2011-06-21)

Jane Cordy
Senator, Canada
(2018-01-19)

Jane Cordy
Senator, Canada
(2018-01-31)

Nathan Cullen
MP, Canada
(2010-10-05)

Julie Dabrusin
Member of Parliament for Toronto-Danforth, Canada
(2017-04-18)

Don Davies
MP, elected 2008; Lawyer, trade union representative, Canada
(2007-05-25)

Fin Donnelly
MP, Canada
(2010-04-19)

Julie Dzerowicz
MP, Canada
(2017-03-16)

Wayne Easter
MP, Canada
(2012-02-09)

Art Eggleton
Canadian Senator, Canada
(2009-04-28)

Ali Ehsassi
MP, Canada
(2017-04-07)

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
Canada
(2016-05-12)

Hedy Fry
MP, Canada
(2009-06-15)

Marc Garneau
MP; first Canadian in outer space; President, Canadian Space Agency (2001-2006), Canada
(2012-03-24)

Randall Garrison
MP, Canada
(2012-02-24)

Pamela Goldsmith-Jones
MP for West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Canada

(2017-05-17)

Claude Gravelle
Member of Parliament, Nickel Belt, Canada
(2010-07-29)

Laurie Hawn
Member of Parliament since 2006 Privy Councillor Royal Canadian Air Force Veteran, Canada
(2012-02-16)

Carol Hughes
MP, Canada
(2012-02-16)

Mobina Jaffer
Member of the Canadian Senate, representing British Columbia, Canada
(2009-12-18)

Janis G. Johnson
Senator, Canada
(2009-05-01)

Peter Julian
MP, Canada
(2008-02-25)

Frances Lankin
Senator, Canada
(2016-11-15)

Dr. Hélène Laverdière
Foreign Affairs Critic for the New Democratic Party of Canada and MP for Laurier – Ste-Marie, Canada
(2012-02-27)

Dominic LeBlanc
MP, Canada
(2012-03-01)

Hélène LeBlanc
MP, Canada
(2012-02-28)

Alistair MacGregor
MP, Canada
(2018-02-09)

Brian Masse
MP, Canada
(2009-04-30)

Irene Mathyssen
Canada
(2012-03-12)

Elizabeth May
MP; Leader, Green Party of Canada, Canada

(2007-05-11)

Dr. John McCallum
Canada

(2012-03-13)

The Honourable John McKay P.C., M.P.
Canadian Member of Parliament for the Riding of Scarborough-Guildwood., Canada

(2012-02-28)

Alexandra Mendes
MP, Canada
(2009-04-28)

Don Meredith
Senator, Canada
(2017-03-01)

Maryann Mihychuk
Canada
(2018-02-14)

Wilfred P. Moore
Senator, Canada
(2011-06-21)

Isabelle Morin
MP, Canada
(2012-02-28)

Joyce Murray
MP, Canada
(2009-05-09)

Thanh Hai Ngo
Senator, Canada
(2018-01-22)

Robert Oliphant
MP, Canada
(2009-06-15)

John Oliver
Member of Parliament , Canada
(2018-03-01)

Joe Peschisolido
Canada
(2018-02-21)

Rose-May Poirier
Senator, Canada
(2010-07-02)

Tracey Ramsey
MP, Canada
(2018-02-08)

Murray Rankin
MP, Canada
(2018-01-26)

Pablo Rodriguez
MP, Canada
(2010-05-03)

Dan Ruimy
MP, Canada
(2018-05-07)

Nancy Ruth
Senator, Canada
(2009-05-01)

Francis Scarpaleggia
MP, Canada
(2010-08-19)

Judy Sgro
MP; Canadian Member of Parliament for the Riding of York West, Canada
(2012-04-05)

Scott Simms
MP, Canada
(2012-02-28)

Wayne Stetski
MP, Canada
(2018-04-25)

Dr. Kennedy Stewart
MP, Canada
(2012-02-22)

Justin Trudeau
Member of Parliament, Canada
(2010-07-21)

David Wells
Senator, Canada
(2016-11-22)

Borys Wrzesnewskyj
MP, Canada
(2009-05-01)

Kate Young
MP, Canada
(2018-05-03)

5. First UNPA Int’l Meeting in 2007

First international meeting on a UNPA
Palais des Nations, Geneva, November 2007
The first international meeting on a UNPA was held in November 2007 at the Palais des Nations in Geneva under the patronage of former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and was hosted by the Society for Threatened Peoples International.
Parliamentarians, representatives of non-governmental organizations and other activists of the UNPA campaign from 18 countries gathered for an exchange on the UNPA concept and the Campaign strategy.
The meeting reiterated the principles laid down in the international appeal for a UNPA such as the gradual approach which allows first steps beneath the threshold of UN Charter reform. It was also stressed, however, that at the same time the eventual goal of a world parliament should be communicated.
While some questions were vividly debated, the meeting also concluded, among other things, that a UNPA should be open for participation of regional parliamentary assemblies and should offer innovative ways for strong NGO participation.
Read more

Conclusions regarding policies of the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly
At its meeting on 19-20 November 2007 in the “Palais des Nations” in Geneva, the Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) has reiterated the policies laid down in the “Appeal for the Establishment for a Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations” and notes in particular that:
-the Campaign pursues a politically pragmatic and gradual approach to achieve the eventual long-term goal of a world parliament;
-in a first step the Campaign advocates the establishment of a UNPA by means which do not require a change of the UN Charter;
-the Campaign’s appeal states that a consultative UNPA initially could be composed of national parliamentarians and that this statement does not exclude the option to advocate the participation of other entities. For example, the Campaign also advocates the participation of regional parliamentary assemblies in a UNPA, such as the European Parliament and the Pan-African Parliament, and consideration may be given for the inclusion of local authorities in the consultative UNPA ;
-the aforementioned statement also does not exclude to advocate a flexible approach to the mode of elections. The Campaign supports the approach that already in the first step the UNPA’s Statutes should allow the participating states to opt for direct elections of their delegates if they wish to do so;
-the Campaign advocates a UNPA which is inclusive and open to all UN member states. However, direct elections of the UNPA’s delegates are regarded as a precondition for vesting the body with legislative rights.
the Campaign policy clearly embraces the demand that a UNPA has to provide for strong and efficient ways to include civil society, in particular NGOs, and local administrations into its work;
-the Campaign’s policy pursues the goal that the UNPA, once established, would advocate and facilitate a reform of the present system of international institutions and global governance;
-the Campaign understands that whereas the appeal refers to “the UN and the organizations of the UN system,” that this could be interpreted to include the Bretton Woods Institutions.

Some takeaways from this:
(a) Yes, this is about a world government
(b) Changes to UN Charter may not be needed
(c) NGO/Civil Societies to be given roles to work

6. Second UNPA Int’l Meeting in 2008

Second international meeting on a UNPA
European Parliament, Brussels, November 2008
The second international meeting on a UNPA was held on November 4-5, 2008, at the European Parliament in Brussels and was hosted by European deputy Jo Leinen.
Representatives of non-governmental organizations and stakeholders of the UNPA campaign from around 15 countries gathered for an exchange on the campaign’s progress within the past year, an outlook onto the coming activities and to discuss political questions. The meeting included a Round Table consultation and an evening reception with invited guests.
In a welcome message published on the occasion of the meeting, the President of the European Parliament affirmed the parliament’s support for a UNPA.
One of the conclusions reached at the meeting was that a UNPA would be complementary to the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s work.
Read more
The establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly and the Inter-Parliamentary Union

The establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly and the Inter-Parliamentary Union
At its meeting on 4-5 November 2008 in the European Parliament in Brussels, the Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) deliberated on the relation between the proposed UNPA and the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and the possible roles and functions of the two parliamentary bodies.
The Campaign concluded that the proposed UNPA and the IPU would be complementary institutions. A UNPA would not replace or duplicate the IPU’s functions. Quite the contrary, a UNPA would provide a response to the democratic deficit in global governance which the IPU in its current structure is unable to offer.
The Campaign noted in particular:
(1) The IPU is an association of national parliaments. One of its activities is to provide for a “parliamentary dimension to international cooperation”. The IPU’s goal in this context is to strengthen the ability of national parliaments to exercise their oversight functions at the national level in matters of international nature. The Campaign underlines the importance of this dimension.
(2) The purpose of a UNPA is to exercise parliamentary functions directly at the international level in its own right. One of the goals is to make the UN executives and its institutions accountable to a global parliamentary body. The IPU has no such capacity and currently also does not aspire to develop such an oversight function.
(3) The IPU’s purpose is to be a facilitator for the work of national parliaments. In contrast, a UNPA would be composed of individual parliamentarians who would be called upon to take a global view.
(4) The precedent of the Pan-African Parliament and the African Parliamentary Union shows that the UNPA and the IPU need not be mutually exclusive.
(5) In the long run, a UNPA could be composed of directly elected members. The precedent of the European Parliament and the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union shows that a largely directly elected UNPA and the IPU would be complementary and indeed both necessary.
(6) The Campaign supports the work of the IPU and appreciates any and all active contributions from the IPU and IPU members in the efforts for the establishment of a UNPA.

7. Third UNPA Int’l Meeting in 2009

Third international meeting on a UNPA
New York, October 2009
The third international meeting on a UNPA was held in October 2009 across the United Nations headquarters in New York. Around 60 participants from 19 countries, among them 12 Members of Parliament and numerous representatives of non-governmental organizations who are part of the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly attended the event in order to exchange experiences and views. Participants in the meeting generally felt that the campaign has gathered considerable political momentum over the past two and a half years since its launch in April 2007.

Establishment of a global parliament discussed at international meeting in New York
30. October 2009
The progress of the international efforts for the establishment of a global parliamentary assembly was discussed at a meeting across the United Nations headquarters in New York. Around 60 participants from 19 countries, among them 12 Members of Parliament and numerous representatives of non-governmental organizations who are part of the Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) attended the event on Monday in order to exchange their different experiences and views.
.
In her welcome remarks Senator Sonia Escudero, Secretary-General of the Latin-American Parliament, pointed out that the United Nations, established in 1945, “reproduces an age old international order.” Said Senator Escudero: “One of the challenges that the United Nations will have to face in order not to become obsolete is its own reform. It is imperative to undertake an integral reform of the United Nations taking into account that any representative institution, that is to say democratic institution, should have an structure that honours this characteristic. It is clear that the establishment of a UN Parliamentary Assembly would be a decisive step towards the democratic consolidation in the United Nations system.”
.
Jo Leinen, Member of the European Parliament, stressed the long-standing support of the European Parliament for the creation of a UNPA. The most recent resolution was adopted in June 2005. Mr Leinen noted that a new effort to reiterate the parliament’s support will be taken in the current new legislature. A representative of the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, Fernando Iglesias, reported on a resolution calling for a UNPA adopted by his parliament in August this year. Mr Iglesias promoted that the participants in the campaign reach out intensively to civil society and the academic world as well in order to build a broader base of public awareness. This approach was endorsed by Mike Sebalu, Member of the East African Legislative Assembly, saying that “it is crucial to reach critical mass of supporters from all walks of life.”
.
Presenting a report adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) on the reform of the United Nations a few weeks ago, Andreas Gross, a Swiss Member of Parliament and leader of the Socialist Group in PACE, pointed out that the modernization of the UN should include by necessity a parliamentary dimension. Giving the example of the Council of Europe, Gross stressed that the UN runs the risk of becoming irrelevant in the long-term if no Parliamentary Assembly is established. “If the Council of Europe were a government organization alone, without a parliamentary body, its importance would have diminished completely by now,” Gross said.
.
The afternoon session concentrated, among other things, on a debate on the concept of a UN Parliamentary Assembly and, more in particular, models for the possible distribution of seats in a UNPA. The Chair of the Committee for a Democratic U.N., Andreas Bummel, presented a paper on the subject. He outlined that the report shows the feasibility of the proposal and that there are realistic and pragmatic options on the table. Joseph Schwartzberg, Professor emeritus of the University of Minnesota, presented his own incremental approach for the creation of a UNPA and elaborated on his suggestion to distribute seats according to population, equality, and share in UN membership dues. Andrew Strauss, Professor of Law at the Widener University School of Law, argued that a UNPA should be established through a stand-alone treaty rather than as a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly.
.
Participants in the meeting generally felt that the campaign has gathered considerable political momentum over the past two and a half years since its launch in April 2007. The event was filmed by a crew led by Lisa Russell who recently won an Emmy Award and works on a documentary on U.S.-UN relations.

Okay, this is getting to be much more than theoretical. There are actual discussions on how the seats should be distributed should this Parliament ever become a reality.

8. Fourth UNPA Int’l Meeting in 2010

Declaration calls for intergovernmental conference on UN Parliament
.
5. October 2010
.
An international meeting of the Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly in the Senate of Argentina in Buenos Aires has called on the United Nations and its member states to initiate a “preparatory process towards an intergovernmental conference for the purpose of establishing a Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations.“ A declaration adopted by around 50 participants from 20 countries, among them ten Members of Parliament and representatives of 20 civil society organizations, states that “the need to democratize global governance is one of the greatest political challenges of our times. It calls on individual world citizens, and
.
Group picture of the participants
Image: Democracia Global
especially parliamentarians, governments, the international donor community, and civil society to make a commitment to democratic global change.”
.
At the opening session the Argentinian deputy Fernando Iglesias reiterated the need for global democratization through a UN Parliamentary Assembly. As a guest speaker Olivier Giscard d’Estaing, former Member of Parliament from France, voiced his disappointment over the enduring failure to bring about any substantial reform of the United Nations. Mr. Giscard d’Estaing called for the creation of “new world institutions dealing with world problems, including a world parliament.” The Executive Director of the World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy, William Pace, severely criticized the G8 and G20. “These informal governance mechanism have failed dramatically,” Mr. Pace stated. “Our goal is to replace the brutality of imperialism with constitutional and parliamentary principles at the global level,” he said.
.
In a written welcome note to the meeting, the parliamentarian and former Prime Minister of Malta, Alfred Sant, stated that “the goal of establishing a UN Parliamentary Assembly may appear to be far away down the road, but global realities are changing so fast that the relevance of an Assembly may become salient much sooner than is now supposed.” The European parliamentarian Jo Leinen noted in a message that “the proposal now has to be taken up by a group of like-minded governments”.
.
In the plenary session, participants deliberated on the outcome document and on their activities in the previous year. In the afternoon, parallel workshops were held. The former clerk of the Pan-African Parliament, Werunga Murumba, now at the Centre for Parliamentary Studies and Training of the Kenya National Assembly, spoke about lessons learned from the creation of existing international parliamentary assemblies. Other workshops were held on the next steps in the Latin-American region and on the creation of a UN Parliamentary Assembly and UN Charter reform.
.
The event that was held in the premises of the Senate of Argentina on Monday was the fourth meeting of an international campaign that was launched in April 2007. The head of the Campaign’s Secretariat, Andreas Bummel, noted that in this time span around 900 Members of Parliament from over 90 countries expressed their support, representing over 100 million people from their constituencies. Around 750 are currently in office.
.
The meeting was preceded by a seminar of the Latin-American Parliament on regional integration and the reform of international institutions that was held in the previous week. One of the sessions was devoted to the proposal of a UN Parliamentary Assembly. The UNPA-Campaign meeting was part of a ten-day programme in Buenos Aires coordinated by the Argentinian non-governmental organization Democracia Global.

Again, more talks about how the logistics of such a proposal would work. Not a question of whether we should be doing this, or what the public might say. Rather, we agree, now let’s talk details.

9. Fifth UNPA Int’l Meeting in 2013

Fifth international meeting on a UNPA
European Parliament, Brussels, October 2013
The fifth international meeting on a UNPA was held on 15-16 October 2013 in the European Parliament in Brussels and was hosted by the Members of the European Parliament Elmar Brok, Jo Leinen, Isabella Lövin, and Graham Watson from the four largest political groups European People’s Party EPP, Socialists and Democrats S&D, the Greens, and the liberal ALDE group respectively.
In a final declaration, participants from around thirty countries unanimously expressed concern that “no adequate measures have been taken to address the democratic deficit of global governance in general and of the United Nations in particular.” The conference suggested that “a global democratic body of elected representatives” should be established “to bring global governance in the pursuit of post-2015 development goals” closer to the world’s citizens.

Post-2015 Agenda should include elected UN Assembly to strengthen democratic participation
22. October 2013
5th International Meeting of the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly concludes with declaration / Strong support from key Members of the European Parliament
The fifth international conference on a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly held in the European Parliament in Brussels on 16th and 17th October called on the United Nations and the international community to make democratic participation a key

One of the conference panels
Image: European Parliament
element of the Post-2015 Development Agenda.
In a final declaration, participants from around thirty countries unanimously expressed concern that “no adequate measures have been taken to address the democratic deficit of global governance in general and of the United Nations in particular.” The conference suggested that “a global democratic body of elected representatives” should be established “to bring global governance in the pursuit of post-2015 development goals” closer to the world’s citizens.

Conference hosted in the European Parliament
The conference was hosted by the Members of the European Parliament Elmar Brok, Jo Leinen, Isabella Lövin, and Graham Watson from the four largest political groups European People’s Party EPP, Socialists and Democrats S&D, the Greens, and the liberal ALDE group respectively. At the opening of the conference, Elmar Brok who serves as chairman of the European Parliament’s Commission on Foreign Affairs stated that a consultative UN Parliamentary Assembly would “allow world civil society to be directly associated in the global decision-making process.”

Jo Leinen who is a co-chair of the advisory board of the international campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly emphasized that until now no formal body exists that would give citizen-elected representatives a say in global governance. At best they had an observer status. “This is not acceptable,” said Mr Leinen. “In a democratic system, the representatives of the citizens are not observers of what the governments do. They should provide oversight and hold the government executives accountable.”
At a panel discussion Isabella Lövin used the example of the global fishery policy to show that the system of international governance is dysfunctional. “It’s still governed by 16th century principles,” she said. Graham Watson pointed out that “there will be times when national interests and global interests collide. A UN Parliamentary Assembly could act as an arbiter and ensure that the voice of the world’s citizens is heard.“

In a message issued on the occasion of the conference, the President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, emphasized the longstanding support for the proposal by the European Parliament. In addition, he declared that “The European Parliament may serve as a model for how a UN Parliamentary Assembly could develop over time. What once began as an advisory body composed of national parliamentarians is a directly elected legislature today.”

Consultation with the UN’s Independent Expert
A similar position was taken by the UN’s Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order, Alfred de Zayas, who was participating as a special guest. In a statement delivered at a special consultation, he confirmed that “Participation is a hallmark of democratic governance” and that “civil society is entitled to more space.” He said that the establishment of a World Parliamentary Assembly was “a promising avenue” to achieve this and could be modelled according to the example of the European Parliament. Mr de Zayas pointed out that his upcoming report to the UN General Assembly includes the recommendation that it “may consider convening a conference to discuss promising initiatives such as the creation of a World Parliamentary Assembly.”
In a comment following the statement by Mr de Zayas, the Member of the European Parliament and chairperson of Democracy International, Gerald Häfner, said that “We cannot leave the world to decision-making that is in the interest of big money or big powers – but not in the interest of the world’s citizens. A UN Parliamentary Assembly is a first step to establish global democracy.”

The final declaration adopted by the conference welcomes “the decision of the UN’s Human Rights Council to mandate an Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order,” and encourages the Independent Expert “to keep considering the question of a UNPA and in particular to examine possible processes towards its creation.”
.
Main points of the final declaration
In the discussion the Secretary-General of the campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly, Andreas Bummel, emphasized three elements in the final declaration: That it puts the proposal for a UN Parliamentary

Gathering in front of the European Parliament
Image: CEUNPA
Assembly in the context of the Post-2015 Development Agenda, that it highlights the possibility of having a UN Parliamentary Assembly act as a “network of networks” and finally that the document says that “innovative forms of civic participation” in a UNPA through models of electronic democracy could be considered. In its last session, the conference also deliberated on a possible roadmap towards a UN Parliamentary Assembly as well as on the campaign’s goals and strategy.
Other speakers at the conference included, among others, Andrew Strauss from Widener University School of Law in the United States, the UN’s representative in Brussels, Antonio Vigilante, the Member of the European Parliament and President of the Union of European Federalists Andrew Duff, the European Parliament’s Vice-President Anni Podimata, Swiss parliamentarian Daniel Jositsch as well as Juan Behrend as representative of the Global Greens Coordination, Gregory Engels as representative of Pirate Parties International, and Hanno Schedler of the Society for Threatened Peoples.

Week of Action for a World Parliament
The conference was also a kick-off event for the Global Week of Action for a World Parliament that takes place until UN day on 24 October. At the end of the conference participants gathered in front of the European Parliament at Place du Luxembourg in Brussels and displayed the week’s slogan, “World Parliament Now!”

Okay, the United Human Rights Council will have a say in matters here. Considering the members on it, that is not at all encouraging.

Some alleged “research” is presented elsewhere on the website, claiming that there is widespread support across nations for a global government. Seems rather self serving.

10. Duplicity Of “Populist” Maxime Bernier

This wasn’t in the original version, but worth pointing out to the readers.

Maxime Bernier, a self-identified “populist” left the Conservative Party of Canada in August 2018 and started the People’s Party of Canada. Despite its Communist sounding name, it is marketed as a nationalist/populist party.

The problem is that Bernier was Foreign Affairs Minister in 2007, when this issue was being discussed. Very unethical to remain silent for 12 years, and now claim to oppose it.

While this petition seems to be a welcome change, it cannot be taken at face value. Bernier introduces a petition to prevent Canada from joining any such organization, despite his Committee earlier endorsing it.

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #7: UN Says Welcome Back ISIS Fighters

(The UN insists countries have a legal obligation to repatriate terrorists who go abroad to fight against national interests or allies)

CBC, a.k.a The “Communist Broadbasting Corporation”, or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”, is a government funded “news” organization. It receives about $1.5 billion annually to spew out anti-Canadian stories. Taxpayers don’t get a say in the matter.

CLICK HERE, to reach the CBC Propaganda Masterlist. It is far from complete, but being added to regularly.

In all fairness, here the CBC is ”quoting” the UN Rapporteur, and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale. However, there is nothing in the way of critical analysis or challenge to the claims. Some hard questions would be nice.

CLICK HERE, for the actual article this review references.

”Agnes Callamard, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, says it’s time for Ottawa to stop dragging its heels and repatriate its citizens who fought for ISIS and are now being held in Syria and Iraq. (Jose Cabezas/Reuters)”

Obvious question: Why? If citizens leave to take up arms in foreign conflict, then it is their problem. Canada is not obligated to bail them out.

”Several Canadians are currently being held by Kurdish authorities in Syria, following the collapse of ISIS in 2017.
.
So far, the federal government has said it has no obligation to repatriate them, and that it is ill-equipped to put them on trial.”

Not being equipped to put them on trial actually makes sense. The logistics here are enormous. How do you gather evidence, depose witnesses, and run a trial, based on events happening around the world?

Also, there is a small issue of ”jurisdiction”. Who has it, and how will that be settled?

”Ms. Callamard, why do you believe that Canada has a duty to bring these people home, those who fought alongside the Islamic State?
.
I believe it has a legal obligation to do so, if those foreign fighters are currently held in Syria by a non-state actor in this case a Kurdish group. That group has currently no international legitimacy, and probably neither does it have the capacity to undertake fair trials. That’s one reason as to why those individuals should be sent back to Canada.
.
As far as Iraq is concerned, if they are Canadian foreign fighters detained in Iraq they are tried under Iraqi counter-terrorism law. It’s an extremely problematic law that has been denounced by myself, and by the UN as well. Under the law, many foreign fighters can be sentenced to death.
.
It is a legal obligation placed upon Canada … to take all the necessary measures to ensure that its citizens do not confront or face death penalty. And frankly, the best way to do that in Iraq is to repatriate them for trial in Canada.”

Some mental gymnastics here. Callamard shrugs off so-called Canadians fighting for a group with no international legitimacy, yet says it’s wrong they are detained by people with no international legitimacy.

Okay, if a group is unable to conduct trials there, why should Canada go through the time and expense of doing it here? Logistics. Also, we wouldn’t have jurisdiction in events that happen overseas.

They can be sentenced to death. Who cares? These are not tourists on vacation who got mixed up in something bad. These are traitors who turned against out country.

”When you say that they should be brought to justice in Canada, the difficulty of actually prosecuting them would be the difficulty of gathering evidence, of protecting witnesses who have to be brought, of translating, of all kinds of things on the ground … in hostile territories. The chances of prosecutions, many would argue, is extremely fraught, and so perhaps bringing them back is not going to bring successful prosecutions. Doesn’t that fail the victims of these crimes?
.
Well, first of all, the victims of the crimes currently are completely failed. Let me be very clear: You just have to listen to the [winners of the] Nobel Peace Prize that has just been allocated, and you will know that there has been no accountability for anything that has been committed against the Yazidi community, whether we are talking sexual violence or mass massacres.”

This is a nice surprise. CBC actually asking this very important question: how do you deal with the logistics of actually conducting a trial?

”Why do you think Canada could do any better? Canada would fail them too, would they not?
.
At the moment, there is no accountability. That’s the first thing. The second is that of all countries that currently have the legal and technical capacity to undertake the challenging task, I believe that some of those governments, including Canada certainly, are far better placed to do so.
.
I’m not denying the complexity of the investigation. What I am suggesting is that after World War II we took on the challenge, and the international community brought to account those that had committed genocide and killed six million people — and far more, in fact.
.
After the Rwandan genocide, we took our responsibility and the international community together took action. After what happened in the former Yugoslavia, we did the same.”

(a) All countries have the legal and technical capacity? Great, then let’s try them overseas where these crimes happened. Pull their citizenships, seize their assets, and call it a day.

(b) Yes, you are denying the complexity of an investigation. How do you properly investigate a war zone going on halfway across the world?

(c) She conflates ”prosecuting” the Nazis with ”rescuing” ISIS fighters. Yes, ISIS fighters would probably prefer to be tried in Canada. But remember, Callamard said that all nations have the capacity to hold trials.

(d) Canada may be better placed, but again, why should we? Public funds would be far better used spent on our own people, rather than repatriating traitors and terrorists (just so we can try them and lock them up).

”There are politics in Canada, as you know, and we have tremendous opposition to the Liberal government if it even considers bringing the ISIS fighters back. And Canada’s statement we received today said there is no plan or deal in place to bring any Canadians who are in Syria to Canada. They are insisting that the ones who have returned, some will be prosecuted. But it doesn’t seem as though they’re interested in your idea.
.
So far every government, for the last four or five years, have brandished IS as enemy number one around the world. None of those governments are now prepared to take their responsibilities and put IS to trial. None of them.
.
So it’s not a particular problem with Canada. It characterizes all of the Western governments that have participated in the war in Syria and Iraq.
.
I am persuaded that at some stage they will have no other option but to be realistic and take an international responsibility for the next stage in the fight against extremism.
.
My suggestions, my strong recommendations, is that governments including Canada must do the right thing legally, and must do the right thing in front of historians.”

(a) Another surprisingly good question from the CBC. Yes, there is widespread public opposition to bringing ISIS fighters back.

(b) Callamard focuses on the righter of ISIS terrorists, but seems uninterested in the danger that they pose to Canadians. Further, she shows little concern for the drain in public resources in doing so. She just pays lip service to this.

(c) Callamard remarks that no western government is interested in doing this. Likewise, they also have their respective public to deal with.

(d) Western population are (rightly) not very interested in the well being of people who leave their countries to take up arms in foreign conflicts. When these traitors and terrorists come calling for help, there is understandably no sympathy. They are authors of their own misfortunes.

(e) Do the right thing in front of historians? Now we get a straight answer. This is about virtue signalling.

Compared to most interviews CBC does, this actually wasn’t ”that” bad. At least a few good questions were raised.

Not content with the rights of illegal migrants, the UN special rapporteur is also very concerned with the well being of terrorists who fight abroad.

It is because of nonsense like this, that opinion pieces to leave the UN altogether are published.

Nationalists believe that a government should look after its own people first and foremost. We choose leader to represent ourselves.

Globalists believe that national well being should be sacrificed in the name of ”the greater good” regardless of whether they have any sort of democratic mandate. As such, they are really accountable to no one.

This is just another UN call for nations to sacrifice their well being in the name of ”being view positively in history”.