Frank Geels & Disruptive Innovation Framework (Climate Change Scam #6)

(From actual academic writing: Frank W. Geels)

(More academia: Sustainable Consumption Institute, Manchester University)

(Clayton Christiansen and “Disruptive Innovation” video)

(From the Uppity Peasants site)

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.
Go check out “Uppity Peasants“.

2. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for the Sustainable Consumption Institute & Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, The University of Manchester, Denmark Road Building, M13 9PL, Manchester, United Kingdom.
CLICK HERE, for Clayton Christiansen and “Disruptive Innovation”.
CLICK HERE, for SCI Collective Action & Social Movements.
CLICK HERE, for SCI Social Inequality.
CLICK HERE, for Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability.
CLICK HERE, for a Wiki explanation of disruptive innovation.
CLICK HERE, for removing the innovator’s dilemma.

CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.

3. Quotes From The Geels Article

Disruption and low-carbon system transformation: Progress and new challenges in socio-technical transitions research and the Multi-Level Perspective

This will be elaborated on, but is about subverted the status quo, or “disruption”. Worth pointing out, that although these types of articles are published and marketed as “science”, they are anything but.

As this title would suggest, the article is extremely political. The concern is not about science itself, but how to “sell” the science. And the agenda here is searching for political methods of implementing the transition to a Carbon free

ABSTRACT
This paper firstly assesses the usefulness of Christensen’s disruptive innovation framework for low-carbon system change, identifying three conceptual limitations with regard to the unit of analysis (products rather than systems), limited multi-dimensionality, and a simplistic (‘point source’) conception of change. Secondly, it shows that the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) offers a more comprehensive framework on all three dimensions. Thirdly, it reviews progress in socio-technical transition research and the MLP on these three dimensions and identifies new challenges, including ‘whole system’ reconfiguration, multi-dimensional struggles, bi-directional niche-regime interactions, and an alignment conception of change. To address these challenges, transition research should further deepen and broaden its engagement with the social scienceseconomy.

The usefulness of Christiansen’s disruptive innovation framework? While used in a business sense, it appears to be a way for entrepreneurs to get into a market or business. However, in this context it is used as disrupting an environmental policy.

It is mildly (or downright) creepy that the author, Frank Geels, openly suggests that research should broaden its engagement with social sciences. In plain English, this means merging, where scientific research is viewed through a “social” lens.

Christiansen’s “Disruptive Innovation Framework” is explained in the above video. Also see “disruption in financial services“.

Christensen [4] made important contributions to the long-standing debate in innovation management about new entrants, incumbents and industry structures. He argued that disruptive innovations enable new entrants to ‘attack from below’ and overthrow incumbent firms. Christensen thus has a particular understanding of disruption, focused mainly on the competitive effects of innovations on existing firms and industry structures. His framework was not developed to address systemic effects or broader transformations, so my comments below are not about the intrinsic merits of the framework, but about their usefulness for low-carbon transitions.

Christensen’s disruptive innovation framework offers several useful insights for low-carbon transitions (although similar ideas can also be found elsewhere). First, it suggests that incumbent firms tend to focus their innovation efforts on sustaining technologies (which improve performance along established criteria), while new entrants tend to develop disruptive technologies (which offer different value propositions). Second, it proposes that disruptive technologies emerge in small peripheral niches, where early adopters are attracted by the technology’s new functionalities. Third, incumbent firms may initially overlook or under-estimate disruptive technologies (because of established beliefs) or are not interested in them, because the limited return on-investments associated with small markets do not fit with existing business models. Fourth, price/performance improvements may enable disruptive technologies to enter larger markets, out-compete existing technologies and overthrow incumbent firms

Worth pointing out right away, Geels has no interest in the “intrinsic merits” of the disruptive innovation framework that Christiansen talks about. Rather, he focuses on applying that technique to reducing/eliminating Carbon emissions from society.

Christiansen’s idea could be applied fairly practically to business, where new players want to establish themselves. However, Geels “weaponizes” this idea and wants to apply it with the climate-change agenda.

Geels also makes it obvious that overthrowing incumbents is a priority. Again, Christiansen’s writings were meant with the business approach, and trying to start your own, but Geels “repurposes” it.

While Christensen’s framework focuses on technical and business dimensions, the MLP also accommodates consumption, cultural, and socio-political dimensions. Although co-evolution has always been a core concept in the MLP, this is even more important for low-carbon transitions, which are goal-oriented or ‘purposive’ in the sense of addressing the problem of climate change. This makes them different from historical transitions which were largely ‘emergent’, with entrepreneurs exploiting the commercial opportunities offered by new technology

[27]. Because climate protection is a public good, private actors (e.g. firms, consumers) have limited incentives to address it owing to free rider problems and prisoner’s dilemmas. This means that public policy must play a central role in supporting the emergence and deployment of low-carbon innovations and changing the economic frame conditions (via taxes, subsidies, regulations, standards) that incentivize firms, consumers and other actors. However, substantial policy changes involve political struggles and public debate because: “[w]hatever can be done through the State will depend upon generating widespread political support from citizens within the context of democratic rights and freedoms” ([28]: 91).

Again, Geels hijacking a legitimate business concept, but using it for his enviro agenda.

How to implement this? Taxes, subsidies, regulations, standards for businesses and consumers. Use these to regulate and influence behaviour.

Geels rightly says that widespread political support will be needed. But he frames the climate change scam as a way to protect rights and freedoms. Nice bait-and-switch.

Conceptually, this means that we should analyse socio-technical transitions as multi-dimensional struggles between niche-innovations and existing regimes. These struggles include: economic competition between old and new technologies; business struggles between new entrants and incumbents; political struggles over adjustments in regulations, standards, subsidies and taxes; discursive struggles over problem framings and social acceptance; and struggles between new user practices and mainstream ones.

Despite Geels’ article being published in the Journal, “ENERGY RESEARCH AND SOCIAL SCIENCE”, this anything but scientific. If anything, it seems analogous to the “lawfare” that Islamic groups perpetuate on democratic societies.

While Geels promotes economic competition, this is anything but a fair competition. He also calls for:

  • Political struggles over regulations
  • New standards
  • Subsidies
  • Taxes
  • Discursive struggles over problem framings & social acceptance
  • Struggles between new and mainstream user practices

There is nothing scientific here. This is a call for using “political” manoeuvering for achieving social goals.

The importance of public engagement, social acceptance and political feasibility is often overlooked in technocratic government strategies and model-based scenarios, which focus on techno-economic dimensions to identify least-cost pathways [32]. In the UK, which is characterized by closed policy networks and top-down policy style, this neglect has led to many problems, which are undermining the low carbon transition.

• Onshore wind experienced local protests and permit problems, leading to negative public discourses and a political backlash, culminating in a post-2020 moratorium.

• Shale gas experienced public controversies after it was pushed through without sufficient consultation.

• Energy-saving measures in homes were scrapped in 2015, after the Green Deal flagship policy(introduced in2013) spectacularly failed, because it was overly complicated and poorly designed, leading to limited uptake.

• The 2006 zero-carbon homes target, which stipulated that all new homes should be carbon-neutral by 2016, was scrapped in 2015, because of resistance by major housebuilders and limited consumer interest.

• The smart meter roll-out is experiencing delays, because of controversies over standards, privacy concerns, and distribution of benefits (between energy companies and consumers).

While these points are in fact true, Geels suggests that problems could have been avoided if there was sufficient public consultation. This is wishful thinking.

These points raise many legitimate concerns with the eco-agenda. Yet Geels shrugs them off as the result of not engaging the public enough.

Christensen and other innovation management scholars typically adopt a ‘point source’ approach to disruption, in which innovators pioneer new technologies, conquer the world, and cause social change. Existing contexts are typically seen as ‘barriers’ to be overcome. This ‘bottom-up’ emphasis also permeates the Strategic Niche Management and Technological Innovation System literatures. While this kind of change pattern does sometimes occur, the MLP was specifically developed to also accommodate broader patterns, in which niche-innovations diffuse because they align with ongoing processes at landscape- or regime-levels [9].

The MLP thus draws on history and sociology of technology, where processual, contextual explanations are common. Mokyr [58], for instance, emphasizes that “The new invention has to be born into a socially sympathetic environment” (p. 292) and that “Macro-inventions are seeds sown by individual inventors in a social soil. (.) But the environment into which these seeds are sown is, of course, the main determinant of whether they will sprout” (p. 299). So, if radical innovations face mis-matches with economic, socio-cultural or political contexts, they may remain stuck in peripheral niches, hidden ‘below the surface’.

Since low-carbon transitions are problem-oriented, transition scholars should not only analyse innovation dynamics, but also ‘issue dynamics’ because increasing socio-political concerns about climate change can lead to changes in regime-level institutions and selection environments. Societal problems or ‘issues’ have their own dynamics in terms of problem definition and socio-political mobilization as conceptualized, for instance, in the issue lifecycle literature [59,50]. Low carbon transitions require stronger ‘solution’ and problem dynamics, and their successful alignment, which is not an easy process, as the examples below show.

These passages go into marketing strategies, and ways to “frame an argument”. Notice not once does Geels suggest doing more research, or checking the reliability of existing data. Instead, this is a push for emotional manipulation and shameless advertising.

Invention has to be born into a socially sympathetic environment. Science be damned.

There are also positive developments, however, that provide windows of opportunity. Coal is losing legitimacy in parts of the world, because it is increasingly framed as dirty, unhealthy and old-fashioned, and because oil and gas companies are distancing themselves from coal, leading to cracks in the previously ‘closed front’ of fossil fuel industries. The UK has committed to phasing out coal-fired power plants by 2025 and several other countries (Netherlands, France, Canada, Finland, Austria) also move in this direction, providing space for low-carbon alternatives, including renewables.

I would actually agree that coal being phased out would benefit society. However, Geels makes it a “marketing” issue rather than a scientific one. Coal is “increasingly framed” as dirty. Notice that the actual science, such as from this site, are very rarely described.

Following chemical reactions takes place in the combustion of coal with the release of heat:
C + O2 = CO2 + 8084 Kcal/ Kg of carbon (33940 KJ/Kg)
S + O2 = SO2 + 2224 Kcal/Kg of sulfur (9141 KJ/Kg)
2 H2 + O2 = 2 H2O + 28922 Kcal/Kg of hydrogen (142670 KJ/Kg)
2C + O2 = 2CO + 2430 Kcal/Kg of carbon (10120 KJ/Kg)

4. Geels’ Conclusions

The paper has also identified several research challenges, where the transitions community could fruitfully do more work. First, we should broaden our analytical attention from singular niche-innovations (which permeate the literature) to ‘whole system’ change. This may involve changes in conceptual imagery (from ‘point source’ disruption to gradual system reconfiguration) and broader research designs, which analyze multiple niche-innovations and their relations to ongoing dynamics in existing systems and regimes. That, in turn, may require more attention for change mechanisms like add-on, hybridisation, modular component substitution, knock-on effects, innovation cascades, multi regime interaction.

Second, we should better understand regime developments. Existing regimes can provide formidable barriers for low-carbon transitions. Incumbent actors can resist, delay or derail low-carbon transitions, but they can also accelerate them if they reorient their strategies and resources towards niche-innovations. The analysis of niche-to-regime dynamics (as in the niche empowerment literature) should thus be complemented with regime-to-niche dynamics, including incumbent resistance or reorientation. Additionally, we need more nuanced conceptualizations and assessments of degrees of lock-in, tensions, cracks, and destabilisation.

Third, we need greater acknowledgement that socio-technical systems are a special unit of analysis, which spans the social sciences and can be studied through different lenses and at different levels. The recent trend towards deepening our understanding of particular dimensions and societal groups is tremendously fruitful, because disciplinary theories offer more specific causal mechanisms. But, as a community, we should complement this with broad analyses of co-evolution, alignment, multi-dimensionality and ‘whole systems’.

This all sounds elegant, but read between the lines. It is about influencing public perception. Whenever academics, lawyers or politicians seem to make things confusing we need to ask: are they trying to obscure their goals?

5. More About Frank W. Geels

Selected publications of Geels
If you would like a broader cross section of Geels’ work, perhaps these publications will be of interest.

  • Geels, F.W., Berkhout, F. and Van Vuuren, D., 2016, Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions, Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 576-583
  • Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Fuchs, G., Hinderer, N., Kungl, G., Mylan, J., Neukirch, M., Wassermann, S., 2016, The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (19902014), Research Policy, 45(4), 896-913
  • Turnheim, B., Berkhout, F., Geels, F.W., Hof, A., McMeekin, A., Nykvist, B., Van Vuuren, D., 2015, Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges, Global Environmental Change, 35, 239–253
  • Penna, C.C.R. and Geels, F.W., 2015, ‘Climate change and the slow reorientation of the American car industry (1979-2011): An application and extension of the Dialectic Issue LifeCycle (DILC) model’, Research Policy, 44(5), 1029-1048
  • Geels, F.W., 2014, ‘Regime resistance against low-carbon energy transitions: Introducing politics and power in the multi-level perspective’, Theory, Culture & Society, 31(5), 21-40
  • Geels, F.W., 2013, ‘The impact of the financial-economic crisis on sustainability transitions: Financial investment, governance and public discourse’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 6, 67-95
  • Geels, F.W., 2012, ‘A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: Introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies’, Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 471-482
  • Geels, F.W., Kemp, R., Dudley, G. and Lyons, G. (eds.), 2012, Automobility in Transition? A Socio Technical Analysis of Sustainable Transport, New York: Routledge
  • Verbong, G.P.J. and Geels, F.W., 2010, ‘Exploring sustainability transitions in the electricity sector with socio-technical pathways’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(8), 12141221 Verbong, G.P.J. and Geels, F.W., 2007, ‘The ongoing energy transition: Lessons from a sociotechnical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960-2004)’, Energy Policy, 35(2), 1025-1037
  • Geels, F.W., 2002, ‘Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study’, Research Policy, 31(8/9), 1257-1274

Frank Geels publicly available CV
Education
• Ph.D., Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, Twente University of Technology (Jan. 1998- July 2002), Netherlands. Supervisors: Arie Rip and Johan Schot. Title PhD thesis: Understanding the Dynamics of Technological Transitions: A co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis.
• Masters degree in Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society, Twente University of Technology (1991-1996)
• Bachelor degree in Chemical Engineering, Twente University of Technology (1989-1991)

For what it’s worth, his formal education is pretty impressive. Where I lose respect is when he deviates from scientific argument in favour of political discourse. What could be very interesting work is corrupted be having an agenda.

His undergraduate degree is chemical engineering, which again, is very respectable. However, his Masters and PhD show a deviation from science and research.

While there are many other such authors, Frank W. Geels is a good case of what happens when political agendas and manoeuvering creep into science.

A morbidly fascinating topic. Check out some of his other publications.

Public Policy #5: Restoring The 1934 Bank Of Canada Act

1. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for StatsCan data on National debt.

CLICK HERE, for the Bank for International Settlements.
CLICK HERE, for BIS mainpage.
CLICK HERE, for the 60 banks which own BIS.
CLICK HERE, for the Basil Committee.

CLICK HERE, for an interesting article from Canadian Dimension.
CLICK HERE, for an article from www.globalresearch.ca.
CLICK HERE, for a failed Court bid to reform the banking process in Canada
CLICK HERE, for amended Statement of Claim.
CLICK HERE, for the Bank of Canada Act, 1985 version.

2. Some Background


The Bank of Canada Act was passed in 1934. It allowed the Canadian Government to borrow from its own central bank, in a sense, to “borrow from itself”. However, things drastically changed in 1974. Pierre Trudeau changed it so that Canada would now be borrowing from “private banks”, and racking up debt and interest charges in the meantime.

From the Global Research article:

Between 1939 and 1974, the government actually did borrow from its own central bank. That made its debt effectively interest-free, since the government owned the bank and got the benefit of the interest. According to figures supplied by Jack Biddell, a former government accountant, the federal debt remained very low, relatively flat, and quite sustainable during those years. (See his chart below.) The government successfully funded major public projects simply on the credit of the nation, including the production of aircraft during and after World War II, education benefits for returning soldiers, family allowances, old age pensions, the Trans-Canada Highway, the St. Lawrence Seaway project, and universal health care for all Canadians.

This is the main takeaway here: Borrowing from your own central bank effectively makes the loans interest free, since you are borrowing from yourself as opposing to borrowing from someone else.

From the Canadian Dimension article:

The critical point is that between 1939 and 1974 the federal government borrowed extensively from its own central bank. That made its debt effectively interest-free, since the government owned the bank and got the benefit of any interest. As such Canada emerged from World War II and from all the extensive infrastructure and other expenditures with very little debt. But following 1974 came a dramatic change.

Reiterating the point, that Canada was borrowing from itself until 1974.

3. How Much Debt?


Dollars (millions)
Net federal government financial debt
1930 $2,178
1931 $2,262
1932 $2,376
1933 $2,596
1934 $2,730
1935 $2,846
1936 $3,006
1937 $3,084
1938 $3,102
1939 $3,153
1940 $3,271
1941 $3,649
1942 $4,045
1943 $6,183
1944 $8,740
1945 $11,298
1946 $13,421
1947 $13,048
1948 $12,372
1949 $11,776
1950 $11,626
1951 $11,427
1952 $11,163
1953 $11,151
1954 $11,092
1955 $11,229
1956 $11,241
1957 $10,967
1958 $11,015
1959 $11,627
1960 $12,047
1961 $12,394
1962 $13,378
1963 $14,079
1964 $15,262
1965 $15,748
1966 $15,381
1967 $15,866
1968 $16,713
1969 $17,396
1970 $18,095
1971 $18,581
1972 $19,328
1973 $20,123
1974 $21,580
1975 $24,769
1976 $28,573
1977 $32,629
1978 $45,846
1979 $59,040
1980 $72,555
1981 $86,280
1982 $99,600
1983 $128,302
1984 $164,532
1985 $209,891
1986 $245,151
1987 $276,735
1988 $305,438
1989 $333,519
1990 $362,920
1991 $395,075
1992 $428,682
1993 $471,061
1994 $513,219
1995 $550,685
1996 $578,718
1997 $588,402
1998 $581,581
1999 $574,468
2000 $561,733
2001 $545,300
2002 $534,690
2003 $526,492
2004 $523,648
2005 $523,344
2006 $514,099
2007 $508,122
2008 $490,412

See the source.

In 1930, Canada’s national debt was about $2 billion. In $1974, it was about $20 billion. A decade after changes to the Act, the debt was about $160, or 8 times higher.

Worth noting, that Brian Mulroney, who was PM from 1984 until 1993 added over $300 billion to the national debt.

4. Fighting Back: Committee on Monetary & Economic Reform

Supreme Court of Canada Dismisses Constitutional Bank of Canada Case, Claiming It Is a Political Matter

We believe that the case has ample legal merit, and should have proceeded to trial. It is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to refuse leave on a given issue multiple times, finally to grant leave, hear the appeal and the case then succeeds. The Supreme Court controls its own agenda, both in its timing and on the merits of issues it will or will not hear. (Annually, fewer than 8–10% of all cases filed are granted permission and heard at the Supreme Court of Canada.)

It should be noted that throughout this arduous and expensive legal process, the substance of this lawsuit initiated in the public interest has not been addressed. The matters raised by the lawsuit are summarized in the original news release (pdf) issued on December 19, 2011.)

See the source

A 5 1/2 year legal fight to restore the original central banking. Even more frustrating is that the Courts have never really addressed the issues which led to the challenge in the first place.

The Supreme Court says it is a “political matter”, but no politicians in Canada have the willpower to address it, never mind fix it. Even “socialist” and “populist” politicians seem unwilling to take it on.

5. Who Are These People?

About BIS – overview

Our mission is to serve central banks in their pursuit of monetary and financial stability, to foster international cooperation in those areas and to act as a bank for central banks.

Established in 1930, the BIS is owned by 60 central banks, representing countries from around the world that together account for about 95% of world GDP. Its head office is in Basel, Switzerland and it has two representative offices: in Hong Kong SAR and in Mexico City.

We pursue our mission by:

  • fostering discussion and facilitating collaboration among central banks
  • supporting dialogue with other authorities that are responsible for promoting financial stability
  • carrying out research and policy analysis on issues of relevance for monetary and financial stability
  • acting as a prime counterparty for central banks in their financial transactions
  • serving as an agent or trustee in connection with international financial operations

As part of our work in the area of monetary and financial stability, we regularly publish related analyses and international banking and financial statistics that underpin policymaking, academic research and public debate.

With regard to our banking activities, our customers are central banks and international organisations. We do not accept deposits from, or provide financial services to, private individuals or corporate entities.

Supposedly, the Bank for International Settlements is “owned” by 60 central banks. It then facilitates discussions between those 60 banks. In short, it is a global collusion to fix monetary policies.

Interesting that the “central banks” are supposed to be owned by their respective nations, yet, BIS recommends borrowing from “private” bankers. Almost as if it wasn’t acting in the nations’ self interests.

6. Not in Canada’s Interests


This should be obvious, but borrowing from private banks is not in Canada’s best interests, nor any nations. This is bankrupting our nation, to enrich global bankers.

Restore the 1934 Bank of Canada Act, and let us take back control over our own finances.

Curious, even when national and provincial debts are in the news so much, no one asks the obvious question. Why are we jacking up our debt by borrowing from private banks?

Response To: Motion To Strike Challenge To UN Parliament


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

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


Below is a “cut-and-paste” of what was sent to the Federal Court of Canada (Case: T-476-19). Pardon any formatting issues that may arise in converting this.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover Page
Table of Contents
Written Representations
Part I:
Part II: Facts
Part III: Law and Cases
Part IV: Order Sought
Part V: Authorities Cited
Draft Order

Part I: Issues

(1) Four issues for the Federal Court to consider:
(a) Does the Applicant have a legitimate ground to bring application?
(b) Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction to hear the matter?
(c) Would the proposed UN Parliament, if it ever became a reality, violate constitutional rights? With its “legally binding decisions”?
(d) Does the Respondent have a legitimate right to sign on to such an agreement without the consent of the public?

(2) Applicant submits the answers as follows: (1) YES; (2) YES; (3) YES; (4) NO.

Part II: Facts

(3)The Applicant is a Canadian citizen. She is seeking an injunction against Canada participating in such a UN Parliament/World Government (UNPA) if ever being enacted.

(4) Although such a World Government/UN Parliament is not yet a reality, dozens of current Members of Parliament and Senators have endorsed the idea in writing. This includes the Prime Minister. This has been formally discussed since 2007, and informally
for long before that. The UNPA explicitly states it want to make “legally binding decisions”.

(5) The Respondent makes a “straw-man argument” claiming that endorsements are not violations of a person’s rights. While this is true, they should be seen as intent and interest to do so. No one ever claimed endorsements alone were violations.

(6) In the motion, the Government raised a “justification” defense, (prerogative power). As such, it is reasonable to also ask for a writ of quo warranto, to demand a full and complete defense be raised as to the legality and constitutionality of such an action

(7) It is submitted that she has public-interest standing, aka “the Standing trilogy”: Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, and Minister of Justice v. Borowski. The trilogy was summarized as follows in Canadian Council of
Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

(8) Public-interest standing is also available in non-constitutional cases, as the Court found in Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance)

(9) The Federal Court has jurisdiction under 18(1) of the Federal Courts Act to issue an injunction or writ of quo warranto. Furthermore, the Federal Court (under Rule 25) has original jurisdiction if no other court is designated as such. Since no person can be named (under 302 of Federal Court Rules), the Attorney General of Canada shall be named.

(10) The Federal Court also has jurisdiction (under Rule 18.4(2)), to treat the application as an action.

(11) The Federal Court has the powers (under 47(1) and 53(1) and (2) of Federal Courts Rules), to ask with a wide degree of discretion and to make orders it views as just.

(12) The Applicant raises several sections of the Constitution and Charter (2, 3, 32, 35, 38, 52, 91 and 92) as grounds for an injunction, or alternatively, a writ of quo warranto. Quite simply, these provisions are protection for myself and all Canadians.

(13) Our fundamental freedoms (section 2), and right to participate in our democracy (section 3), are rights Canadians take for granted. They must be protected. However, if Canada were to become part of a UN Parliament/World Government, how would we
ensure the protection of those rights? Could they not be watered down under a “global consensus”?

(14) Section 35 refers to protection of Aboriginal rights. Yes, “Canada” has ensured to protect them. But how would we do so if Canada ceases to be a nation, and became a province of the UN?

(15) Sections 91 and 92 lay out Federal v.s. Provincial jurisdictions. This is important as it holds our governments accountable. If governments do things which are in violation (Ultra vires), or against Canadians’ wishes, we can vote them out. We can hold our politicians accountable as a nation. How would we as part of the UN Parliament/World Government?

(16) Section 52 (paramountcy) gives Canadians protection as it ensures that the Canadian Constitution is supreme law. We will not be subjected to just any laws. And Section 38 (amending), ensures stability by requiring substantial consent in order to amend. This is
another safeguard for Canadians. Would these safeguards still exist under a UN Parliament/World Government?

(17) The Government claims that no argument was ever raised to support or justify the claims. This is disingenuous, since only the Notice of Application had been sent.

(18) The Government raises “prerogative power” as a justification to implement such a policy, calling it a “treaty”. It dismisses the need for the safeguards and protections listed above. Furthermore, the Government says that since such a UN Parliament/World
Government is not here yet, there is no need for the Court to entertain the matter.

(19) The Applicant submits that prerogative power does not apply here, and that there is a public interest concern in hearing the matter well in advance of any signing. This is especially true, with the “legally-binding decisions” format of it.

(20) As an analogous case, the Applicant suggests that the European Union (EU) and the British Exit from it (Brexit) should be considered.

Part III: Law and Cases

(21) The Applicant has standing to make just an application under the “Public-Interest Standing” doctrine.

Public interest standing
The Supreme Court of Canada developed the concept of public interest standing in three constitutional cases commonly called “the Standing trilogy”: Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, and Minister of Justice v. Borowski. The trilogy was summarized as follows in Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

It has been seen that when public interest standing is sought, consideration must be given to three aspects. First, is there a serious issue raised as to the invalidity of legislation in question? Second, has it been established that the plaintiff is directly affected by the legislation or if not does the plaintiff have a genuine interest in its validity? Third, is there another reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the court?
Public-interest standing is also available in non-constitutional cases, as the Court found in
Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance)

First, yes, there are serious issues raised as the invalidity (see below)
Second, yes, as a Canadian citizen, my rights would directly be influenced by the UNPA,
and certainly I have a genuine interest.
Third, no, there doesn’t seem to be another effective or reasonable way to bring the issue
before the court.

Substantial Consent required (section 38)
(22) This was decided regarding the issue of changing the Senate rules (Reference re Senate Reform, [2014] 1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38). The Court cited the amending procedure.

(a) The General Amending Procedure Section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides: 38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by (a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and (b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces. (2) An amendment made under subsection (1) that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1). (3) An amendment referred to in subsection (2) shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution supported by a majority of its members prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless that legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution supported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment. (4) A resolution of dissent made for the purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at any time before or after the issue of the proclamation to which it relates.

[34] The process set out in s. 38 is the general rule for amendments to the Constitution of Canada. It reflects the principle that substantial provincial consent must be obtained for constitutional change that engages provincial interests. Section 38 codifies what is colloquially referred to as the “7/50” procedure — amendments to the Constitution of Canada must be authorized by resolutions of the Senate, the House of Commons, and legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces whose population represents, in the aggregate, at least half of the current population of all the provinces. Additionally, it grants to the provinces the right to “opt out” of constitutional amendments that derogate from “the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province”.

(23) What this means is that to make a huge decision and alter the constitution, there must be substantial consent. This means at least 7 of 10 provinces, whose combined populations make up at least 50% of the population.

(24) While this is relevant to Senate reform (ie. Term limits and direct elections), it would certainly be more so in creating an extra layer of government, which would be able – in theory at least – to override Federal rulings.

The Constitution is Canada’s Supreme Law (Section 52)
(25) From (Sibbeston v. Canada (Attorney-General), 1988 CanLII 5673 (NWT CA))

They include the political reality that it is the people of Canada, expressing their political will through the joint constitutional authority of the Parliament of Canada and the elected legislative assemblies of the provinces, who are sovereign in the delineation of federal-provincial power-sharing under the Constitution of Canada. Beyond that no segment of the Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is paramount to other segments, or indeed the balance, of the Constitution. The Constitution “as a whole” is Canada’s supreme law.

[7] Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides: 52(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. (2) The Constitution of Canada includes (a) the Canada Act, 1982, including this Act; (b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and (c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b). (3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.

[8] Section 52 espouses the equality of its components including amendments. Charter scrutiny could not have been reserved by its drafters: Reference re an Act to Amend the Education Act (Ontario) (1987), 1987 CanLII 65 (SCC), 40 D.L.R. (4th) 18, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148, 77 N.R. 241.

[9] The Constitution Act, 1982, also provides: Application of Charter 32(1) This Charter applies (a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and (b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

(26) Section 52 of the Constitution enshrines the Constitution as the Supreme law of Canada. Section 38 does have an “amending” process, though it is a high burden to meet. These protection are important, as they ensure that we, as Canadians will actually be
protected by the Constitution.

(27) If we became part of a UN Parliament, then how (or will) the Constitution be able to protect the rights of Canadians?

Restricting Fundamental Freedoms (Section 2)
(28) From Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927, 1989 CanLII 87 (SCC)

C.The Second Step: Was the Purpose or Effect of the Government Action to Restrict Freedom of Expression? Having found that the plaintiff’s activity does fall within the scope of guaranteed free expression, it must next be determined whether the purpose or effect of the impugned governmental action was to control attempts to convey meaning through that activity. The importance of focussing at this stage on the purpose and effect of the legislation is nowhere more clearly stated than in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at pp. 331-32 where Dickson J. (as he then was), speaking for the majority, observed:

In my view, both purpose and effect are relevant in determining constitutionality; either an unconstitutional purpose or an unconstitutional effect can invalidate legislation. All legislation is animated by an object the legislature intends to achieve. This object is realized through the impact produced by the operation and application of the legislation. Purpose and effect respectively, in the sense of the legislation’s object and its ultimate impact, are clearly linked, if not indivisible. Intended and actual effects have often been looked to for guidance in assessing the legislation’s object and thus, its validity.

Moreover, consideration of the object of legislation is vital if rights are to be fully protected. The assessment by the courts of legislative purpose focuses scrutiny upon the aims and objectives of the legislature and ensures they are consonant with the guarantees enshrined in the Charter. The declaration that certain objects lie outside the legislature’s power checks governmental action at the first stage of unconstitutional conduct. Further, it will provide more ready and more vigorous protection of constitutional rights by obviating the individual litigant’s need to prove effects violative of Charter rights. It will also allow courts to dispose of cases where the object is clearly improper, without inquiring into the legislation’s actual impact.

(29) How can we ensure that Canadians’ fundamental freedoms are protected? Canada ensures its citizens some of the most expansive civil rights of any nation. But if Canada becomes just 1 of 193 member states, how can we guarantee those rights will be protected?
What safeguards will be put in place?

(30) Rather than shrugging it off as “covered by prerogative power”, the Government should be answering these vitally important questions.

Ensuring the Right to Participate in Democracy (Section 3)
(31) (Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912), this principle was affirmed conclusively.

27 An understanding of s. 3 that emphasizes the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process also is sensitive to the full range of reasons that individual participation in the electoral process is of such importance in a free and democratic society. As Dickson C.J. wrote in R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, at p. 136: The Court must be guided by the values and principles essential to a free and democratic society which I believe embody, to name but a few, respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, commitment to social justice and equality, accommodation of a wide variety of beliefs, respect for cultural and group identity, and faith in social and political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals and groups in society.

(32) The Court held that being able to participate in democratic process was worth protecting. How can we maintain this protection if Canada signed on to the proposed UN Parliament/World Government? If ensuring democratic involvement and meaningful participation is tricky now, how would this help things?

UN Parliament Would Trample on Indigenous Rights (Section 35)
(33) From the case: Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR
511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII), the issue of duty to consult to brought up.

26 Honourable negotiation implies a duty to consult with Aboriginal claimants and conclude an honourable agreement reflecting the claimants’ inherent rights. But proving rights may take time, sometimes a very long time. In the meantime, how are the interests under discussion to be treated? Underlying this question is the need to reconcile prior Aboriginal occupation of the land with the reality of Crown sovereignty. Is the Crown, under the aegis of its asserted sovereignty, entitled to use the resources at issue as it chooses, pending proof and resolution of the Aboriginal claim? Or must it adjust its conduct to reflect the as yet unresolved rights claimed by the Aboriginal claimants?

27 The answer, once again, lies in the honour of the Crown. The Crown, acting honourably, cannot cavalierly run roughshod over Aboriginal interests where claims affecting these interests are being seriously pursued in the process of treaty negotiation and proof. It must respect these potential, but yet unproven, interests.

(34) This case referred to land use and resource development. However, the Court should not conclude that adding a level of government would be LESS important.

(35) The case of Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII), should also be considered, and for much the same principle.

25 As discussed in Haida, what the honour of the Crown requires varies with the circumstances. It may require the Crown to consult with and accommodate Aboriginal peoples prior to taking decisions: R. v. Sparrow, 1990 CanLII 104 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075, at p. 1119; R. v. Nikal, 1996 CanLII 245 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013; R. v. Gladstone, 1996 CanLII 160 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010, at para. 168. The obligation to consult does not arise only upon proof of an Aboriginal claim, in order to justify infringement. That understanding of consultation would deny the significance of the historical roots of the honour of the Crown, and deprive it of its role in the reconciliation process. Although determining the required extent of consultation and accommodation before a final settlement is challenging, it is essential to the process mandated by s. 35(1). The duty to consult arises when a Crown actor has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of Aboriginal rights or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect them. This in turn may lead to a duty to change government plans or policy to accommodate Aboriginal concerns. Responsiveness is a key requirement of both consultation and accommodation.

(36) Managing these rights is tricky enough just within Canada. However, no Indigenous group ever signed onto the proposed UN Parliament/World-Government. So how could the Federal Government claim with any sincerity that there would no violations of the “duty to consult”?

(37) To repeat, although the UN Parliament is still just a proposal at this point, there are many serious and legitmate questions that need answering. Simply saying “prerogative power let’s us do it” shirks the Feds’ responsibilities.

(38) Also, the claim is made that the Executive Branch is allowed to sign treaties. However this would conflict with another treaty, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN DRIP).

Consider the 2000 Clarity Act and Reference Question
(39) The Applicant submits that the reference questions regarding Quebec separation would also apply to Canada being taken over by the United Nations Parliament/World Government

( Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217, 1998 CanLII 793 (SCC))
The Court in this Reference is required to consider whether Quebec has a right to unilateral secession. Arguments in support of the existence of such a right were primarily based on the principle of democracy. Democracy, however, means more than simple majority rule. Constitutional jurisprudence shows that democracy exists in the larger context of other constitutional values. Since Confederation, the people of the provinces and territories have created close ties of interdependence (economic, social, political and cultural) based on shared values that include federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities. A democratic decision of Quebecers in favour of secession would put those relationships at risk. The Constitution vouchsafes order and stability, and accordingly secession of a province “under the Constitution” could not be achieved unilaterally, that is, without principled negotiation with other participants in Confederation within the existing constitutional framework. Our democratic institutions necessarily accommodate a continuous process of discussion and evolution, which is reflected in the constitutional right of each participant in the federation to initiate constitutional change. This right implies a reciprocal duty on the other participants to engage in discussions to address any legitimate initiative to change the constitutional order. A clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favour of secession would confer democratic legitimacy on the secession initiative which all of the other participants in Confederation would have to recognize.

(40) Yes these discussions do need to be had. However, to repeat, the Government of Canada says it is its right to unilaterally sign Canada over to the UN Parliament if it ever became operational. Surely there has to be something more than just that.

Consider Brexit as a Warning
(41) The European Union started in 1973 as a free trade zone between 6 countries (France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands).

(42) Today it is 28 members are controls nations: trade, immigration, budgeting, commerce, farm subsidies, borders and many other categories. It can also (in the cases of Hungary and Poland), strip member’s voting rights for not towing the line. All of this was accomplished with no democratic referendum. Today, the hierarchy of the EU are unelected bureaucrats accountable to no nations’ voters.

(43) In fact the only democratic referendum was in 2016, where the UK voted to leave, (Brexit). However, the EU acting in bad faith, and the UK Government’s complicity has led to delay after delay.

(44) It is not unreasonable for Canada to find itself in such a situation, where even if the majority voted to leave the UN Parliament, we would be prevented from doing so.

Summary
(45) The Applicant has public interest standing to raise such an application.

(46) In the event there are irregularities, the Court has wide discretion to order amendments to rectify them. Fixable errors should not be grounds for denying justice to self-represented litigants (Pintea v. Johns, SCC 2017).

(47) There is a legitmate public interest in preventing Canada from joining such a world government (injunction), or at least deciding on a minimum standard, or forcing the Government to explain itself (writ of quo warranto).

(48) Furthermore, there is a public interest in bringing the issue to the Court well ahead of any such signing.

(49) If Canada ever joined such a World Government, there are very legitimate questions and concerns about how the Constitutional protections listed above would be enforced.

(50) The Government of Canada cannot simply run roughshod over Canadians by calling this a “treaty” and signing away their Constitutional rights. There has to be some checks and balances. Additionally, it would conflict with other treaties signed with the NATION of Canada as a party.

(51) Endorsements are not violations of rights (nice strawman), but evidence of intent.

(52) Even if joining the UN Parliament/World Government were a treaty, would we not be violating “other” treaties, which were formed as the NATION of Canada?

(Mental Gymnastics At Play….. )

(53) If the Supreme Court (Harper Re: Senate Reform) stated that unanimous consent of all Provinces was needed to abolish the Senate, then how could the Government justifying effectively eliminating the Legislature altogether, via UN Parliament with 1 signature?

(54) If the Supreme Court (Re: Seccessation of Quebec) stated that a clear majority of the population needed to vote for it, via referendum, why wouldn’t the people of Canada be called on to make an even bigger decision, to dismantle Canada?

Part IV: Remedies/Order

(a) Dismiss the motion

Alternatively,
(b) Allow the matter to proceed as a Claim, or as the Court deems appropriate

Alternatively,
(c) Grant an injunction, or writ of quo warranto against the Government

Alternatively,
(d) Establish a standard necessary for Canada to join such a World Government with
the following requirements:
(I) Approval from the Federal House of Commons
(II) Approval from the Canadian Senate
(III) Signature of the Prime Minister
(IV) Endorsement from the Governor General
(V) Consent from 7 of 10 Provinces with 50%+ of population
(VI) A national referendum, with 75%+ approval

And in all cases, the Applicant encourages guidance on the matter from the court
Sincerely,


(E-Signature of Party)
(Applicant/Respondent in Motion)
May 2, 2019

Part V: Authorities

(1) Reference re Senate Reform, [2014] 1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38)

(2) Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217, 1998 CanLII 793 (SCC)

(3) Sibbeston v. Canada (Attorney-General), 1988 CanLII 5673 (NWT CA) (S52)

(4) Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927, 1989 CanLII 87 (SCC) (S2)

(5) Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912 (S3)

(6) Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR 511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII) (S35)

(7) Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII) (S35)

(8) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),
[1992] 1 SCR 236, 1992 CanLII 116 (SCC)

Motion to Strike Challenge to UN Parliament


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

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


QUOTES FROM MOTION TO STRIKE

10. An endorsement to a proposed organization, like the UNPA, or even a decision to participate in the UNPA, is not a decision of a “federal board, commission or other tribunal” within the meaning of sections 2 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act. Accordingly, this application must fail.

14. There has been no decision of a federal board, commission or tribunal, therefore, this application is completely without merit. Regardless, Canada’s actions in signing or endorsing an international body do not give rise a decision that can be judicially reviewed.

15. This application bears some similarities to Turp v Canada (Justice).10 In that case, the Applicant filed an application for judicial review of Canada’s decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. The Federal Court held that in the absence of a Charter challenge, a decision pertaining to such matters is not justiciable.

16. The matter at bar is also distinguishable from Turp. The Government of Canada has taken no action to participate in the proposed UNPA, therefore, there is no decision to judicially review. In Turp there was a decision to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol.

17. Regardless, it is well-established that under the royal prerogative, the conduct of foreign affairs and international relations, including the decision to conclude or withdraw from a treaty, falls exclusively under the executive branch of government

18. In Turp c. Canada, the Federal Trial Court followed the Ontario Court of Appeal’s holding in Black v Canada that the exercise of the prerogative is justiciable only when the subject matter affects the rights or legitimate expectations of an individual.

19. Even if there was a “decision” in this matter, Canada is exercising its prerogative powers under foreign affairs when participating or endorsing any international body like the UNPA.

20. In the Applicant’s material, she enumerates seven grounds for her application:
a) First, that the proposed UNPA violates “Peace Order and Good Government” pursuant to section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867;
b) Second, that the UNPA violates section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982;
c) Third, that the UNPA violates sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867;
d) Fourth, that the UNPA requires a constitutional amendment, pursuant to section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982
e) Fifth, that the UNPA violates section 3 of the Charter;
f) Sixth, that the UNPA violates section 2 of the Charter;
g) Seventh, that the UNPA violates section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982

21. Although the Applicant has raised several constitutional issues, she has failed to articulate how endorsements of a proposed international body like the UNPA violates any of the ground listed. Likewise, she has failed to articulate how it affects her rights.

22. The UNPA does not affect the Applicant’s rights or legitimate expectations because it has no legal personhood, domestically or internationally, and therefore has no ability to affect the Applicant. The application is both premature and meritless.

23. In summary, there are obvious and fatal flaws with this application. Canada therefore requests that the application be dismissed on the basis that the application is so clearly improper as to be bereft of any possibility of success.

A number of problems cited:

  1. Application for Judicial Review is wrong format
  2. Endorsements are not sufficient
  3. Matter brought to court prematurely
  4. “Prerogative Power” allows such a “treaty”
  5. Court has no basis to interfere

Admittedly, a lot to take on. But a response is coming.

Questions For Maxime Bernier — PPC Founder


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

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


WHAT WENDY MESLEY SHOULD HAVE ASKED

(1) The Name Sounds Communist
Would you please change it? It’s hard to take seriously.

(2) PPC Purging/EDAs
What happened with EDAs (particularly in BC)? Why were members removed?

(3) Lack of Transparency
Who are the people running the party at the higher levels? And please, no generic answer of “the people”.

(4) PPC Won’t Leave the UN
You say repeatedly “the UN is a useless joke”, wasteful and corrupt. Do you support leaving the UN altogether? If not, why not?

(5) PPC Will “Only Review” Foreign Aid
If the UN is wasteful and corrupt, why do foreign aid at all? Why not give directly to worthwhile cases if needed?

(6) PPC Will “Only Review” Equalization Formula
You claim that equalization is inter-provincial welfare. Okay, then why only “review” it? Why not phase it out entirely? Is it a strategy for not alienating QC/Maritime voters?

(7) PPC Supports Mass Migration
You claim current immigration levels are 310,000 which you would reduce to 250,000 (a 20% cut). But why is it that TFW and student visas are not mentioned, given they are both paths to citizenship? Isn’t the actual number more than double 310K? Wouldn’t your “reduction” be much less than 20%? And why do you cut off people who disagree with your numbers?

(8) Import Labour While Canadians Unemployed
You claim to support economic immigration. But given the tough job market, especially for youth and new graduates, doesn’t this just handicap Canadians by raising supply and forcing down wages?

And doesn’t the TFWP force Canadian taxpayers to subsidize foreign replacements for their jobs? Isn’t that corporate welfare?

(9) Civic Nationalism is Glorified Multiculturalism
I’ve been told that the PPC is a “civic nationalist” organization. Is this true, and how is it different from multiculturalism?

And what is the difference between “multiculturalism” and “extreme multiculturalism”? Other than a rejection of Sharia?

(10) Quebec Hypocrisy in Protecting Identity
Quebec has laws to protect its language and culture. The rest of Canada doesn’t. Do you support this double standard?

(11) Bernier Compares Himself to Macron
You said in an interview that Emmanuel Macron built a party in a year and became President of France. Does it concern you Macron is a Rothschild’s banker, fake populist, and promotes EU control of Europe?

(12) PPC’s new hero: Jordan Peterson
Given Jordan Peterson’s participation in writing the UN Secretary General’s High Level Report For Global Sustainability, (a.k.a. Agenda 2030) why do you support having him in your party? Does his “selective” support of free speech concern you?

(13) Complete Dismissal of Social Conservatives
Why does PPC refuse to address social issues? Do they not interest you?

(14) Political Islam
Given Islam’s stated goal of taking over the world, do you view “POLITICAL ISLAM” as a threat to Canada and the rest of the world? Why or why not?

(15) Hypocrisy in “Call-Out Culture”
You criticize Andrew Scheer for not standing for anything. Yet on social issues you also refuse to take a position. Why the double standard?

(16) What makes PPC a “populist” party?
Totally up to you ….

(17) Your Boss
Do you consider Stephen Harper to be a populist? Why or why not?

Answers (if any), should be interesting.

Reasons For Leaving The PPC

(Maxime Bernier defends “dysfunctional” UN, won’t leave)

(March 8 Rebel Media video on Brooks, AB)

(Rebel Media on Islamic Relief Funding Terrorism)

(Islamic Party Wanting To Impose Sharia In Belgium)


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

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


1. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for the PPC Platform
CLICK HERE, for the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.
CLICK HERE, for TFWP data, 1990 to 2009.
CLICK HERE, for more TWFP data.
CLICK HERE, for 2018 Angus Reid poll on immigration.
CLICK HERE, for UN Secretary General’s High-level Panel on Global Sustainability (co-authored by Jordan Peterson).
CLICK HERE, for Abacus Poll, Bernier at 13%.
CLICK HERE, for Globe & Mail, Bernier at 17%.
CLICK HERE, for articles written on the binding nature of UN resolutions.
CLICK HERE, for wasted foreign aid in Afghanistan.
CLICK HERE, for Quebec opposing pipelines.

After much though, I cannot support the People’s Party of Canada anymore. As a Canadian nationalist with social conservative views, the PPC is not substantially different than the Conservative party of Canada.

There are many reasons, which will be addressed below.

There are far more important issues than the dairy cartel.

2. Index of Topics


Personal Reasons
(1) The Name Sounds Communist
(2) PPC Purging/EDAs
(3) Lack of Transparency

Ideological Reasons
(4) PPC Won’t Leave the UN
(5) PPC Will “Only Review” Foreign Aid
(6) PPC Will “Only Review” Equalization Formula
(7) PPC Supports Mass Migration
(8) Import Labour While Canadians Unemployed
(9) Civic Nationalism is Glorified Multiculturalism
(10) Quebec Hypocrisy in Protecting Identity
(11) Bernier Compares Himself to Macron
(12) PPC’s new hero: Jordan Peterson
(13) Complete Dismissal of Social Conservatives
(14) Political Islam
(15) Hypocrisy in “Call-Out Culture”
(16) Free Trade With China

3. Topics Expanded


Personal Reasons

(1) The Name Sounds Communist
This is probably the most trivial, so let’s get it out of the way. “People’s Party” sounds like something you would see in a Communist country.

(2) PPC Purging
Well, it wouldn’t be a “People’s Party” without a massive purge at some point (pun intended).

While the party was originally touted as a right wing alternative, it seems that less and less viewpoints are now tolerated.

Nationalists, and others who reject the mass migration and rapid replacement of Canadians are dismissed as racists and bigots. Apparently, the non-PC party decided that it had to reject people to appear more tolerant.

Although the party calls itself “conservative”, attempts to bring socially conservative issues into the platform have failed, and their supporters not well received.

There have also been entire EDAs that were set up, but then members were removed ad-hoc, with no reason given. Guess they didn’t quite fit the mold.

(3) Lack of Transparency
Admittedly, it was an exciting project to get behind.
But looking back, I knew nothing of who were the people running the show, or how it operated. 6 months later that is still the case.

Ideological Reasons

(4) PPC Won’t Leave the UN

As Canada’s former Foreign Affairs Minister, I witnessed first-hand how the international relations establishment has a set of priorities that are very different from those of ordinary Canadians.

They care about attending global conferences in trendy cities and getting photographed in the company of important foreign leaders. They worry about prestige and glamour, about Canada’s presence on the international scene even if that simply means having a tiny influence on events in parts of the world where we have almost no interest.

Whether it’s a bunch of bureaucrats discussing how to spend billions of dollars to kick-starting Canada’s economy; or a bunch of bureaucrats discussing how to spend billions of dollars on international organizations and development aid in other countries; it’s all the same. They are mostly furthering their own interests and wasting a lot of taxpayers’ money.

We are not going to try and please the foreign affairs establishment and the United Nations, a dysfunctional organisation which for years has disproportionately focused its activities on condemning Israel as if it were the source of most conflicts in the world. Last year for example, the UN General Assembly adopted 20 resolutions targeting Israel, while passing one each about the human rights situation in North Korea, Syria, and Iran.

Bernier’s now famous line: “The UN is a useless joke”. Is in the platform, and in many of his public comments and appearances, he criticizes the UN as wasteful. Sounds great, but one thing: why not leave the UN altogether? If Bernier truly views it money pit, against Canadians’ interests, and serves little value, why not leave? That detail is interestingly omitted.

While Bernier claims to cut spending on the UN (although not leave). Yet UN agreements result in pressure being applied to nations even for “non-binding” resolutions. Worse still, “non-binding” resolutions can still be used as a legal reference in future court challenges.

Further, if a Provincial or State level virtue signaller wants, a “non-binding” UN resolution can be legislated at that level (such as the case with BC wanting to pass the UN DRIP).

If a nation wanted to support humanitarian causes: great, but why would they need to be officially in the UN at all? Couldn’t personnel and/or supplies be sent directly to a cause? Seems unlikely that it would be refused simply because the donor was not a member. If anything, not being in the UN would prevent (or at least make it harder), for our interests to be run over.

(5) PPC Will “Only Review” Foreign Aid

Third, my government will review the $5 billion that Canada spends every year on international assistance programs.
Our refocused international assistance will centre on core humanitarian efforts to fight global health crises and respond to emergencies such as major conflicts and natural disasters. Canada has to show solidarity and do its part to help when populations are dying and suffering in countries that don’t have the means to save them.

However, every year, we spend billions of dollars funding job training, farming technology, infrastructure building and various other programs to help develop other countries’ economies. We will phase out this development aid, for which there is no moral or economic efficiency argument.

Serious question, given the waste and mismanagement in international agencies, how will PPC ensure that money given for “humanitarian purposes” is actually used as such? Also worth noting, how much of that $5 billion is development aid? And will this be cut completely, or redirected into “humanitarian aid?

Also, if the only money being spent is on emergency actions, why would it be necessary to be part of the UN at all?

In fairness to Bernier, it is nice to have the topic addressed. However, it would be naïve to assume that Canada will actually save anywhere near $5 billion annually.

Finally, given the widespread corruption and mismanagement in the UN and other global organizations, how can we be sure that aid is reaching the people it’s supposed to? How can we be sure that some or even all of it simply does not disappear? How can we be sure foreign aid is not used to finance nefarious causes? See above video. This is not to say all organizations are bad, but that there has to be real accountability as to how and where it goes.

(6) PPC Will “Only Review” Equalization Formula
Rather than continuing the welfare trap that our system of equalization has become, Bernier proposes to create an environment that encourages provinces to succeed and thrive, rather than relying on aid from other parts of the country.
Bernier’s plan has two key components:

-Immediately freeze the envelope of taxpayer dollars dedicated to equalization to stop the ever-increasing spending.
-Form a Parliamentary Committee dedicated to reviewing the equalization formula, proposing common sense solutions that will give provinces the right incentives to grow their economies.

In fairness, it is nice to see this issue addressed. It hasn’t at the Federal level in any meaningful way since its inception. However, it is inter-provincial welfare, plain and simple. Perhaps the real reason there’s no proposal to scrap it entirely is it would be political suicide in Quebec and the Maritimes, which depend on these handouts.

If a province still gets payments after 60 years, it should be obvious they have no intention of stopping. Phasing out completely would be a better option.

(7) PPC Supports Mass Migration

Of course, Canadian society is also transformed by immigration, as it has for centuries. But this has to be done organically and gradually. When it happens too fast, it creates social tensions and conflicts, and provokes a political backlash, as we can see today in several countries.

This is why I am opposed to increasing the annual intake of immigrants from 250,000 to 300,000, as the Liberal government has announced.

This is laughable. At 250,000/year, it is stable. At 300,000 (or 310,000) it is mass migration.

Also worth mentioning is the petition Bernier sponsored, E-1906, cited here, to oppose the UN Global Migration Compact. In the height of the furor, thousands of Canadians protested against it. However, the PPC condemns “white nationalists” who are against mass migration, open borders, the UN in general, and in favour of protecting Canadian sovereignty and identity.

It would take some mental gymnastics for the PPC to call Stephen Harper out as a globalist, but then cite “his” number of 250,000/year. Also, how would they explain why a 20% reduction in immigration is “good and stable”, but that a 50-75% cut would be xenophobic and anti-immigrant.

Of course, this isn’t anywhere near a 20% reduction. Bernier omits the TFWP, which allows well over 100,000 people into Canada every year, many of whom becomes permanent residents. For example, in 2011, 192,000 TFW were admitted into Canada, and 29,000 TFW obtained permanent resident status. (See source). Also left out is the large number of student visas issued to college and university students annually. And of course, graduation is a quick path to permanent residence.

Of course this doesn’t include illegals getting a pathway to citizenship, nor refugees, nor anchor babies (birth tourism).

A far more accurate estimate would be that PPC wants an immigration reduction of about 10%.

Bernier frequently cites the Angus Reid poll (shown here), saying 49% of Canadians want less immigration. It would be nice if Angus Reid had followed up and asked how deep the cuts should be. 10% isn’t a major reduction, it’s just a tweaking.

Canada already has people from all corners of the globe. And most would love to have families, or at least bigger ones. See this initiative, recently announced by Hungary.

(8) Import Labour While Canadians Unemployed

Preventing our businesses from hiring the immigrant manpower they need with red tape is a big government policy. At the other extreme, mass immigration that would create social tensions and is not in the interest of Canadians is also a big government policy. A government under my leadership would find an appropriate middle ground so as to unleash Canada’s economic potential.

In particular, it should answer the needs of sectors where there is a scarcity of manpower with specialized skills; and in more general terms contribute to increasing the number of younger workers in a society that is fast aging.

Too little immigration means we will not get as much of these economic benefits as we could. But too much immigration also has its dangers.

See the above video from Rebel Media on Jason Kenney flooding Brooks, AB with Somali Muslims in order to obtain cheap labour. While an extreme case, there is nothing in the PPC website that states ensuring cultural compatibility with immigrants is necessary. It’s all about money.

And an obvious piece of information: businesses will ALWAYS say they need workers. From a supply side, there’s no downside, as it allows a greater choice for them.

With the high unemployment in Canada, particularly in Alberta, is there need for economic immigration or at least much smaller amounts? As with H1B visa in the US, it has the effect of driving down wages and forcing locals to face even stiffer competition.

The Temporary Foreign Workers Program (TFW) allows companies to import cheaper labour which gets subsidized by taxpayers. And again, this is done while Canadians are unemployed. This is even more true with young graduates who often struggle to find work in glutted professions.

When people can’t find work, it hurts them and hurts their families. There are larger impacts to consider than simply job growth or GDP. And in the larger picture, instead of relying on migration to grow a country, why not focus more on getting Canadian children to have more children? The overwhelming majority of Canadian families would want more.

(9) Civic Nationalism is Glorified Multiculturalism
Though not explicitly in the PPC platform, many PPC members have stated that the PPC is a “civic nationalist party”. So what’s the problem?

CIVIC NATIONALISM REJECTS ANY NATIONAL IDENTITY

The main features of civic nationalism is that people are joined by “values” as opposed to identity. Free speech, a constitution, equality under the law are all common tenants of the ideology. While those “are” important to have, they are not enough to unify a society.

Civ-Nat rejects common bonds such as: culture, spoken or written language, faith or religion, heritage, traditions, customs and yes (ancestry or ethnicity). These identity unifiers are stronger within groups than the “values”. It is not bigoted to want there to be something in common with all the people. A common culture and language are the bare minimum. Without it, people break off into groups who share similar traits.

Worse is the 1988 Multiculturalism Act (passed by “Conservative” Brian Mulroney). This Act actually encourages people to keep their old cultures, traditions and languages. In fact, it discourages assimilation.

And how do people maintain their culture? They band together, form a group — or balkanize — and keep practicing it.

Another bit of mental gymnastics for the PPC: “Why” do you object to Trudeau’s comments about Canada being a post-national country if you “don’t” support having a distinct and dominant identity?

It is not “extreme multi-culturalism” to have balkanization and ghettos. It is in fact the point of multiculturalism. And this leads to the next point….

(10) Quebec Hypocrisy in Protecting Identity
Quebec has laws to protect its language and culture.

There is nothing wrong with that. However, multiculturalism and bilingualism are forced down the throats of the rest of Canada. The bulk of Canada was built as a British colony, with and English tradition.

Distinct identity for Quebec.
Melting pot for everyone else.

Every nation should have its own identity. But to allow a region to province to have one, but not elsewhere is hypocrisy.

(11) Bernier Compares Himself to Macron
In an interview, Bernier compared himself to Emmanuel Macron, who became President of France less than a year after launching his party in France.

While that sounds harmless enough, consider this: Macron is a Rothschild banker. While running as a “populist”, he proved to be anything but. He is now an EU globalist calling for the further break down of European nations. See this earlier review.

Interesting role model.

(12) PPC’s new hero: Jordan Peterson
While it is normally wrong to judge someone by the company they keep, this article covers why getting involved with Peterson would be a serious mistake for any serious “populist” party.

(13) Complete Dismissal of Social Conservatives
PPC has made it clear from the beginning that they will not have any sort of social conservative policies being advanced by the party. They seem to believe that killing unborn children using tax dollars, sex changes for children, and the like are not issues the Feds need to be concerned with.

Indeed much of it is pushed off as “Provincial Issues”. Who cares if the culture declines as long as you are tolerant?

For a party that claims to offer a voice to Canadians who otherwise would feel excluded, this is a little rich.

Interesting that in recent by-elections, Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson did by far the best at 11%. She is a social conservative whose values would never actually be promoted by the PPC (except “possibly” as a private member’s bill).

Do we value lives of unborn children?
Are children best off with a mother and father?
Do we want young children corrupted by SOGI?

In September 2018, Bernier, even without a party had 13-17% support.
Now PPC has 2% nationally. (more than 80% drop)

Also consider the drop in support for 2 petitions Bernier sponsored:
PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE
(I) 68,500 for the anti-global migration compact petition.
(II) 4,100 for the anti-UN Parliament. (90% drop)

(14) Political Islam

First, my government will continue to work closely with our allies to ensure peace and security, especially against radical Islamic terrorism. We will only get involved in foreign conflicts when we have a clear strategic interest in doing so and when the security of Canadians is directly impacted.

What could possibly be wrong with this statement? Nothing, except it omits the elephant in the room: POLITICAL ISLAM.

Lebanon was a Christian country.
Turkey was a Christian country.
Afghanistan was a Buddhist country.
Iran (Persia) was a secular country.
Pakistan was part of India and a Sikh country.
And so on….

Islam has entered dozens of countries across the globe and infiltrated their politics. The OIC (Organization of Islamic Countries) makes up 57 of the 193 countries in the UN, and is in fact the largest voting bloc. Yet another reason to leave the UN.

Islamic operatives are in the Canadian Government, and they have made serious inroads in American and European politics. The goal is the same: world domination and to spread Islam across the globe.

Condemning terrorism is an easy thing to do. When people are slaughtered for their beliefs, and their religious institutions vandalized or burned, it is a straightforward matter. But the PPC doesn’t call out the political branches of Islam trying to weaponize corrupt democratic governments.

Recently, the newly formed Islamic Party of Ontario made headlines. The founder, Jawed Anwer, stated that liberalism is killing off Islam. To be fair, Bernier did take a shot at this “ideological diversity making us stronger”.

Although terrorism and direct violence are more overt and obvious, the creeping Sharia into Western countries is the bigger threat growing.

(15) Hypocrisy in “Call-Out Culture”
Probably Bernier’s strongest asset is his ability (and willingness) to call out pandering and political correctness. However, he seems uninterested in addressing criticism of the above topics.

(16) Free Trade With China
This is addressed in another video. But given how China does not play by the same rules, why would we undercut the job prospects of our own citizens?

Policies That Are Good Ideas
To be fair, there are some PPC policies that are great.

(a) Ending Corporate Subsidies
(b) Reviewing equalization is at least a start
(c) Protecting Gun Owners
(d) A Proposed Smaller Tax Structure
(e) Opposing Climate Change Scam
(f) Ending Supply management

4. Final Thoughts


Those 6 items are nice, though it misses bigger issues. As such, I can no longer be a part of this. Far from a full solution, in many ways it is a half measure.

PPC offers nothing to Nationalists concerned with mass migration.
PPC offers nothing to social conservatives.
PPC is not substantially different than CPC on issues of Canadian sovereignty and independence.

The CPC isn’t a solution either — for anyone who might make the “shill” accusation. They have signed plenty of bad deals such as Agenda 2030 (Harper) and Agenda 21 (Mulroney), and support for Paris Accord (Scheer).

Time to keep looking.

Ilhan Omar Calls Out AIPAC Influence In US Politics, But Omits Something


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

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

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


IMPORTANT LINKS


CLICK HERE, for AIPAC main page.
CLICK HERE, for J-Street.
CLICK HERE, for Israeli-American Coalition For Action.
CLICK HERE, for Zionist Organization of America.
CLICK HERE, for Republican Jewish Coalition.
CLICK HERE, for Christians United For Israel.
CLICK HERE, for Jewish Institute for National Security of America.
CLICK HERE, for American Jewish Committee.
CLICK HERE, for Alliance for Israeli Advocacy.
CLICK HERE, for military support for Israel.
CLICK HERE, for House Resolution 1837.
CLICK HERE, for anti-BDS (ban, divest, sanction) laws which prohibit companies from “not” doing business with Israel.
CLICK HERE, for Kentucky being 26th State with anti-BDS laws.
CLICK HERE, for 2019 Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act.
CLICK HERE, for top campaign contributions by Congressperson.
CLICK HERE, for various lobbying groups.

A while back, Muslim (and Democrat) representative Ilhan Omar made comments about the impact about the Israeli lobby in American politics. She also suggested that members of Congress were in essence being bought off. This brought about rounds of criticism, and claims that the Muslim woman is an anti-Semite.

Omar faced a public backlash for suggesting that the US Congress was in the pocket of AIPAC, and that it was “all about the Benjamins” (which of course is a reference to money).

Here’s the thing, though: while Omar’s comments were intentionally inflammatory (and likely aided by her Islamic beliefs), they are not unfounded. It is truthful that AIPAC and other such lobbying firms do play a huge role in paying off contributing to political campaigns.

It is also true that the United States spends heavily on the military defense of Israel, and has anti-BDS (ban, divest, sanction) laws. These aid Israel both militarily and economically. Money well spent.

CONTRIBUTION BY ORGANIZATION

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)

HIGHEST PAID PUPPETS

Name Party State Amount for 2018
Robert Menendez Dem NJ $548,507
Ted Cruz Repub TX $352,894
Sherrod Brown Dem OH $230,342
Tammy Baldwin Dem WI $229,896
Beto O’Rourke Dem TX $226,690

These are just 5 of the Senators and Congresspeople who are being bribed receiving campaign contributions from the Israeli lobby. Going through the list of donations, it appears that almost all members of Congress are on the take.

Kentucky joins 25 other US states that have enacted similar anti-BDS laws or executive orders.

Montana, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Michigan, Texas, Nevada, Kansas, Louisiana and Wisconsin have all passed bills fighting BDS.
The BDS movement promotes financial, academic and cultural boycotts of Israel, ostensibly as a nonviolent protest against the so-called “Israeli occupation.” Critics say its activities are a modern form of anti-Semitism and that its true objective is to destroy the State of Israel.

26 states have anti-BDS laws against Israel. There are no other laws in the US that protect anyone.

STRENGTHENING AMERICA’S SECURITY IN ME ACT

SEC. 111. Findings.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In February 1987, the United States granted Israel major non-NATO ally status.

(2) On August 16, 2007, the United States and Israel signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding on United States military assistance to Israel. The total assistance over the course of this understanding would equal $30 billion

(3) On July 27, 2012, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–150; 22 U.S.C. 8601 et seq.) declared it to be the policy of the United States “to help the Government of Israel preserve its qualitative military edge amid rapid and uncertain regional political transformation” and stated the sense of Congress that the United States Government should “provide the Government of Israel defense articles and defense services through such mechanisms as appropriate, to include air refueling tankers, missile defense capabilities, and specialized munitions”.

(4) On December 19, 2014, President Barack Obama signed into law the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–296) which stated the sense of Congress that Israel is a major strategic partner of the United States and declared it to be the policy of the United States “to continue to provide Israel with robust security assistance, including for the procurement of the Iron Dome Missile Defense System”.

(5) Section 1679 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92; 129 Stat. 1135) authorized funds to be appropriated for Israeli cooperative missile defense program codevelopment and coproduction, including funds to be provided to the Government of Israel to procure the David’s Sling weapon system as well as the Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor Program.

(6) On September 14, 2016, the United States and Israel signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding reaffirming the importance of continuing annual United States military assistance to Israel and cooperative missile defense programs in a way that enhances Israel’s security and strengthens the bilateral relationship between the two countries.

(7) The 2016 Memorandum of Understanding reflected United States support of Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grant assistance to Israel over the 10-year period beginning in fiscal year 2019 and ending in fiscal year 2028. FMF grant assistance would be at a level of $3,300,000,000 annually, totaling $33 billion, the largest single pledge of military assistance ever and a reiteration of the seven-decade, unshakeable, bipartisan commitment of the United States to Israel’s security.

(8) The Memorandum of Understanding also reflected United States support for funding for cooperative programs to develop, produce, and procure missile, rocket, and projectile defense capabilities over a 10-year period beginning in fiscal year 2019 and ending in fiscal year 2028 at a level of $500 million per year, totaling $5 billion.

Here is the source.

THOUGHTS ON OMAR’S COMMENTS

  1. Are there many Jewish organizations who lobby the US Congress? YES
  2. Does AIPAC spend a lot of money lobbying? YES
  3. Does AIPAC “own” the US Congress? YES
  4. Does Israel benefit militarily from this? YES
  5. Does Israel benefit economically from the anti-BDS laws? YES
  6. Does Ilhan Omar get a free pass? NOT QUITE

Ilhan Omar doesn’t get a free pass on her comments about AIPAC and Israel for one simple reason: hypocrisy.

While she accurately and truthfully calls out Jewish influence, she intentionally omits ISLAMIC influence and lobbying efforts.

Yes, it was a bit misleading to leave this bit out of the title, but it’s the form of “lying by omission” that Ilhan Omar would probably approve of.

ISLAMIC INFLUENCE


CLICK HERE, for the Council on American Islamic Relations.
CLICK HERE, for the Islamic Society of North America.
CLICK HERE, for Islamic Relief USA (terrorism supporter)
CLICK HERE, for the Middle East Policy Council.
CLICK HERE, for Muslim Public Affairs Council.
CLICK HERE, for Muslims for Progressive values.
CLICK HERE, for American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
CLICK HERE, for Islamic Networks Group.
CLICK HERE, for Muslim Legal Fund of America.

SAUDI PAID LOBBYISTS

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.

This is just a list of lobbyists that are on Saudi Arabia’s payroll. Note: that for both Jewish and Islamic lobbyists, there are likely many, MANY more than what are covered here.

But the point in adding this, is that Ilhan Omar is being completely hypocritical to call out Jewish influence in American politics, without at all mentioning the Islamic influence. Some moral consistency would be nice here.

There are also endless demands for accommodation made by Muslims:

  1. Demanding accommodation for Islamic symbols
  2. Demanding removal of OTHER religious symbols
  3. Halal meat only
  4. Prayer rooms built in schools
  5. Build foot wash stations
  6. Paid time off to pray
  7. Sharia compliant swim times
  8. Religious accommodation with uniforms
  9. Refusing to say Merry Christmas
  10. Repeated attempts to ban criticism of Islam

And this is to say nothing of Islamic terrorism, which exists everywhere.

It would be nice if Ilhan Omar would call out bothJewish and Islamic lobbying efforts. But that will never happen.

If nothing else, that this point away from it. Don’t give Ilhan Omar flak for the TRUTH she spoke about AIPAC and such lobbyist groups. Instead, give her flak for the OMISSIONS she made in leaving out the Islamic lobby.

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

(Peterson deplatforms Faith Goldy at free speech event)

(Peterson’s free speech cognitive dissonance)

(Peterson threatens to sue a critic)

(Peterson files frivolous lawsuit against Laurier University)


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

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

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


CLICK HERE, for a link to the document.
CLICK HERE, for Jordan Peterson’s own website.
CLICK HERE, for “Karma”, Peterson’s book getting banned in New Zealand.

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

And what did this work ultimately contribute to?

AGENDA 2030

Peterson’s Biography

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

So What’s In This Report?

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

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

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

Interesting list of “organizations” that shared their views.

Priority Areas For action Include:


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

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

2/ Advancing education? Propaganda in the classrooms?

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

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

5/ Environmental systems to be managed globally

6/ Disaster reduction, as in climate change I assume

Policy Action Needed On

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Page 30) Education
67. investing in education and training provides a direct channel to advancing the sustainable development agenda. it is widely recognized as a tremendously efficient means to promote individual empowerment and lift generations out of poverty, and it yields important development benefits for young people, particularly women.

68. primary education for all, in particular, is a precondition for sustainable development. despite real progress, we are still not on track to achieving Millennium development Goal 2 by ensuring that all children, boys and girls alike, achieve a full course of primary schooling by 2015. instead, 67 million children of primary school age remain out of school and are still not receiving a primary education. The gap is especially critical for girls, who as of 2008 still made up more than 53 per cent of the out-of-school population. basic education is essential to overcoming barriers to their future employment and political participation, as women presently constitute roughly two thirds of the 793 million adult illiterates worldwide.

69. The Millennium development Goal on universal primary education has not yet been met, owing in part to insufficient funds, although other barriers exist. international means to supplement funds and support local and national efforts could help to overcome challenges such as teacher shortages and lack of infrastructure. The World bank’s Global partnership for education provides one model to help countries develop and implement sound education strategies.

70. While primary education is the foundation of development, post-primary and secondary education and vocational training are as crucial in building a sustainable future. every added year of education in developing countries increases an individual’s income by 10 per cent or more on average. studies also show that women in developing countries who complete secondary school have on average one child fewer than women who complete only primary school, leading to more economic wealth within families and decreased intergenerational poverty. Moreover, post-primary education based on a curriculum designed to develop key competencies for a twenty-first-century economy — such as ecosystem management, science, technology and engineering — can encourage innovation and accelerate technology transfer, as well as provide skills vital for new green jobs. yet today it is estimated that fewer than a quarter of children complete secondary school.

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

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

4. (Page 54) Innovative Sources of Financing
158. other innovative sources of financing can be used at the global, regional or national level as a way of pricing externalities, as well as of generating revenue that can be used to finance other aspects of sustainability. The reform of tax systems to shift taxation away from employment and towards consumption and resource use can help incentivize greener, more resource-efficient growth. Tax deductions to incentivize sustainable behaviour can also be highly effective.

159. While the political acceptability of innovative sources of finance and new fiscal measures will vary by country, as past efforts have shown, recent years have seen particular attention paid to the potential for this kind of approach to be used at the global level. The panel discussed and agreed on the need to further explore new areas of innovative sources of finance. This could build on, for instance, the work of the high-level advisory Group of the secretary-General on climate change financing. in terms of sources, a number of categories were identified by the advisory Group (see box 16).

160. a number of important sectors of the global economy are currently untaxed, despite the externalities they generate; these include emissions from fossil fuel combustion in the international maritime and aviation sectors. a tax on the most important energy-related greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, would be another economically efficient means of addressing externalities.

recommendation 27
161. governments should establish price signals that value sustainability to guide the consumption and investment decisions of households, businesses and the public sector. in particular, governments could:

a. establish natural resource and externality pricing instruments, including carbon pricing, through mechanisms such as taxation, regulation or emissions trading systems, by 2020;

b. ensure that policy development reflects the positive benefits of the inclusion of women, youth and the poor through their full participation in and contribution to the economy, and also account for the economic, environmental and social costs;

c. reform national fiscal and credit systems to provide long-term incentives for sustainable practices, as well as disincentives for unsustainable behaviour;

d. Develop and expand national and international schemes for payments for ecosystem services in such areas as water use, farming, fisheries and forestry systems;

e. Address price signals that distort the consumption and investment decisions of households, businesses and the public sector and undermine sustainability values. governments should move towards the transparent disclosure of all subsidies, and should identify and remove those subsidies which cause the greatest detriment to natural, environmental and social resources;

f. Phase out fossil fuel subsidies and reduce other perverse or trade-distorting subsidies by 2020. The reduction of subsidies must be accomplished in a manner that protects the poor and eases the transition for affected groups when the products or services concerned are essential.

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

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

CBC Propaganda #13: Political Charities Not Worth Auditing


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

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


CLICK HERE, for a link to the CBC article.
CLICK HERE, for the propaganda masterlist.

Political activity audits of charities suspended by Liberals

Panel report says charities should be free to engage in politics, minister suspends infamous audit program

While this “looks” like a victory for free speech and political engagement, one has to ask how tainted charities will become when their income is influenced by who gets into power.

The Liberal government is suspending the few remaining political activity audits of charities after an expert panel report recommended removing a political gag order imposed on them by the Conservatives five years ago.

As an immediate first step to respond to the panel’s recommendations, National Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier “has asked the CRA to suspend all action in relation to the remaining audits and objections that were part of the Political Activities Audit Program, initiated in 2012,” a release Thursday said.

The panel report, also released Thursday, and the suspension together appear to end a long chill for charities that began in 2012, when the Conservative government launched 60 political activity audits, starting with environmental groups that had criticized federal energy and pipeline policies.

This actually makes sense. When political advocacy groups cloak themselves as charities, the lines get blurred and its dangerous.

The program cost environmental, anti-poverty, human-rights and religious charities significant staff resources and legal fees, and brought an “advocacy chill” to the sector, with many groups self-censoring lest they be caught in the Canada Revenue Agency’s net or annoy their auditors.

The Liberal Party campaigned in the 2015 election to end the “political harassment” of charities, but once elected did not quite end the program. Instead, the new government cancelled six of the political activity audits that were yet to be launched, but allowed audits already underway to continue.

That left groups such as Environmental Defence and Canada Without Poverty, which were deemed too political by CRA, still under immediate threat of losing their charitable status. Thursday’s announcement lifts that threat, at least until the government responds to the panel recommendations.

The five-member panel, chaired by Marlene Deboisbriand on the board of Imagine Canada, says Canada’s charity law and regulations are too restrictive and vague. It calls for changes to the Income Tax Act to delete any reference to “political activities” with regard to charities.

For what it’s worth, it is still worthwhile to know if the charity in question is a charity, and to what degree it engages in political activities. Of course, the same could be said for religious groups.

The panel report, based on wide consultations last fall, also said there was broad consensus in the charity sector that partisan activities — endorsing particular candidates or parties — should remain forbidden.

The proposed changes would eliminate current rules that restrict a charity’s political activities to 10 per cent of their resources. Critics have argued the rules are unclear on definitions of what constitutes a political act.

No kidding, charities shouldn’t be endorsing political candidates or parties. And 10% is actually a lot. If a “charity” spends a good chunk of their money lobbying for government, shouldn’t they register as such?

The revenue minister’s decision to suspend political activity audits, as recommended by the panel report Thursday, amounts to an abrupt about-face. Last year, Lebouthillier refused to intervene, saying the “independence of the charity directorate’s oversight role is a fundamental principle that must be protected.”

To be clear, I have no issue with people getting involved in politics. However, there are considerable financial and tax advantages to being classified as a “charity”. If the groups in questions really are lobbying politically, then it puts them on an unlevel playing field.

CBC Propaganda #12: Judy Sgro Shrugs Off Ethics Problems


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

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


CLICK HERE, for link to the CBC article.
CLICK HERE, for the CBC propaganda masterlist.
CLICK HERE, for Judy Sgro’s “questionable” past, which involved getting a visa fast tracked for a stripper.

Liberal MP Judy Sgro openly puts party unity and re-election prospects over ethics and transparency. CBC, at least in the article, doesn’t seem to press her on it.

Long-time Liberal MP Judy Sgro is calling out fellow caucus members Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott, accusing them of targeting their anger and frustration directly at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

In an explosive interview with Maclean’s — her first media interview since she resigned from the Liberal cabinet on March 4 — Philpott said there is “much more” to the SNC-Lavalin affair and Canadians have concerns about the government’s attempts to “shut down” the story.

On Friday, Wilson-Raybould said she will provide a written statement and copies of text messages and emails to the Commons justice committee that shut down its probe of the SNC-Lavalin affair.

From the opening, Sgro seems to show no concern for the allegations, which are not only unethical but most likely criminal. Instead, she complains that is harming the party itself, despite the continuing story.

Both the interview and the letter landed in the midst of a parliamentary uproar over the Liberals’ move to end the Commons justice committee’s probe of Wilson-Raybould’s claim that she was pressured by senior government officials to allow SNC-Lavalin to avoid a criminal trial on bribery charges.

Philpott, who resigned from cabinet over the government’s handling of the file, said she believes Canadians need answers to maintain their confidence in the independence of the justice system.

But Sgro said she thinks Wilson-Raybould and Philpott are providing fodder to the opposition and challenged them to use their parliamentary privilege to air whatever they have to say on the SNC-Lavalin affair.

“It’s either put up or shut up,” Sgro told Chris Hall, host of CBC Radio’s The House, in an interview airing Saturday.

The Liberals use their majority to shut down the committee. Sgro glosses over that and suggests that this is being used by opposition members against them. Again, no concern for ethics here.

Sgro was one of the MPs attending a meeting of the Liberals’ Ontario caucus on Wednesday — a meeting described by people in the room as “rough” and “uncomfortable.”

CBC News reported this week that Philpott faced tough questions from her colleagues at the closed-door meeting. Sources inside the room told CBC News Philpott began by defending her decision to resign from cabinet, saying she was acting on principle and for the good of the country. Some MPs reminded her that the caucus had supported her on sensitive issues, including her handling of medical assistance in dying legislation, and had backed her when she ran into controversy over limo costs in 2016.

Some at the meeting also told CBC News that Philpott appeared to be taking notes and was asked to stop.

I bet it was awkward.
Is Philpott supposed to give Trudeau a free pass because some of here agenda (assisted suicide), and since her ethics stains had been shrugged off?
Don’t take notes… Why? Harder to create a paper trail perhaps.

Sgro said she thinks the ongoing affair is hurting the Liberal government’s chance of re-election this year and some of her fellow MPs are worried.

Exactly, this is all about being re-elected.

“It affects all of us when one of our members of the team decides to go out and speak against the rest of us, or unnerve the rest of us,” she said. “You can’t keep dropping innuendo every day and expect that all of us from the prime minister down are hopeless to stand back and do anything about this.”

Trudeau’s brand as a feminist has taken hits since the SNC-Lavalin affair began, including Opposition House Leader Candice Bergen accusing him of being a “fake feminist”. Sgro fiercely defended Trudeau, saying that of the five prime ministers she’s served with, she’s never had a prime minister as caring and compassionate as him.

No care for ethics breaches, just how it impacts MPs. And interesting that Sgro shifts from “ethics” to “compassion”. Guess she thinks that if people see Trudeau as compassionate, he can’t be unethical.

Despite her challenge to her caucus colleagues, Sgro said she thinks the justice committee probe shouldn’t be reopened and that any further probe should be handled by the ethics commissioner.

“Let the commissioner do his job. He’ll come back with a recommendation to the House of Commons, with a report, and then whatever action … if any action needs to be done, it’ll be done then,” she said.

“Let’s let things get investigated by the proper people and not politicians who are out to knock each other.”

Shouldn’t be reopened. Nothing to see here. And if committees are so useless, why have them in the first place?