Category: Transportation

Posted on

How The Left Wages War On The American Republic

(2016 election, Electoral College)

(2016 election, by district)

(Snopes: LA County as big as 35 individual states)

Note: Each of the topics below could have been an article all by itself. However, in this instance, it is better to demonstrate the “pattern” and where it is all leading.

An individual even could be seen as an anomaly. However, it is better to connect the dots and view it all in context.

1. Important Links

YouTuber Mr. Reagan, created this video, and this video, on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Justice Democrats. Well worth a watch.

Previous Posts On This Site
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s Bill C-76, vouch voting.
CLICK HERE, for review on Canada’s Bill C-76.
CLICK HERE, for voting eiligibility, Part I, crime & citizenship.
CLICK HERE, for voting eligibility, Part II, identification.
CLICK HERE, for suing for right to enter illegally.
CLICK HERE, for Jewish and Islamic influence in US Congress.

Other Resources
CLICK HERE, for hypothetical: if only “x” voted
CLICK HERE, for Snopes article on Los Angeles v.s. 35 States.
CLICK HERE, for an article on bypassing the Electoral College
CLICK HERE, for removing “citizenship” from the 2020 census.

CLICK HERE, for NY giving driver’s licenses to illegals.
CLICK HERE, for Wikipedia listings of illegals being allowed State driver’s licenses.
CLICK HERE, for Florida banning sanctuary cities.
CLICK HERE, for letting felons vote.

CLICK HERE, for a budget with no wall funding.
CLICK HERE, for an Obama-donor judge blocking part of Trump’s border wall.
CLICK HERE, for thehill.com article on lawsuit to force the US to allow illegal entry on a massive scale.
CLICK HERE, for the UN deliberately undermining the US border, and US sovereignty.
CLICK HERE, for a video by The Red Elephants on Ilhan Omar calling out AIPAC influence in US politics.
CLICK HERE, for Saudi foreign influence.

2. US Electoral College v.s. Canadian Parliament

An important distinction here: Canada and the United States rely on different models to choose their leaders. Here is the difference in a nutshell.

CANADA has a Parliamentary system. Canadians vote on their MPs (currently there are 338 Federal districts). The Party with the majority (170) of the seats, or at least a plurality (in minority parliaments), governs. The Prime Minister is the leader of the largest party. The Senate consists of 105 unelected members, chosen by various Prime Ministers. If a majority of members vote against a Government, it is considered defeated.

THE UNITED STATES has a Congressional system. There is an “Electoral College”, gives each states so many of the 538 “votes”. The magic number to win is 270. Every decade, the maps are redrawn in accordance with the national census, giving growing states more votes, and other states less. Each state has its own rules for which Presidential Candidate gets the seats, but typically, the winner of the state gets them all. House of Representative Members, there are 435, are elected for 2 year terms. Each State has 2 Senators, which are elected for 6 year terms.

The Electoral College may seem strange, but it has a purpose, to ensure that smaller states are not overwhelmed by larger states. To provide some balance. The US is a republic, not a democracy. It is this “Electoral College” that leftists seek to undermine.

Why undermine it? Because it becomes an issue of popular vote v.s. electoral votes. In the 2016 election, Donald Trump won the Electoral College, and hence became President, despite have less overall votes. It is widely (and accurately) believed that the Electoral College tends to favour Republican Candidates, while the popular vote — due to those urban areas — tends to favour Democrats.

3. States’ Resolutions to Bypass Electoral College

As stated earlier, the Electoral College was meant to keep smaller States from becoming powerless compared to larger States. Extremely dense urban areas should not be able to wield such influence. However, a movement is underway for States to award their “votes” to the Candidate who wins the popular vote. This tactic will likely favour democrats.

From the fivethirtyeight.com article:

When Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016, it was the fourth time in American history — and the second time this century — that a candidate won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. Now a group of voting-rights activists is working to prevent any future presidents from taking office the same way.

The National Popular Vote initiative seeks to set up an interstate compact that would effectively do an end run around the Electoral College without actually abolishing it, which would require the lengthy, laborious process of building broad, bipartisan support to pass a constitutional amendment. The logic behind the compact is that the Constitution already gives states the power to award their electoral votes how they see fit, so each state that signs on to the compact agrees to award its electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote — not necessarily the candidate who wins that state. There’s just one catch: The agreement only goes into effect when the states who’ve joined are worth a total of 270 electoral votes — enough to deliver an automatic victory to the popular vote winner.

Ultimately, the biggest challenge to the National Popular Vote agreement may be a legal one. Election-law expert Rick Hasen at the University of California, Irvine School of Law told FiveThirtyEight he expected there would be serious legal challenges to the compact if it crosses the 270-elector threshold. Opponents may brandish the part of the Constitution that says that interstate compacts require the consent of Congress, or they may argue that it runs afoul of the Voting Rights Act because it may diminish the clout of minority voters. And, of course, there is the fact that it circumvents what the founders intended — the Electoral College was designed to be an indirect method of electing the president. So even if organizers somehow get states worth 270 electoral votes to join the compact, expect it to face a long fight in the courts challenging whether it can actually take effect.

There will certainly be a follow up article as this initiative progresses. But here is the takeaway:

Instead of States awarding their “votes” to the Presidential Candidate who actually wins their state, these states would instead give their votes to whoever won the overall popular vote. The intent is that states that a Republican would win, award the votes to the Democratic popular vote winner.

In short, this would do an end run around the Electoral College, and a significant check that has been in place for centuries.

4. Trying To Defraud Federal Census

There is actually a pending case before the Supreme Court on this issue. It is over whether or not “citizenship” should be on the census forms that are done every decade.

The Constitution requires an accurate population count every decade to guide government decisions from political mapmaking to federal spending. Recently revealed documents show the Commerce Department added the citizenship query after a political strategist found evidence doing so would undercount the true population and result in political districts that benefit Republican interests. As The Seattle Times’ Gene Balk reported, a study estimates a national undercount of more than 4 million residents — more than 75,000 in Washington— if the question is asked.

The above is an exerp from the Seattle Times, though there are many on the topic. The article is “partially” true in that the citizenship question will likely benefit Republican interests.

But the real issue is WHY that is.

As mentioned earlier, the States are each allotted so much of the 538 Electoral College votes, and those numbers shift with each census. But only citizens are allowed to vote in Federal elections, (although some municipal elections allow non-citizens).

But omitting the citizenship question blurs the line between citizen and non-citizen. Therefore, residents who are not citizens — or even illegal immigrants — would be able to count themselves and artificially boost the State’s population. With the increased population, the State would get more Electoral College votes, and hence wield more power in Federal elections.

5. Driver’s Licenses For Illegals, Auto Registration

New York State gives illegal immigrants driver’s licences. So do California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Vermont, and Washington.

That’s right. People who don’t have the legal right to be in the United States are allowed to legally obtain driver’s licenses.

Why? Supporters claim that it raises public safety if illegals are properly licensed and have access to some form of identification. The issue that these people are in the country ILLEGALLY is irrelevant.

Worth pointing out is that many States automatically upgrade their voting registry based on Department of Transportation records on driver’s licenses. What is the obvious conclusion?

People who are in the country illegally, are LEGALLY issued licenses, and then become registered to vote. Despite (again) not being allowed in the country in the first place. A good way to pad the voter rolls with new Democrat voters.

6. Sanctuary Cities

The twin bills — SB 168 and HB 527 — both passed through their final committees this week. They would create rules relating to federal immigration enforcement by prohibiting “sanctuary” policies and requiring state and local law enforcement to comply with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The bills also would give whistle-blower status to officers who report citizenship violations by undocumented immigrants detained in local jails on unrelated charges.

Under these bills, local law enforcement would be required to honor federal law enforcement’s request for an “immigration detainer,” meaning a request that another law enforcement agency detain a person based on probable cause to believe that the person is a “removable alien” under federal immigration law. The bill would essentially make the “request” a requirement.

Thankfully, Florida is showing some sense, although other States not so much. There are sanctuary cities across the US, and California is a “sanctuary state”.

But it is nice to see some pushback at least.

7. Efforts To Get Felons Voting

While this has a humanitarian spin on it, there is a more practical reason for letting ex-felons vote (and even letting people vote in prison). It is the idea that the votes will mostly benefit Democrats.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders says that they should and that voting is “inherent to our democracy — yes, even for terrible people.” Many of his rivals for the 2020 nomination aren’t as sure, and at least one opposes the idea outright. Sanders himself acknowledged that he was essentially writing an attack ad for Republicans to use against him through his support for the issue.

The question illustrates how Sanders continues to stand to the left of the other candidates as he endorses giving all prisoners, including those convicted of heinous crimes, the right to vote. Prodded by criminal justice activists, Democrats have largely embraced the politically safer cause of winning back access to the ballot box for felons who have served their time.

8. Opposing Efforts To Build Border Wall

A draft of the House Appropriations Committee’s fiscal 2020 Homeland Security spending bill does not provide any funding for additional Border Patrol Agents, Border Patrol checkpoints or border barriers — A decision that is sure to invite opposition from Republicans and President Donald Trump.

The draft bill does not provide any funding for additional Border Patrol Agents, Border Patrol checkpoints, or border barriers, a move that is expected to get pushback from Republicans and President Donald Trump, who has reallocated funding from other departments to build a border wall

Yes, the US Congress has been preventing much of this from getting done. This includes Republicans who supposedly back President Trump.

Given the continued invasion that has gone on for decades, it “should” be a straightforward, bipartisan matter to fix the laws. It is hard to imagine any other answer than most Members of Congress don’t want a real solution to the border crisis.

It’s almost as if Congress is being paid off not to close the border. See the video on this. And see the following tables.

This was covered in an earlier piece, but worth reprinting. The US Congress is subjected to a lot of foreign influence and money. While it is illegal for Presidential Candidates to receive such funding, there is little stopping Members of Congress from doing so.

GROUP AMOUNT GIVEN
American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) $3,518, 028
Israeli-American Coalition For Action $550,000
J-Street $400,000
Zionist Organization of America $200,000
Republican Jewish Coalition $130,000
Christians United For Israeli Action Fund $120,000
Jewish Institute For National American Security $90,000
Jewish American Committee $74,000
Alliance for Israeli Advocacy $60,000

This is the source (for 2018)

And no, that is not the end of it either.
Consider there are Saudi (Islamic) organizations that lobby as well.

Lobbying Firm Amount Donated
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP $220,770
Boland & Madigan, Inc. $420,000
Burson-Marsteller $3,619,286.85
Cambridge Associates $8,505
Cassidy & Associates $720,000
DNX Partners, LLC $225,000
Dutton & Dutton, PC $3,694,350
Fleishman-Hillard $6,400,000
Gallagher Group, LLC $612,337.37
Iler Interests, LP $388,231.14
Loeffler Tuggey Pauerstein Rosental, LLP $2,350,457.12
Loeffler, Jonas & Tuggey, LLP $1,260,000
MPD Consultants, LLP $1,447,267.13
Powell Tate, Inc. $990,732.77

Source is here.

Could the reason Congress refuses to act be because of the Jewish and Islamic groups contributing to their campaigns? That is certainly part of it.

9. Corruption In US Judiciary

A federal judge who partially blocked President Trump’s plans to build a border wall along the United States-Mexico border previously donated almost $30,000 to former President Obama, other Democrats, and a political action committee.

U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam, an Obama appointee confirmed in 2014, donated $6,900 to Barack Obama’s debut campaign for president and $14,500 to his reelection campaign, according to federal election records. The same records also indicate he contributed $4,500 to the Democratic National Committee in 2012 and, between 2012 and 2015, sent $3,100 to the Covington Burling LLP PAC, which supports candidates from both parties. His contributions totaled $29,000.

Gilliam is one of three federal judges who have donated to Democratic candidates in the past and recently ruled against the Trump administration.

U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos and U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, both Obama appointees, ruled to release Trump’s financial documents demanded by Democratic subpoenas as investigations into President Trump continue in the wake of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

Unbelievable. Judges who donated to President Trump’s political opponents are issuing rulings against him.

Even if these Judges “could” be unbiased here, the proper thing would have been to recuse themselves from their respective cases. It is a clear conflict of interest.

If this border wall isn’t getting built, or if the Government is needlessly tied up, guess what happens? More illegals come in. Unscreened. Unvetted. Public funds used to accommodate. And once they are “settled” in the US, many will get driver’s licenses and be allowed to vote. The votes of genuine Americans will be offset by illegals.

It would be nice to know who is bankrolling the Judges in such matters. It seems doubtful that this influence is purely ideological.

And speaking of corruption in the courts, there is that little stunt in October 2018 where Liberals tried to sabotage the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. This happened with a far-fetched and wildly inconsistent claim of sexual assault from the 1980s.

What easier way to influence the highest court than by preventing judge’s with “incorrect” views from taking the bench?

10. Lawsuit To Allow Illegal Immigration

This was reported in thehill.com, and previously covered on this site. Interesting how impoverished migrants fleeing persecution happen to have a team of lawyers ready to launch court challenges on their behalf.

Trump’s professed and enacted policy towards thousands of caravanners seeking asylum in the United States is shockingly unconstitutional. President Trump continues to abuse the law, including constitutional rights, to deter Central Americans from exercising their lawful right to seek asylum in the United States, and the fact that innocent children are involved matters none to President Trump.

On top of the above, Trump has repeatedly professed that the caravan people will not get into this county, and just as significant, Trump has taken meaningful steps to ensure the world that this is his policy position/initiative, meaningful steps such as deploying thousands of active military troops to the border, waiting on caravan persons to arrive. The legal problem with Trump’s plan to stop caravan persons from entering this country is that Plaintiffs are seeking asylum, and Trump simply cannot stop them from legally doing so by using military, or anyone.

This would be funny, but is actually very serious. Lawyers are not just arguing that their clients have the right to seek asylum, but seek asylum specifically in the US. No other country, including multiple countries they passed through, will suffice.

The action also refers to “thousands” of asylum seekers. It seems reasonable to conclude they don’t want any sort of limitation.

And when thousands of unidentified people come marching to your border, what responsible President wouldn’t deploy the military to stop them?

11. UN Backs Mass Illegal Entry Into US

This was covered in another piece, but is worth repeating. The UN supports and condones, mass illegal entry into the US and other countries.

The United Nations Migration Agency, IOM, is providing support and assistance to migrants crossing Central America in several self-styled caravans, while expressing concern over “the stress and demands” they are placing on host countries.

All migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status – IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico

Under the guise of “human rights”, the UN aids and abets this invasion across the US/Mexico border.

12. War On The Well Being of US

So how bad are the problems in the US

  • End run around Electoral College
  • Fraud in the US Census
  • Driver’s Licenses for illegals, voting rights
  • 20+ million illegals in US
  • Sanctuary cities
  • Opposition to much needed border wall
  • Pushing to let felons vote
  • Corruption within the courts
  • Lawsuit to legalize illegal immigration
  • Congress paid off by Islamic lobby
  • Congress paid off by Jewish lobby
  • United Nations pushing for open borders

It is a war against the United States.
May she remain free.

Posted on

Kirsten Jenkins: Humanizing Sociotechnical Transitions Through Energy Justice

1. Go Check Out Uppity Peasants Site


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

2. About The Authors


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

CLICK HERE, for Benjamin Sovacool.

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

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

CLICK HERE, for Darren McCauley.

3. The Paper Itself

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

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

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

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

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

Energy justice apparently consists of:

  • Distributional justice
  • Procedural justice
  • Justice as recognition

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

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

Some points that should be addressed:

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

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

More points to be looked at:

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

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

More nonsense which requires a response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing scientific. Purely political manoeuvering.

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

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

Equal opportunity v.s. equal outcome.

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

Finally some honesty. This is a political agenda.

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

4. Conclusions From The Paper

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

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

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

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

Nonetheless, they still cover those facts in academic jargon.

5. My Own Thoughts

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Canadian Gov’t Purges “Sunni” & “Shia” From 2019 Terrorism Report (& Bill C-59)

(From the Global News article)

(From the Government Report on terrorism)

1. Important Links

(1) https://globalnews.ca/news/5230488/government-removes-sunni-shia-from-terrorism-threat-report/
(2) https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/pblc-rprt-trrrsm-thrt-cnd-2018/index-en.aspx
(3) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=9057418

2. View The Disclaimer

April 29, 2019 Update
As per the Minister of Public Safety’s statement on the 2018 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada, a review of the language used to describe extremism has been undertaken and is ongoing. The Government’s communication of threats must be clear, concise, and cannot be perceived as maligning any groups. As we continue this review, it is apparent that in outlining a threat, it must be clearly linked to an ideology rather than a community. The Government will carefully select terminology that focuses on the intent or ideology. As a first step, the Government has updated terminology used in the 2018 report to eliminate terminology that unintentionally impugns an entire religion. Going forward, the Government of Canada is committed to applying a bias-free approach to the terminology used to describe any threats inspired by ideology or groups.

You can’t make this up. The Feds have purged references to “Sunni” or “Shia” or Islam in general to avoid offending anyone. And let’s be clear, when Goodale talks about “impugning and entire religion”, he is talking about Islam. It’s not Buddhists or Pastafarians committing terrorism everywhere.

3. Table Of Contents

Ministerial Foreword
Executive Summary

  • Part 1: The Current Terrorist Threat Environment
  • The Current Terrorist Threat to Canada
  • Canadian Extremist Travellers

The International Threat Environment
Europe
The Middle East and South/South-East Asia
Africa

Part 2: Threat Methods and Capabilities Observed Globally in 2018

  • Low-Sophistication Tactics, High Impacts
  • Threats to Transportation Infrastructure
  • Chemical and Biological Weapons
  • Terrorist Financing
  • Terrorist Use of the Internet and Cyber Capabilities

Part 3: Canada’s Approach to Countering Terrorism

  • Managing Canadian Extremist Travellers
  • Arrests and Prosecutions in Canada for Committing Terrorism Offences
  • Bill C-59 – An Act Respecting National Security matters & Bill C-21 – An Act to Amend the Customs Act
  • Enhanced Passenger Protection Program
  • Immigration Security Screening
  • The Listing of Terrorist Entities
  • Countering Radicalization to Violence
  • Addressing Online Threats
  • Canada’s International Partnerships and Cooperation

Conclusion

4. Ministerial Foreword

Ministerial Foreword
I am pleased to provide the annual update on the threat to Canada from terrorism and violent extremism – part of our commitment to being open and transparent through a balanced and frank assessment of the current threat environment.
In many ways, this year’s threat update is similar to those of the recent past. The threat posed by those espousing violent interpretations of religious, ideological or political views persists, but has remained stable. The National Terrorism Threat Level – a broad indicator of the terrorist threat to Canada – remains at Medium, unchanged since 2014.
.
Canada is known internationally as a welcoming and peaceful nation. But we are also resolute in our determination to reject and combat violent extremism in all forms. Put simply, violence and threats of violence have no place in Canadian society. Stopping and eradicating this is a top priority of the Government.
.
Conflicts and the evolving global security environment continue to shape the nature of the terrorist threat to Canada. Those in Canada who are inspired by conflicts abroad may seek to carry out an attack here. Despite the ongoing erosion of Daesh, we have not seen an increase in the number of Canadian Extremist Travellers (CETs) attempting to return. Our top priority in managing CETs also remains the same – to bring them to justice using all resources at our disposal. Canadians expect their Government to keep them safe and to keep pace with evolving threats, tactics and global trends. Our security, intelligence, law enforcement, border and armed forces – to name a few – work around the clock in this regard. They consistently monitor all threats and review their approaches for how best to deal with them. This includes working closely with our friends and allies.
.
The global nature of terrorist and extremist threats necessitates close cooperation with international partners. Our partnerships are stronger than ever, including with NATO, the Five Eyes community, G7, the European Union, INTERPOL and others. We remain committed to being a collaborative force of good in the world and recognize that this can only be achieved by working together and leveraging our strengths.
.
Domestically, we also continue to build on our multi-layered approach to security. Bill C-59 (An Act Respecting National Security Matters) shaped by public views and concerns on how we as a country approach national security issues, is now closer to final Parliamentary approval and implementation. It brings with it an unprecedented era of transparency and openness and a clear signal of the importance that our departments and agencies have the most up to date mandates, tools and resources at their disposal.
.
Despite everyone’s best efforts, there will be times when our collective security is challenged. There will be competing public views on what we as a nation should do. We will continue to take a measured but firm approach – a collaborative approach that unites our strengths – both as a government and as a nation.

A few points in this introduction:
(1) Goodale refers to “violent interpretation” of ideology or religion, while avoiding the elephant in the room: that religions — like Islam — are violent by nature.

(2) Goodale seems content to “bring to justice” terrorists who commit crimes abroad, but doesn’t seem too focused on preventing their re-entry in the first place.

(3) Goodale talks about a “force for good”, as if preventing terrorism were some sort of moralistic issue.

5. Quotes From Executive Summary

Executive Summary
Canada’s terrorist threat environment remains stable. The principal terrorist threat to Canada continues to stem from individuals or groups who are inspired by violent ideologies and terrorist groups, such as Daesh or al-Qaida (AQ). Canada also remains concerned about threats posed by those who harbour right-wing extremist views. The April 2018 van attack in Toronto is a reminder that violent acts driven by extremists’ views are not exclusively-linked to any particular religious, political or cultural ideology. Furthermore, groups, such as Hizballah, and extremists who support violent means to establish an independent state within India also remain of concern because while their attacks in Canada have been extremely limited, some Canadians continue to support these extremist groups, including through financing. At the time of publication, Canada’s National Terrorism Threat Level remains at medium, as set in early October 2014 – meaning a violent act of terrorism could occur.
.
Though Daesh territorial holdings in the Syria-Iraq conflict zone continue to decline, Canada has not seen a related influx in the number of Canadian Extremist Travellers (CETs) who have returned to Canada, nor does it expect to. Owing to several factors (such as a lack of valid travel documents, denying boarding to aircraft destined for Canada, potential fear of arrest upon return, their continued commitment to Daesh or other groups, having been captured while in Syria and Iraq, or because they have died), CET numbers abroad remain stable at approximately 190 individuals with a nexus to Canada, and close to 60 who have returned.
.
In an effort to project strength and influence to counter its decreasing support and size, Daesh is resorting more frequently to false claims of responsibility for acts of violence, including in Canada. In June 2018, after Faisal Hussain fired on the busy Toronto neighbourhood of Danforth, Daesh quickly claimed responsibility, despite the total absence of any link between the attack and that group or any other terrorist group.
.
While globally, terrorist attacks have seen a decline, particularly in the West, ungoverned and permissive environments continue to allow terrorist groups to regroup or develop capabilities. Al-Qaida, Daesh and their affiliates continue to conduct attacks in the Middle East, South-East Asia, South Asia (Afghanistan) and North and West Africa. The Taliban continues to challenge the authority of the Afghanistan government through terrorist acts, while other groups, such as Jamaat Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen (JNIM), Ansurul Islam, and al-Shabaab remain active in Africa.

6. Other Points To Address

  1. Mentioning the April 2018 van attack seems like going out of the way to say that it’s not only Islam, that anyone can be a terrorist.
  2. And denying the link between Faisal Hussain and Daesh seems an opportunity to make the claim that Islam is (wrongly) getting blamed for everything. But beyond that
  3. All other mentions are Islamic
  • Hizballah is Islamic.
  • Daesh is Islamic.
  • Faisal Hussain is Islamic.
  • “Canadian Extremist Travellers” are Islamic.
  • Al Qaida is Islamic.
  • The Taliban is Islamic.
  • Jamaat Nurat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen is Islamic.
  • Ansurul Islam is Islamic.
  • al-Shabaab is Islamic.

These are all Muslims (except for 1 guy in a van in Toronto).

7. Exerps From Report

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to protest, as well as the rights of freedom of conscience and religion, expression, association and peaceful assembly. It is the evolution from hate to serious acts of politically-motivated violence with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, in regard to its sense of security, that could be considered a terrorism offence

This should be common sense. However, in context it seems designed to deliberately not draw any link between Islam and terrorism.

Although the majority of recent global terrorist attacks can be attributed to individuals inspired by terrorist groups such as Daesh and AQ, other recent events around the world are bringing attention to the threat of violence from individuals who harbour right-wing extremist views.
.
Right-wing extremism (RWE) is traditionally driven by hatred and fear, and includes a range of individuals, groups, often in online communities, that back a wide range of issues and grievances, including, but not limited to: anti-government and anti-law enforcement sentiment, advocacy of white nationalism and racial separation, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, anti-immigration, male supremacy (misogyny) and homophobia. The threat of violence from any individuals, including those holding extreme right-wing views, may manifest in terrorist activity or other forms of criminal violence. However, while racism, bigotry, and misogyny may undermine the fabric of Canadian society, ultimately they do not usually result in criminal behavior or threats to national security.
.
In Canada, individuals who hold extreme right-wing views are active online, leveraging chat forums and online networks to exchange ideas, as opposed to openly promoting violence. These individuals leverage online chats and forums in attempt to create an online culture of fear, hatred and mistrust by exploiting real or imagined concerns.
.
Traditionally, in Canada, violence linked to the far-right has been sporadic and opportunistic. However, attacks perpetrated by individuals who hold extreme right-wing views and other lesser-known forms of ideological extremism can occur. A recent example is the April 2018 van attack in Toronto, Ontario, which resulted in the deaths of 10 people and alerted Canada to the dangers of the online Incel movement. It may be difficult to assess, in the short term, to what extent a specific act was ideologically-driven, or comment while investigations are ongoing or cases are before the court.

Interesting. The report (correctly) states the vast majority of terrorism is related to ideologies such as Daesh and Al-Qaida. It then goes on to blame “right wing extremists”. However, the only example cited here (or in the executive summary was the van attack in April 2018.

That one event seems to be as bad as all the Islamic terrorism elsewhere.

Right-wing extremism is not unique to Canada. In fact, some European RWE groups have established chapters in Canada. Likewise, some Canadian RWE groups have far-right connections in Europe.

This disingenuously conflates unrelated groups. This lumps in: those sick of mass migration and illegal immigration; those sick of globalism; and those sick of forced multiculturalism, with actual terrorist organizations.

Furthermore, some individuals in Canada continue to support violent means to establish an independent state within India. These violent activities have fallen since their height during the 1982-1993 period when individuals and groups conducted numerous terrorist attacks. The 1985 Air India bombing, which killed 331 people, remains the deadliest terrorist plot ever launched in Canada. While attacks around the world in support of this movement have declined, support for the extreme ideologies of such groups remains. For example, in Canada, two organizations, Babbar Khalsa International and the International Sikh Youth Federation, have been identified as being associated with terrorism and remain listed terrorist entities under the Criminal Code

.

Credit where credit is due. At least Sikh terrorism is being called out as well.

8. Canadian Extremist Travellers

The first objective in dealing with returning extremist travellers is to investigate and mitigate the threat they may pose to Canada and to Canadians and to ensure public safety. If there is sufficient evidence, the Government of Canada will pursue charges, and prosecute them to the full extent of the law. Criminal prosecution is the top priority and the preferred course of action. If there is insufficient evidence for a charge, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and its law enforcement, security and intelligence partners will continue their investigation, while other tools are leveraged to manage and contain the threat. These tools include: using a terrorism peace bond to seek to have the court place conditions on the individual (including electronic monitoring); active physical surveillance; using the Secure Air Travel Act to prevent further travel; additional border screening; and/or cancelling, refusing or revoking passports. In certain circumstances, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) may also employ threat reduction measures to reduce the threat posed by a returnee.
.
Canada’s law enforcement, security and intelligence, and defence departments and agencies continue to monitor and respond to the threat of Canadian extremist travellers through a coordinated, whole-of-government approach. When the Government learns that a CET may be seeking to return, federal departments and agencies come together to tailor an approach to address the threat he/she may pose. Key departments and agencies, including Public Safety Canada, Global Affairs Canada (GAC), the RCMP, CSIS, the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre (ITAC), the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces (DND/CAF), Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), Transport Canada (TC) and the Privy Council Office (PCO) work together to assess risks, develop options and manage the return of CETs. The whole-of-government approach enables the collective identification of measures needed to deal with the threat.

Some thoughts:

(1) The safety of the Canadian public seems to be taking a backseat.

(2) Safety measures? How about not letting them back into the country in the first place?

(3) Among those measures: why is “INCARCERATION” not listed?

(4) Prosecution is the preferred method? No, we don’t want them back here, period.

9. Bill C-59 And Young Offenders

A particularly troubling section of Bill C-59, new protections for “Young Offenders”. Is the Government expecting youth to commit or be involved in terrorism? What about adults “identifying” as youth?

Youth Criminal Justice Act

159 Subsection 14(2) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act is replaced by the following:

Orders

(2) A youth justice court has exclusive jurisdiction to make orders against a young person under sections 83.‍3 (recognizance — terrorist activity), 810 (recognizance —fear of injury or damage), 810.‍01 (recognizance — fear of certain offences), 810.‍011 (recognizance — fear of terrorism offence), 810.‍02 (recognizance — fear of forced marriage or marriage under age of 16 years) and 810.‍2 (recognizance — fear of serious personal injury offence) of the Criminal Code and the provisions of this Act apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require. If the young person fails or refuses to enter into a recognizance referred to in any of those sections, the court may impose any one of the sanctions set out in subsection 42(2) (youth sentences) except that, in the case of an order under paragraph 42(2)‍(n) (custody and supervision order), it shall not exceed 30 days.

160 Subsection 20(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Orders under section 810 of Criminal Code

(2) Despite subsection 14(2), a justice has jurisdiction to make an order under section 810 (recognizance — fear of injury or damage) of the Criminal Code in respect of a young person. If the young person fails or refuses to enter into a recognizance referred to in that section, the justice shall refer the matter to a youth justice court.

161 (1) Paragraph 25(3)‍(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(a) at a hearing at which it will be determined whether to release the young person or detain the young person in custody,
(a.‍1) at a hearing held in relation to an order referred to in subsection 14(2) or 20(2),

(2) The portion of subsection 25(6) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Release hearing before justice

(6) When a young person, at a hearing referred to in paragraph (3)‍(a) or (a.‍1) that is held before a justice who is not a youth justice court judge, wishes to obtain counsel but is unable to do so, the justice shall

162 The heading before section 28 of the Act is replaced by the following:

Detention and Release

163 Subsection 29(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Detention as social measure prohibited

29 (1) A youth justice court judge or a justice shall not detain a young person in custody as a substitute for appropriate child protection, mental health or other social measures.

164 Subsection 30(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Designated place of temporary detention

30 (1) Subject to subsection (7), a young person who is detained in custody in relation to any proceedings against the young person shall be detained in a safe, fair and humane manner in any place of temporary detention that may be designated by the lieutenant governor in council of the province or his or her delegate or in a place within a class of places so designated.

165 The heading before section 33 of the Act is replaced by the following:

Application for Release from or Detention in Custody

166 (1) Paragraph 67(1)‍(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(c) the young person is charged with first or second degree murder within the meaning of section 231 of the Criminal Code; or

(2) Paragraph 67(3)‍(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(c) the young person is charged with first or second degree murder within the meaning of section 231 of the Criminal Code; or

167 (1) Subsection 119(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (p):

(p.‍1) an employee of a department or agency of the Government of Canada, for the purpose of administering the Canadian Passport Order;

(2) Subsection 119(2) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (d):

(d.‍1) if an order referred to in subsection 14(2) or 20(2) is made against a young person, the period ending six months after the expiry of the order;

10. last Comments

Despite the overwhelming majority of terrorism being committed by Muslims, in the name of Islam, the Canadian Government tries to downplay that. Actual group names like “Sunni” and “Shia” are stripped from the report, so to not offend anyone.

This gesture of political correctness supposedly is to “not vilify” entire groups. However, it overlooks the elephant in the room, that Islam is directly responsible for most of the terrorism in today’s world. This does no one any good, trying to shade the truth in order to hide the root cause of the majority of terrorism.

It is also clear the Government puts more of a focus on protecting the rights and freedoms of terrorists returning from abroad that it does in protecting Canadians. This must stop.

Posted on

Canada’s Bill C-71: Backdoor Gun Registry

(Bill C-71, to restore the long gun registry)

One thing to point out right away: this bill is much more manageable to read than Bill C-69

CLICK HERE, for the full text of Bill C-71.

CLICK HERE, for the 1995 Firearms Act.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-19, Ending The Long Gun Registry Act
CLICK HERE, for the 2015 Economic Action Plan Act

Here are some noteworthy changes

5(2) of Firearms Act
ORIGINAL

(c) has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person.

REPLACEMENT
(2) Subsection 5(2) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (b) and by replacing paragraph (c) with the following:

(c) has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence or threatening conduct on the part of the person against any person;
(d) is or was previously prohibited by an order — made in the interests of the safety and security of any person — from communicating with an identified person or from being at a specified place or within a specified distance of that place, and presently poses a threat or risk to the safety and security of any person;
(e) in respect of an offence in the commission of which violence was used, threatened or attempted against the person’s intimate partner or former intim­ate partner, was previously prohibited by a prohibition order from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition; or
(f) for any other reason, poses a risk of harm to any person.

For greater certainty

(2.‍1) For greater certainty, for the purposes of paragraph (2)‍(c), threatened violence and threatening conduct include threats or conduct communicated by the person to a person by means of the Internet or other digital network

19(1.1) and (2) of Firearms Act
ORIGINAL

Target practice or competition

(1.1) In the case of an authorization to transport issued for a reason referred to in paragraph (1)(a) within the province where the holder of the authorization resides, the specified places must include all shooting clubs and shooting ranges that are approved under section 29 and that are located in that province.
Marginal note:

Exception for prohibited firearms other than prohibited handguns
(2) Despite subsection (1), an individual must not be authorized to transport a prohibited firearm, other than a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6.1), between specified places except for the purposes referred to in paragraph (1)(b)

REPLACEMENT

4 (1) Subsections 19(1.‍1) and (2) of the Act are replaced by the following:

Target practice or competition

(1.‍1) In the case of an authorization to transport issued for a reason referred to in paragraph (1)‍(a) within the province where the holder of the authorization resides, the specified places must — except in the case of an authorization that is issued for a prohibited firearm referred to in subsection 12(9) — include all shooting clubs and shooting ranges that are approved under section 29 and that are located in that province.

Exception for prohibited firearms other than prohibited handguns

(2) Despite subsection (1), an individual must not be authorized to transport a prohibited firearm — other than a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6.‍1) or a prohibited firearm referred to in subsection 12(9) — between specified places except for the purposes referred to in paragraph (1)‍(b).

Section 23 of Firearms Act
ORIGINAL

Authorization to transfer non-restricted firearms
23 A person may transfer a non-restricted firearm if, at the time of the transfer,
(a) the transferee holds a licence authorizing the transferee to acquire and possess that kind of firearm; and
(b) the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is not authorized to acquire and possess that kind of firearm.
1995, c. 39, s. 23; 2003, c. 8, s. 17; 2012, c. 6, s. 11; 2015, c. 27, s. 7.
Previous Version
Marginal note:

Voluntary request to Registrar
23.1 (1) A transferor referred to in section 23 may request that the Registrar inform the transferor as to whether the transferee, at the time of the transfer, holds and is still eligible to hold the licence referred to in paragraph 23(a), and if such a request is made, the Registrar or his or her delegate, or any other person that the federal Minister may designate, shall so inform the transferor.
Marginal note:

No record of request
(2) Despite sections 12 and 13 of the Library and Archives of Canada Act and subsections 6(1) and (3) of the Privacy Act, neither the Registrar or his or her delegate nor a designated person shall retain any record of a request made under subsection (1).

REPLACEMENT

5 Sections 23 and 23.‍1 of the Act are replaced by the following:

Authorization to transfer non-restricted firearms

23 (1) A person may transfer one or more non-restricted firearms if, at the time of the transfer,
(a) the transferee holds a licence authorizing the transferee to acquire and possess a non-restricted firearm;
(b) the Registrar has, at the transferor’s request, issued a reference number for the transfer and provided it to the transferor; and
(c) the reference number is still valid.

Information — transferee’s licence

(2) The transferee shall provide to the transferor the prescribed information that relates to the transferee’s licence, for the purpose of enabling the transferor to request that the Registrar issue a reference number for the transfer.

Reference number

(3) The Registrar shall issue a reference number if he or she is satisfied that the transferee holds and is still eligible to hold a licence authorizing them to acquire and possess a non-restricted firearm.

Period of validity

(4) A reference number is valid for the prescribed period.

Registrar not satisfied

(5) If the Registrar is not satisfied as set out in subsection (3), he or she may so inform the transferor.

Ending the Long Gun Registry Act of 2012
ORIGINAL

Non-application
(3) Sections 12 and 13 of the Library and Archives of Canada Act and subsections 6(1) and (3) of the Privacy Act do not apply with respect to the destruction of the records and copies referred to in subsections (1) and (2).

(4) If section 29 of the other Act comes into force before section 17 of this Act, then that section 17 is replaced by the following:
17. Paragraph 38(1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) holds a licence to possess that kind of firearm and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate and an authorization to transport the firearm; and

(5) If section 17 of this Act comes into force before section 29 of the other Act, then, on the day on which that section 29 comes into force, paragraph 38(1)(a) of the Firearms Act is replaced by the following:
(a) holds a licence to possess that kind of firearm and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate and an authorization to transport the firearm; and

(6) If section 29 of the other Act comes into force on the same day as section 17 of this Act, then that section 17 is deemed to have come into force before that section 29 and subsection (5) applies as a consequence.

(7) On the first day on which both section 30 of the other Act and section 17 of this Act are in force, paragraphs 40(1)(b) and (c) of the Firearms Act are replaced by the following:
(b) the individual produces a licence authorizing him or her to possess that kind of firearm;
(c) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the individual holds an authorization to transport it and satisfies the customs officer that the individual holds a registration certificate for the firearm; and

REPLACEMENT

Ending the Long-gun Registry Act

Amendments to the Act

2015, c. 36, s. 230

23 (1) Subsection 29(3) of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act is deemed never to have been amended by section 230 of the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1.

2015, c. 36, s. 230

(2) Subsections 29(4) to (7) of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act are deemed never to have come into force and are repealed.

2015, c. 36, s. 231

24 Section 30 of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act is deemed never to have come into force and is repealed.

Biggest takeaway here is that Bill C-71 is an effort to resurrect the Long Gun Registry

While there are some virtue signals about safety, the main objective is clearly undoing the 2011-2012 legislation.

Posted on

Canada’s Bill C-69: Impact Assessment, Energy Regulation, Navigation Protection Acts

(Canada’s Bill C-69)

(Apparently, science is “Colonial”, in S. Africa anyway)

(Science is so racist, apparently)

(One of the few times “White” science is good)

CLICK HERE, for the bill in its latest form, which is currently undergoing 3rd reading in House of Commons.

CLICK HERE, for 2012 version of Environmental Assessment Act.
CLICK HERE, for the 1985 Navigation Protection Act.
CLICK HERE, for Energy Regulator Handbook.

SUMMARY HERE
If nothing else, take these points away:

-Regulators have wide discretion to shut everything down
-Regulators have wide discretion to hand out fines and penalties
-Gender based analysis is lens which projects to be viewed though
-Indigenous rights ensure that any project can be stopped almost at will
-Advisory Board must include (a) FN; (b) Inuit; (c) Metis
-“White Science” and “Indigenous Knowledge” to both be considered
-“Indigenous Knowledge” is confidential, unless common knowledge
-“Indigenous Knowledge” given to regulator is private unless public interest to disclose.
-“Indigenous Knowledge” is some secret sauce that can shut down projects, but must be kept confidential to protect …. something.
-Special Tribunal can be set up for compensation in pipeline spills

THIS CAN BE CHALLENGED IN FEDERAL COURT

Federal Court

Appeal to Federal Court

138 The Minister or any person or entity to whom an order, as confirmed or varied by a review officer, is directed may, by filing a written notice of appeal within 30 days after the day on which the written reasons are provided by the review officer under section 135, appeal to the Federal Court from the review officer’s decision.

Order not suspended

139 The filing of a notice of appeal under section 138 does not suspend the operation of an order, as confirmed or varied by a review officer.

Injunctions

Court’s power

140 (1) If, on the Minister’s application, it appears to a court of competent jurisdiction that a person or entity has done, is about to do or is likely to do any act constituting or directed toward the commission of an offence under this Act, the court may issue an injunction ordering the person or entity who is named in the application to
(a) refrain from doing an act that, in the court’s opinion, may constitute or be directed toward the commission of the offence; or
(b) do an act that, in the court’s opinion, may prevent the commission of the offence.

Notice

(2) No injunction is to be issued under subsection (1) unless 48 hours’ notice is served on the party or parties who are named in the application or unless the urgency of the situation is such that service of notice would not be in the public interest.

*****************************************

Judicial Review

Grounds

170 Subject to section 168, every decision of a Tribunal is final and conclusive and is not to be questioned or reviewed in any court except in accordance with the Federal Courts Act on the grounds referred to in paragraph 18.‍1(4)‍(a), (b) or (e) of that Act.

Good to know…. this may come in handy later.

Also, there is a section on discrimination. Of course, with this government, no legislation would be complete without it. However, the terms here seem to suggest more of a “price fixing” nature than actual discrimination. Read for yourself.

Discrimination

No unjust discrimination

235 A company must not make any unjust discrimination in tolls, service or facilities against any person or locality.

Burden of proof

236 If it is shown that a company makes any discrimination in tolls, service or facilities against any person or locality, the burden of proving that the discrimination is not unjust lies on the company.

Prohibition

237 (1) A company or shipper, or an officer, employee or agent or mandatary of a company or shipper, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction if they
(a) offer, grant, give, solicit, accept or receive a rebate, concession or discrimination that allows a person to obtain transmission of hydrocarbons or any other commodity by a company at a rate less than that named in the tariffs then in effect; or
(b) knowingly are party or privy to a false billing, false classification, false report or other device that has the effect set out in paragraph (a).

Due diligence

(2) A person is not to be found guilty of an offence under paragraph (1)‍(a) if they establish that they exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.

Prosecution

(3) No prosecution may be instituted for an offence under this section without leave of the Commission.

Introduction To The Bill
Preamble
Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing an impact assessment and regulatory system that Canadians trust and that provides safeguards to protect the environment and the health and safety of Canadians;

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to enhancing Canada’s global competitiveness by building a system that enables decisions to be made in a predictable and timely manner, providing certainty to investors and stakeholders, driving innovation and enabling the carrying out of sound projects that create jobs for Canadians;

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to achieving reconciliation with First Nations, the Métis and the Inuit through renewed nation-to-nation, government-to-government and Inuit-Crown relationships based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership;

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to using transparent processes that are built on early engagement and inclusive participation and under which the best available scientific information and data and the Indigenous knowledge of the Indigen­ous peoples of Canada are taken into account in decision-making;

And whereas the Government of Canada is committed to assessing how groups of women, men and gender-diverse people may experience policies, programs and projects and to taking actions that contribute to an inclusive and democratic society and allow all Canadians to participate fully in all spheres of their lives;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

1/ Safeguards to protect the environment, and H&S of Canadians? Okay, few could disagree with that.
2/ Promoting competitiveness sounds great, if that is what the Bill does.
3/ Committed to reconciliation? Okay, here is where we start to have issues. Will development be blocked or rerouted in the name of “reconciliation”? Or will there be extra “taxes” attached?
4/ Inclusive participation? Isn’t that redundant? And best scientific information and data “and” the Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples are taken into account?

*** So is there Indigenous knowledge and non-Indigenous science and data? See the above video on “decolonizing science”

5/ Committed to assessing how groups of women, men and gender-diverse people may experience things? Okay, back to the gender obsession. And is “gender diverse” a reference to trannies, or just mixed men/women?
6/ I thought this was a science based approach. Now it’s being infiltrated by (a) Indigenous knowledge and (b) Gender politics.

Okay, now we get to “another” preamble,

PART 1 

Impact Assessment Act

Enactment of Act

Enactment

1 The Impact Assessment Act, whose Schedules 1 to 4 are set out in the schedule to this Act, is enacted as follows:

An Act respecting a federal process for impact assessments and the prevention of significant adverse environmental effects

Preamble
Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to fostering sustainability;

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that impact assessments provide an effective means of integrating scientific information and Indigenous knowledge into decision-making processes related to designated projects;

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of public participation in the impact assessment process, including the planning phase, and is committed to providing Canadians with the opportunity to participate in that process and with the information they need in order to be able to participate in a meaningful way;

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that the public should have access to the reasons on which decisions related to impact assessments are based;

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed, in the course of exercising its powers and performing its duties and functions in relation to impact, regional and strategic assessments, to ensuring respect for the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and to fostering reconciliation and working in partnership with them;

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of cooperating with jurisdictions that have powers, duties and functions in relation to the assessment of the effects of designated projects in order that impact assessments may be conducted more efficiently;

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that a transparent, efficient and timely decision-making process contributes to a positive investment climate in Canada;

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that impact assessment contributes to Canada’s ability to meet its environmental obligations and its commitments in respect of climate change;

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of encouraging innovative approaches and technologies to reduce adverse changes to the environment and to health, social or economic conditions;

And whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of regional assessments in understanding the effects of existing or future physical activities and the importance of strategic assessments in assessing federal policies, plans or programs that are relevant to conducting impact assessments;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

1/ The Government of Canada is committed to sustainability? Okay, sounds nice, but that can get very expensive. See Agenda 21, signed in 1992 by Brian Mulroney, and Agenda 2030, signed in 2015 by Stephen Harper. Interestingly, Mulroney and Harper both “identify” as Conservatives.
2/ Integrating scientific information and Indigenous knowledge? Again, is there a separate set of scientific principles depending on skin colour or ethnicity? Science is so racist.
3/ Committed to public participation, yet this is an omnibus bill rammed though parliament
4/ Fostering reconciliation and inclusion? So will protests be shutting down any projects? Will “payments” be demanded?
5/ You support UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights? Okay, that agreement means that virtually any work can be shut down at any time, for any reason.
6/ Meet it’s international efforts regarding climate change? Silly me, thinking Paris Accord was “non-binding”

Note: There is a preamble for the Energy Regulator Act, and it’s wording is almost identical.

Rights of Indigenous peoples of Canada

3 For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed as abrogating or derogating from the protection provided for the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Again, any project can be shut down on a whim.

Purpose

Purpose of Act

6 The purpose of this Act is to regulate certain energy matters within Parliament’s jurisdiction and, in particular,

(a) to ensure that pipelines and power lines as well as facilities, equipment or systems related to offshore renewable energy projects, are constructed, operated and abandoned in a manner that is safe, secure and efficient and that protects people, property and the environment;
(b) to ensure that the exploration for and exploitation of oil and gas, as defined in section 2 of the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, is carried out in a manner that is safe and secure and that protects people, property and the environment;
(c) to regulate trade in energy products; and
(d) to ensure that regulatory hearings and decision-making processes related to those energy matters are fair, inclusive, transparent and efficient.

(a) No problem with this.
(b) No problem with this.
(c) Stop. Government shouldn’t be regulating trade. It just makes things more expensive.
(d) Make decisions that are inclusive? Getting back into the gender politics again?

Mandate

11 The Regulator’s mandate includes

(a) making transparent decisions, orders and recommendations with respect to pipelines, power lines, offshore renewable energy projects and abandoned pipelines;
(b) overseeing the construction, operation and abandonment of pipelines, interprovincial power lines and international power lines and overseeing work and activities authorized under Part 5 as well as abandoned facilities;

(c) making orders with respect to traffic, tolls and tariffs and overseeing matters relating to traffic, tolls and tariffs;
(d) making decisions and orders and giving directions under Part 8 with respect to oil and gas interests, production and conservation;

(e) advising and reporting on energy matters;
(f) providing alternative dispute resolution processes;

(g) exercising powers and performing duties and functions that are conferred on the Regulator under any other Act of Parliament; and
(h) exercising its powers and performing its duties and functions in a manner that respects the Government of Canada’s commitments with respect to the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada.

On the surface, this doesn’t look objectionable. However, it is unclear just how much authority the Energy Regulator will have to make unilateral decisions.

Board of Directors

Establishment and composition

14 (1) The Regulator is to have a board of directors consisting of at least five but not more than nine directors, including a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson.

Indigenous representation

(2) At least one of the directors must be an Indigenous person.

Of course, it wouldn’t be a Liberal bill without a racial or gender quota.

Matters of law and fact

(3) For the purposes of this Act, the Commission has full jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters, whether of law or of fact.

Power to act on own initiative

33 The Commission may on its own initiative inquire into, hear and determine any matter that under this Act it may inquire into, hear and determine.

Orders and prohibitions

34 The Commission may
(a) order any person to do, immediately or within or at any specified time and in any specified manner, anything that the person is or may be required to do under this Act, under a condition of a document of authorization, or under any order made or direction given by the Commission or a designated officer under this Act; and

(b) prohibit the doing or continuing of anything that is contrary to this Act, to a condition of the document of authorization or to the order or direction.

Okay, now we are getting into some actual enforcement. However it is unclear what all these added levels of bureaucracy will actually accomplish. It just seems to slow things down.

Wasn’t part of this bill to ensure speedy startup and process?

Exercise of Commission’s Powers and Performance of Its Duties and Functions by Designated Officers

Regulations

54 The Governor in Council may make regulations that specify
(a) powers, duties and functions of the Commission that are technical or administrative in nature and may be exercised or performed by designated officers;
(b) any circumstances in which those powers are to be exercised and those duties and functions are to be performed only by designated officers; and
(c) the procedures and practices that apply to the exercise of those powers and the performance of those duties and functions by designated officers.

Good in a way, delegate matters the powers at hand don’t understand to underlings who would know more.
Also a bit concerning. There is no requirement to actually have any education, experience or training in the industry. Wouldn’t this invite mistake from incompetent, politically driven leaders?

Rights and Interests of the Indigenous Peoples of Canada

Duty to consider — Commission

56 (1) When making a decision, an order or a recommendation under this Act, the Commission must consider any adverse effects that the decision, order or recommendation may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Duty to consider — designated officers

(2) When making a decision or an order under this Act, a designated officer must consider any adverse effects that the decision or order may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Advisory committee

57 (1) The Regulator must establish an advisory committee for the purpose of enhancing the involvement, under Part 2, of the Indigenous peoples of Canada and Indigenous organizations in respect of pipelines, power lines and offshore renewable energy projects as well as abandoned pipelines.

Membership

(2) The membership of the advisory committee must include at least
(a) one person recommended by an Indigenous organization that represents the interests of First Nations;
(b) one person recommended by an Indigenous organization that represents the interests of the Inuit; and
(c) one person recommended by an Indigenous organization that represents the interests of the Métis.

Confidentiality — Indigenous knowledge

58 (1) Any Indigenous knowledge that is provided in confidence to the Regulator under this Act or any other Act of Parliament that confers powers, duties or functions on the Regulator is confidential and must not knowingly be, or be permitted to be, disclosed without written consent.

Exception

(2) Despite subsection (1), the Indigenous knowledge referred to in that subsection may be disclosed if
(a) it is publicly available;
(b) the disclosure is necessary for the purposes of procedural fairness and natural justice or for use in legal proceedings; or
(c) the disclosure is authorized in the circumstances set out in the regulations made under section 59.

Consultation

(2.‍1) Before disclosing Indigenous knowledge under paragraph 2(b) for the purposes of procedural fairness and natural justice, the Regulator must consult the person or entity who provided the Indigenous knowledge and the person or entity to whom it is proposed to be disclosed about the scope of the proposed disclosure and potential conditions under subsection (3).

Further disclosure

(3) The Regulator may, having regard to the consultation referred to in subsection (2.‍1), impose conditions with respect to the disclosure of Indigenous knowledge by any person or entity to whom it is disclosed under paragraph (2)‍(b) for the purposes of procedural fairness and natural justice.

Duty to comply

(4) The person or entity referred to in subsection (3) must comply with any conditions imposed by the Regulator under that subsection.

Protection from civil proceeding or prosecution

(5) Despite any other Act of Parliament, no civil or criminal proceedings lie against the Regulator or the Minister — or any person acting on behalf of, or under the direction of, either of them — and no proceedings lie against the Crown or the Regulator, for the disclosure in good faith of any Indigenous knowledge under this Act or any other Act of Parliament that confers powers, duties or functions on the Regulator or for any consequences that flow from that disclosure.

Regulations

59 The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the circumstances in which Indigenous knowledge that is provided to the Regulator under this Act in confidence may be disclosed without written consent.
Once again, this seems designed to fail.

1/ If any indigenous person or group can shut down an entire project, or at least delay it for years, development will come to a standstill.
2/ Duty to consult: Again sounds nice, but written in such a way as to ensure nothing gets through.
3/ Committee must include:
(a) First Nations
(b) Inuit
(c) Metis
So not only is there “one” representative, but there are to be “three” each from different groups.
4/ Indigenous Knowledge provided to regulator is confidential.
What? So it cannot be challenged if we don’t know what it is.
5/ Before “disclosing Indigenous Knowledge”, the Regulator must discuss with person who provided it.
6/ No punishment for disclosing “Indigenous Knowledge” if it was done in good faith? Great, but if this knowledge is so powerful, why “wouldn’t” we want to share it
7/ So where is all this transparency, if “Indigenous Knowledge” is kept secret?

Public Engagement

Public engagement

74 The Regulator must establish processes that the Regulator considers appropriate to engage meaningfully with the public — and, in particular, the Indigenous peoples of Canada and Indigenous organizations — when public hearings are held under section 52 or subsection 241(3).

Participant funding program

75 For the purposes of this Act, the Regulator must establish a participant funding program to facilitate the participation of the public — and, in particular, the Indigenous peoples of Canada and Indigenous organizations — in public hearings under section 52 or subsection 241(3) and any steps leading to those hearings.

Public hearings are good, but the incessant pandering to Indigenous groups gets tiring.

Regulation of Construction, Operation and Abandonment

Orders

95 (1) To promote the safety and security of the operation of a regulated facility, the Commission may, by order, direct the holder to repair, reconstruct or alter part of the regulated facility and direct that, until the work is done, that part of the regulated facility not be used or be used in accordance with any conditions specified by the Commission.

Other measures

(2) The Commission may, by order, direct any of the following persons or bodies to take measures in respect of a regulated facility, an abandoned facility or any work or activity authorized under Part 5 that the Commission considers necessary for the safety and security of persons, the safety and security of the regulated facility or abandoned facility or the protection of property or the environment:

(a) an Indigenous governing body;
(b) the holder or any other person;
(c) the federal government or a federal Crown corporation;
(d) a provincial government or a provincial Crown corporation;
(e) a local authority.

This sounds nice, but in practice, anyone on the list can start making demands and delay or shut down any major project. Again, pandering to Indigenous bodies.

Offence and punishment — duty to assist and orders

112 (1) Every person who contravenes subsection 103(4) or fails to comply with an order under section 109 is guilty of an offence and is liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or to both; or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year or to both.

Defence — no notice

(2) A person must not be found guilty of an offence for failing to comply with an order under section 109 unless the person was given written notice of the order in accordance with paragraph 109(3)‍(a).

Offence and punishment — obstruction

(3) Every person who contravenes section 106 is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $100,000 and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $300,000.

This is one of many references in the Bill which criminalise certain actions. If nothing else, the bill does have teeth in it.

Pipeline Claims Tribunal

Establishment

Establishment of Tribunal

143 (1) The Governor in Council may, by order, after a designation is made under subsection 141(1), establish a pipeline claims tribunal whose purpose is to examine and adjudicate, as expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit, the claims for compensation made under this Act in relation to the release that occurred from the designated company’s pipeline and specify the location of its head office.

Reasons

(2) However, the Governor in Council may establish a pipeline claims tribunal only if, having regard to the extent of the compensable damage caused by the release, the estimated cost of paying compensation in respect of that damage and the advantages of having claims dealt with by an administrative tribunal, the Governor in Council considers it in the public interest to do so.

Claims treated equitably

(3) A Tribunal must exercise its powers and perform its duties and functions with respect to claims for compensation in an equitable manner, without discrimination on the basis of nationality or residence.

Now adding even more bureaucracy. The Governor in Council may establish a tribunal to specifically rule on pipeline compensation.

This bill goes on and on. Feel free to read the entire document

But the main take away is that it creates more and more levels of bureaucracy for any sort of development projects, such as pipelines. The only plausible explanation is that the Bill seems designed to prevent anything from getting off the ground.

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.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress