UN/WHO Archives - Page 12 of 44

July 16, 2022November 17, 2023

World Health Organization Constitution: Have You Actually Read It?

The World Health Organization Constitution is just one document that Canadians were subjected to, and this being done without knowledge or consent. Was there ever a referendum or election campaign run on this? Probably not.

The full text is available with a quick internet search. Below are some sections which might be the most troubling to any nationalist or patriot.

Article 4
Members of the United Nations may become Members of the Organization by signing or otherwise accepting this Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIX and in accordance with their constitutional processes.

This part cannot be overemphasized. If a country wants to be part of the WHO, then they necessarily have to sign onto their constitution. The Federal Government did this on their own, with a signature. And as we go through it, the problems with this become obvious.

Article 7
If a Member fails to meet its financial obligations to the Organization or in other exceptional circumstances, the Health Assembly may, on such conditions as it thinks proper, suspend the voting privileges and services to which a Member is entitled. The Health Assembly shall have the authority to restore such voting privileges and services.

So, being part of this group is voluntary. However, if you don’t pay your bills, WHO can suspend your voting rights. They can also be removed under the undefined “exceptional circumstances”. Sounds a bit undemocratic, doesn’t it?

Article 19
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt conventions or agreements with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization. A two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly shall be required for the adoption of such conventions or agreements, which shall come into force for each Member when accepted by it in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Article 20
Each Member undertakes that it will, within eighteen months after the adoption by the Health Assembly of a convention or agreement, take action relative to the acceptance of such convention or agreement. Each Member shall notify the Director-General of the action taken, and if it does not accept such convention or agreement within the time limit, it will furnish a statement of the reasons for non-acceptance. In case of acceptance, each Member agrees to make an annual report to the Director-General in accordance with Chapter XIV

The Health Assembly has the right to determine its own conventions and agreement, and it can be done with a 2/3 vote. By this rationale, Canada could easily be forced into adopting policies that it fundamentally disagrees with. And to state the obvious, there was never any domestic vote or referendum over this.

Members are also obligated to go along with any convention or agreement. If they refuse, written reasons have to be provided.

Article 21
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning:
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices;
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use;
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce;
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.

Article 22
Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into force for all Members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such Members as may notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.

W.H.O.’s constitution makes it clear that quarantine measures fall under their purview. Quarantine, of course, is code for movement and population control. Strange how none of the freedom fighters in the media or politics ever mention this.

As for the standards and nomenclature of pharmaceuticals, this includes vaccines that are pushed on the public despite only having emergency authorization. There’s also a reference to testing, such as the PCR tests, which can’t determine anything.

W.H.O. names diseases as well, including ones that have never been proven to exist.

It doesn’t appear that Canada ever rejected or opted-out of any of this. As such, we are compelled to play along with this globalist organization.

Article 54
The Pan American Sanitary Organization represented by the Pan American Sanitary Bureau and the Pan American Sanitary Conferences, and all other inter-governmental regional health organizations in existence prior to the date of signature of this Constitution, shall in due course be integrated with the Organization. This integration shall be effected as soon as practicable through common action based on mutual consent of the competent authorities expressed through the organizations concerned.

All other organizations that use “public health” as a means of population control will eventually become integrated with W.H.O. Guess it keeps everything centralized.

CHAPTER XIII – VOTING
Article 59
Each Member shall have one vote in the Health Assembly.

Article 60
(a) Decisions of the Health Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the Members present and voting. These questions shall include: the adoption of conventions or agreements; the approval of agreements bringing the Organization into relation with the United Nations and inter-governmental organizations and agencies in accordance with Articles 69, 70 and 72; amendments to this Constitution.
(b) Decisions on other questions, including the determination of additional categories of questions to be decided by a two-thirds majority, shall be made by a majority of the Members present and voting.
(c) Voting on analogous matters in the Board and in committees of the Organization shall be made in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Article.

This becomes a numbers game, where decisions that are detrimental to some nations can be adopted simply because the majority overall vote for it. With this mechanism in mind, there really is no sovereignty to rely on.

CHAPTER XV – LEGAL CAPACITY, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
Article 66
The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such legal capacity as may be necessary for the fulfilment of its objective and for the exercise of its functions.

Article 67
(a) The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such privileges and immunities as may be necessary for the fulfilment of its objective and for the exercise of its functions.
(b) Representatives of Members, persons designated to serve on the Board and technical and administrative personnel of the Organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connexion with the Organization.

Article 68
Such legal capacity, privileges and immunities shall be defined in a separate agreement to be prepared by the Organization in consultation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and concluded between the Members

All employees and other workers are given immunity from legal action as part of their contracts with W.H.O. That’s a pretty good deal. They can’t be sued, charged, or have recourse taken against them, as long as they were doing their jobs. There doesn’t even seem to be a requirement that they be acting in good faith.

Article 69
The Organization shall be brought into relation with the United Nations as one of the specialized agencies referred to in Article 57 of the Charter of the United Nations. The agreement or agreements bringing the Organization into relation with the United Nations shall be subject to approval by a two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly.

The W.H.O. would be subject to U.N. control. It’s pretty clear that the ultimate goal is to merge all of these organizations into a single, centralized institution of power.

Article 71
The Organization may, on matters within its competence, make suitable arrangements for consultation and co-operation with non-governmental international organizations and, with the consent of the Government concerned, with national organizations, governmental or non-governmental

On its own, this doesn’t sound too bad, but the devil is always in the details. Which groups would be consulted? How would they be screened? Would their recommendations become binding on members?

Article 72
Subject to the approval by a two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly, the Organization may take over from any other international organization or agency whose purpose and activities lie within the field of competence of the Organization such functions, resources and obligations as may be conferred upon the Organization by international agreement or by mutually acceptable arrangements entered into between the competent authorities of the respective organizations.

The W.H.O. constitution gives itself the power to take over from any “international organization or agency” within its designated scope, as long as there is a 2/3 majority vote from the Health Assembly.

Sure, it’s done “on consent”, but who are the people that are really consenting?

Article 79
(a) States may become parties to this Constitution by:
(i) signature without reservation as to approval;
(ii) signature subject to approval followed by acceptance; or
(iii) acceptance.
(b) Acceptance shall be effected by the deposit of a formal instrument with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 80
This Constitution shall come into force when twenty-six Members of the United Nations have become parties to it in accordance with the provisions of Article 79.

This isn’t everything, but just more eye-opening parts. The full text of the W.H.O. constitution is freely available. (Here’s the highlighted version). Look it up, read it, and see what exactly we have been signed onto without any sort of democratic mandate.

Rest assured, there are a lot more than 26 countries now. This means the constitution has come into force. And if anyone hasn’t gone through the chronology of events, it’s all laid out here:

1908: International Public Health Office to be created
1926: International Sanitary Convention was ratified in Paris.
1946: WHO’s Constitution was signed, and it’s something we’ll get into in more detail.
1951: International Sanitary Regulations adopted by Member States.
1969: International Health Regulations (1st Edition) replaced ISR. These are legally binding on all Member States.
2005: International Health Regulations 3rd Edition of IHR were ratified.

Being part of the World Health Organization means submitting to their rules and control. It’s laid out in their own constitution. To be clear, sovereignty will never be possible as long as Canada is part of this entity.

As has been outlined here before, the 2005 Quarantine Act, Bill C-12, was really just domestic implementation of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations.

We’ve also gone heavily into the creation of PHAC, which is essentially just a branch of the World Health Organization. It was created at WHO’s instigation. It takes over (to a large degree) what Health Canada had been doing. The timeline is laid out, and worth a read.

The W.H.O. Constitution is a major step is the erasure of nations — under the guise of public health. Anyone serious about “freedom” in Canada, or elsewhere, needs to address this. Far too many are propped up as heroes, but who ignore the underlying legislation and treaties.

July 11, 2022

World Circular Economy Forum, Related Groups

Have you heard about the World Circular Economy Forum? If not, let’s take a look at what’s going on over here. This is a collection of people who devise ways to make the economy function in a waste free world.

At first, this organization seems to present as a large scale recycling scheme, devoted to reducing garbage and pollution. While there is truth in that, it appears the goals are much larger.

The first forum took place in 2017, and the most recent one was hosted in 2021. That said, 2017 is an interesting year, since that’s when the Canadian budget started pumping money into alternative protein sources.

It’s a bit amusing that this group goes out of its way to have a name as close as possible to the World Economic Forum. Did they thing no one would notice? Or that no one would care? Anyhow, let’s see who’s supposedly running this thing.

Partners include:

African Circular Economy Alliance
Circular Economy Leadership Canada
City of Toronto
Ellen MacArthur Foundation
European Circular Economy Stakeholders Platform
European Union
Finnish Government
International Chamber of Commerce
Government of Canada
Government of the Netherlands
United Nations Environmental Program

Strangely, I don’t recall any public figures campaigning on becoming part of such an organization. Nor does there seem to have been anything in the way of media coverage. But at least we aren’t forced to help finance this “circular economy” fad, are we?

It turns out, that we will be. At least that’s what this 2021 report makes pretty clear. Like other eco initiatives, this will require lots of start-up money.

[Page 3]
The current state of circular finance
.
Despite the lack of harmonized frameworks, taxonomies, and metrics, financial institutions are beginning to move forward with initiatives to advance circular finance solutions in various ways. Globally, some financial institutions have set multi-billion dollar targets for investing in circular deals. Large multilateral development banks are supporting financial institutions in developing structured frameworks to accommodate innovative financial solutions and advisory services. A report authored by Patrick Schröder and Jan Raes and published by Chatham House titled, “Financing an inclusive circular economy: De-risking investments for circular business models and the SDGs,” highlights the importance of public investment and stimulus packages to de-risk and incentivize financial investments in circular models.

In order to get this going, billions of dollars will need to be pumped into it. Note: this doesn’t refer to any accounting, just an idea in broad strokes. The report continues:

[Page 8]
Circular economy opportunities and priorities are increasingly intersecting with broader ESG considerations such as biodiversity, equity, diversity and inclusion, and climate action goals, although the intersections are not yet well understood. Investment in circular business strategies and operations can result in significant positive social, environmental, and economic benefits. Circular businesses are creating more resilient green jobs and skills that will be needed in a low-carbon future. For instance, the Share, Reuse, Repair Initiative’s Just Circular Recovery and Transition project brings together circular innovators and community organizations to advance employment opportunities within marginalized communities. Additionally, circular businesses are prompting consumers to have conversations around lighter living and to make more sustainable choices.

[Page 8]
A study by the Ellen McArthur Foundation shows that 45% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are associated with products and food. Achieving net-zero commitments will require reducing embodied carbon through circular strategies, such as designing for reuse and remanufacturing, product-as-a-service models, and advanced recycling. For instance, the Ellen McArthur foundation estimates that remanufacturing and reusing an engine reduces carbon intensity by 85%

This also ties in with the idea of “alternative” protein sources and eating bugs. After all, if traditional food sources are considered to not be environmentally friendly, they need to be phased out.

It turns out that taxpayer dollars are being used for the “circular economy” initiative, even if they aren’t being directly given to this organization. Here are some of those grants:

And in a turn of events, Canadian taxpayers is also giving large amounts of money directly to the World Economic Forum. In fact, there is a lot they are forced to finance.

RECIPIENT	DATE	DATE
Accelerating Sustainability Events Management Inc	Jul 28, 2021	$175,000.00
Carboncure Technologies Inc	Jan 8, 2021	$2,026,500.00
City Of Guelph	Mar 13, 2020	$10,000,000.00
Collège D’Enseignement Général Et Professionnel	Feb 6, 2020	$2,000,000.00
Conference Board Of Canada	Mar 31, 2021	$390,000.00
Council Of The Great Lakes Region	Mar 18, 2020	$553,000.00
Distillerie Maison Alfred Inc.	Dec 5, 2021	$30,476.00
Gabriola Island Recycling Organization	Mar 24, 2022	$98,000.00
Global Centre For Indigenomics	Oct 27, 2021	$49,900.00
Keddie, Leanne	Mar 15, 2022	$234,045.00
Leading Change For Young Professionals	Jul 28, 2021	$299,875.00
Natural Step (Canada) Inc.	Feb 21, 2019	$299,875.00
Ontario Genomics Institute	Oct 1, 2021	$1,262,661.00
Leadership Coalition, Natural Step Canada Inc	Mar 18, 2020	$175,000.00
Pivot Furniture Technologies Inc.	Feb 1, 2019	$170,900.00
Pivot Furniture Technologies Inc.	Sep 16, 2021	$460,000.00
Rethink Resource Inc.	May 31, 2021	$30,000.00
Rethink Resource Inc.	May 31, 2021	$50,000.00
Tgm Tours Inc.	Jan 25, 2021	$143,000.00
University Of British Columbia	Mar 18, 2022	$1,040,000.00
World Economic Forum	Dec 23, 2014	$1,000,000.00
World Economic Forum	Sep 29, 2015	$6,000,000.00
World Economic Forum	Dec 14, 2015	$10,000,000.00
World Economic Forum	Dec 3, 2018	$52,925.00
World Economic Forum	Apr 25, 2019	$999,580.00
World Economic Forum	Jan 17, 2020	$500,000.00
World Economic Forum	Mar 16, 2020	$5,933,063.00

The University of British Columbia is a registered charity, so it already receives a favourable tax rate on its income.

This is eye-catching, this grant to the World Economic Forum, Center for 4th Industrial Revolution. Isn’t that the name of one of Klaus Schwab’s books? Isn’t this all supposed to be just a conspiracy theory?

It’s also worth mentioning that both Carboncure Technologies Inc. and the Conference Board Of Canada were receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, over the last few years. This is run by the C.R.A. and is used to help pay employees’ wages.

There is a corresponding group here called Circular Economy Leadership Canada. Its partners include many well known chains. It states on its main page that:

“We’re collectively committing to support the U.N. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12 on responsible consumption and production, and to substantially reduce waste, in all of its forms, by 2030.”

In other words, it’s helping to implement parts of Agenda 2030. The organization just needs large amounts of financial assistance (continuously) to make this happen.

Goal #2 in the U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda is ending hunger in all its forms. One of the methods pushed is phasing out traditional agriculture with alternative protein sources, such as bugs.

Goal #13 in the UNSDA is preventing climate change. There is actually considerable overlap with #2. By stating that certain agricultural practices cause these changes, it provides a further excuse to further shut down farms.

Goal #12 ties in to both #2 and #13. This calls for creating “sustainable food and consumption patterns”. By saying that current models do not suffice in feeding everyone, while asserting they cause climate change, this goal is able to solve the other two. It’s another instance of causing the problem, getting a reaction, then proposing a solution.

A cynic may wonder just how literally the term “circular economy” is meant to be taken. After all, there are efforts to get people in the West eating bugs. After humans are dead and buried, presumably they’ll be eaten by bugs themselves.

(1) https://www.wcef2021.com/
(2) https://www.wcef2021.com/about/
(3) https://circulareconomyleaders.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/WCEF-Financing-the-Circular-Economy-What-We-Heard-Report-20211015-EN1.pdf
(4) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/
(5) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/record/ic,230-2018-2019-04-0189,current
(6) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(7) https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf

FOOD SERIES:
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/cricket-production-subsidies-aspire-food-group/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/budget-2017-subsidizing-the-phase-out-of-meat-in-canada/
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/holomodor-2-0-coming-or-all-just-a-coincidence/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/nacia-and-insect-consumption-alternative-protein-market/

June 20, 2022June 20, 2022

NACIA, And Insect Consumption, Alternative Protein Market

“Eat the bugs” is a global effort to change the consumption habits of people and animals across the world. It’s also part of a larger movement towards “alternative” sources of protein. And a significant piece of this is being financed with public money. Let’s get into some of the details.

For clarity: the $152.8 million to Protein Industries Canada is to fund the “Supercluster” as outlined in the 2017 Federal Budget. The money is then redistributed to various grantees.

There are also significant grants being handed out for various plant-based meats and alternatives. So, it’s not all about just the bugs. Merit is a new food processor on the north end of Winnipeg and works with plant proteins. Seems that Government really is trying to kill traditional farming.

Isn’t it strange that so much money is spent on pesticides and other things to wipe out insects, but now, they are to be breed on a massive scale?

Note: some of these entries were included in a previous piece on the subject of subsidies for cricket farming. However, the issue is far bigger than just that.

COMPANY	DATE	SUBJECT	AMOUNT
2066879 Alberta Ltd.	May 17, 2018	Baked Products W/Insect Proteins	$10,000.00
2589002 Ontario Inc.	Jun 1, 2020	Raw Insect-Based Protein For Pets	$43,812.00
Aspire Food Group Ltd.	Jul 10, 2020	Build Comm. Demonstration Facility	$8,500,000.00
Aspire Food Group Ltd.	Nov 1, 2021	Cricket Production, Processing Facility	$50,000.00
Casa Bonita Foods, Inc.	Aug 9, 2021	Protein Snacks With Cricket Flour	$39,000.00
Dalhousie University	Mar 30, 2021	Hemp/Cannabis Waste	$25,000.00
Enterra Feed Corp.	May 1, 2020	Alternative Proteins For Animals	$24,000.00
Entologik Inc	Jun 18, 2020	Continuity Of Operations	$58,979.00
Entologik Inc	Aug 3, 2020	Automate The Rearing Process	$30,000.00
Ferme Bogemans Inc.	Dec 3, 2018	Animal Nutrition From Insects, Fertilizer	$40,430.00
Gaia Protein Ltd.	Apr 1, 2021	Cricket Production Technology	$42,000.00
Grévio Inc.	May 11, 2020	Egg Laying, Hatching, Rearing Crickets	$48,800.00
Griffith Foods Limited	May 1, 2019	Alternative Protein Products	$61,000.00
McGill University	Nov 5, 2021	Cricket Rearing, Collection, Transformation	$30,000.00
Merit Functional Foods	Feb 24, 2020	Plant-Based Proteins From Peas/Canola	$10,000,000.00
Näak Inc.	Oct 29, 2018	Products Cooked W/Cricket Powder	$48,517.00
Näak Inc.	Sep 23, 2020	Low-Powder Cricket Energy Bars	$123,178.00
OECD	Mar 20, 2020	Market Research, Alt Proteins	$97,460.00
PEI Bioalliance	Nov 18, 2020	Sustainable Protein Production Program	$601,817.00
Pholoho Biotechnology	Jan 24, 2022	Equipment For Insect-Based Proteins	$115,000.00
Protein Industries Canada	Mar 15, 2018	Protein Industries Supercluster	$152,843,759.00
Queen’s University	Mar 30, 2020	Insect/Plant-Based Proteins	$132,158.00
Sustento Inc.	Dec 1, 2021	Dog Food With Novel Ingredients	$50,000.00
Veterinarians W/O Borders	Dec 16, 2021	Innovation, Cricket Farming	$1,999,999.00

Of course, all of the listings here can be verified by checking the Federal Government’s own database on grant money issued.

The alternative protein section is just 1 out of 5 initiatives undertaken in this program. Pretty convenient that we had shutdowns over the last 2 years decimating undesirable industries.

Aspire Food Group, did recently announce that its cricket production plant in London, Ontario was finally finished. A large part of this was financed by Canadian taxpayers. Additionally, Aspire is part of NACIA, the North American Coalition for Insect Agriculture. This is big business.

Insects are an untapped natural resource with the potential to change our agricultural systems to be safer and more sustainable.

Anchored by Founding Member companies, Aspire Food Group, Beta Hatch, EnviroFlight, InnovaFeed, and Ynsect, NACIA members are currently 200 strong, based in 12 countries, 50 companies, and 23 universities.

NACIA members include insect producers, product makers in food, animal feed, pet food and soil health, as well as technology and service providers for agriculture and food. Researcher and university student members are examining how to improve the insect agriculture industry through scientific inquiry.

NACIA is currently working to improve the regulatory environment in North America, connect our members with industry stakeholders, and the knowledge they need to grow. We also work to inform key stakeholders about the potential for insects to provide environmentally sustainable, highly nutritious ingredients that can be produced as part of circular and regenerative agriculture.

It’s interesting that their “mission statement” talks about creating more sustainable agriculture systems. This suggests that the goal isn’t just to supplement more traditional farming, but to replace it altogether. Hard to disregard the food processing plants being destroyed, in light of this.

NACIA partners with similar organizations in Asia and Australia, and with the pet-food industry. It’s not just about getting humans to eat the bugs, but their dogs and cats too.

NACIA retweeted this February 9 article from the World Economic Forum on how eating bug can help reduce climate change. That is a very common talking point: that converting from a meat diet to a bug or plant based diet will reduce greenhouse gases.

NACIA’s Twitter account was created in 2017. Although not terribly active, it does boost other groups and individuals connected in the industry.

In April 2022, NACIA co-hosted a webinar with IPIFF about trans-Atlantic business opportunities for farmed insects both for human and animal consumption. Bugs were also to be used in fertilizer. Interestingly, they cite the corona “pandemic” and conflict in Ukraine as reasons to accelerate. Watch the clip from the start of the video.

Now, what if things were even more organized than that?

This agreement seemed so harmless when Stephen Harper signed it in 2015, doesn’t it? Now, Trudeau is domestically implementing it, showing there’s really just 1 party.

Kudos as well to Jordan Peterson. He did a great job at the U.N. for those 3 years, removing the ideological clap-trap (his terminology), to make the contents less obvious to readers.

Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
2.1 By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round
2.2 By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older persons
2.3 By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment
2.4 By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality
2.5 By 2020, maintain the genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and their related wild species, including through soundly managed and diversified seed and plant banks at the national, regional and international levels, and promote access to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, as internationally agreed
2.a Increase investment, including through enhanced international cooperation, in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services, technology development and plant and livestock gene banks in order to enhance agricultural productive capacity in developing countries, in particular least developed countries
2.b Correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets, including through the parallel elimination of all forms of agricultural export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect, in accordance with the mandate of the Doha Development Round
2.c Adopt measures to ensure the proper functioning of food commodity markets and their derivatives and facilitate timely access to market information, including on food reserves, in order to help limit extreme food price volatility

Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*
13.1 Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries
13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning
13.3 Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning
13.a Implement the commitment undertaken by developed-country parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually by 2020 from all sources to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation and fully operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its capitalization as soon as possible
13.b Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries and small island developing States, including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities
.
* Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change.

Consider Goal #2 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda, or Agenda 2030. All of this sounds harmless on the surface, until you realize that “sustainable food systems” means replacing what we have now in the West.

As for Goal #13: if we take the notion at face value that climate change is a dire threat, and bug-based agriculture and manufactured proteins can offset that, then this new type of food supply could be seen as a solution. Of course, this is just an excuse to sabotage existing systems.

It’s a common sales pitch that insect farming leads to a higher protein yield than with more traditional ones (like with livestock). Other sources of protein can be manufactured. The goal is simply to boost production overall, but reducing the quality of the protein sources available. Did anyone here really want bug diets?

It has been widely speculated that pandemic restrictions (particularly restrictions on travel and movement) would be brought back. However, the next iteration would be climate lockdowns. This is a variation of removing freedoms. But instead of losing the ability to travel, the autonomy over diet could be restricted. After all, we can’t have people eating meat when there is a climate crisis.

Re-watch the video above. It’s clear that pushing insect consumption is being done — at least in part — under the guise of UN Agenda 2030. There’s lots of “non-meat” alternatives being pushed.

Of course, it seems very unlikely that the elites who rule us will ever have to eat the bugs. Exceptions will be made for those essential people.

(1) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/
(2) https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/innovation-superclusters-initiative/en/about-canadas-innovation-superclusters-initiative
(3) https://nacia.org/
(4) https://nacia.org/partners
(5) https://twitter.com/NACIA_org
(6) https://twitter.com/CEIF_InsectAg/status/1491508619740917763
(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIHbSE_1–g
(8) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/02/how-insects-positively-impact-climate-change/
(9) https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

June 18, 2022

Cricket Production Subsidies; Aspire Food Group’s New Plant

With food shortages being predicted in the near future (not that this was planned), it’s interesting to see what exactly is being used to fill the void. Will more production plants be built, or will new “alternatives” become available for the peons?

Not only is “Eat the bugs, bigot” more than just a meme, it seems that Canadian tax dollars are being used to subsidize these ideas. Here are some recent grants from the Federal Government.

COMPANY	DATE	SUBJECT	AMOUNT
Aspire Food Group Ltd.	Jul 10, 2020	Build Comm. Demonstration Facility	$8,500,000.00
Aspire Food Group Ltd.	Nov 1, 2021	Cricket Production, Processing Facility	$50,000.00
Casa Bonita Foods, Inc.	Aug 9, 2021	Protein Snacks With Cricket Flour	$39,000.00
Entologik Inc	Jun 18, 2020	Continuity Of Operations	$58,979.00
Entologik Inc	Aug 3, 2020	Automate The Rearing Process	$30,000.00
Gaia Protein Ltd.	Apr 1, 2021	Cricket Production Technology	$42,000.00
Grévio Inc.	May 11, 2020	Egg Laying, Hatching, Rearing Crickets	$48,800.00
Mcgill University	Nov 5, 2021	Cricket Rearing, Collection, Transformation	$30,000.00
Näak Inc.	Oct 29, 2018	Products Cooked W/Cricket Powder	$48,517.00
Näak Inc.	Sep 23, 2020	Low-Powder Cricket Energy Bars	$123,178.00
Veterinarians W/O Borders	Dec 16, 2021	Innovative Approaches, Cricket Farming	$1,999,999.00

Of course, all of this can be found by checking the list of grants that has been handed out. Such information is considered public record.

Aspire Food Group, which received $8.5 million, has been lobbying Ottawa for that money. The money isn’t yet available on the Registry, but we’ll have to check for updates. Specific agencies include:

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev)
Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)

Good to see public money spent so wisely.

Despite the Open Gov site lists $8.5 million, apparently, it obtained over $16 million in capital under Canada’s Innovation Supercluster Initiative. Other projects being funded are available on the Protein Industries webpage. Clearly, crickets is just one topic within this category, and much more will have to be done on it.

“Protein Industries” is 1 of 5 areas which Ottawa is expected to pump money into. It seems they really are trying to get rid of meat — real meat — worldwide. Or is that just another conspiracy theory?

Although it went unnoticed by many, Aspire did announce in 2020 that it would soon have the largest cricket processing plant in the world. The new plant in London, Ontario was completed in May 2022. Apparently, some 9,000 metric tons of crickets will be produced annually, both for human and animal consumption.

Aspire won the Clinton Global Initiative Hult Prize in 2013. They’ve since posted an update on their YouTube channel about where the company is heading.

Eating bugs is hardly a new concept, and has been promoted by the U.N. for many years. Now, it’s just more obvious.

There will have to be updates on this topic, but it’s rather unsettling to see this direction.

(1) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/
(2) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=365064&regId=895467#regStart
(3) https://www.foodbev.com/news/aspire-and-collaborators-receive-13-2m-to-build-cricket-protein-facility/
(4) https://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/manufacturing/aspire-food-group-completes-production-of-manufacturing-facility-282031/
(5) https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/innovation-superclusters-initiative/en/about-canadas-innovation-superclusters-initiative
(6) https://www.proteinindustriescanada.ca/projects
(7) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/worlds-largest-cricket-processing-plant-coming-to-london-1.5655813
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGeY3TRwLJo
(9) https://news.un.org/en/story/2008/02/249402-edible-insects-provide-food-thought-un-organized-meeting

June 17, 2022June 17, 2022

U.N. Death Cult: 73 Million Abortions Annually Worldwide

The World Health Organization openly posts and discusses some pretty disturbing and messed up data on abortion worldwide. (See archive).

This expands on a recent Canuck Law article, which estimates that there have been over 4.2 million abortions just in Canada since 1970. This averages out to approximately 20% of pregnancies being willfully terminated. Few are aware of just how big this problem is.

Here are some claims W.H.O. promotes:

Abortion is a common health intervention. It is safe when carried out using a method recommended by WHO, appropriate to the pregnancy duration and by someone with the necessary skills.
Six out of 10 of all unintended pregnancies end in an induced abortion.
Around 45% of all abortions are unsafe, of which 97% take place in developing countries.
Unsafe abortion is a leading – but preventable – cause of maternal deaths and morbidities. It can lead to physical and mental health complications and social and financial burdens for women, communities and health systems.
Lack of access to safe, timely, affordable and respectful abortion care is a critical public health and human rights issue.

And this one is a doozy:

Around 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year. Six out of 10 (61%) of all unintended pregnancies, and 3 out of 10 (29%) of all pregnancies, end in induced abortion

This claim is based on work from Bearak J, Popinchalk A, Ganatra B, Moller A-B, Tunçalp Ö, Beavin C et al, which covered estimates from the years 1990 through 2019. They used a “Bayesian framework”, meaning dta on pregnancy intentions and abortion were compiled from country-based surveys, official statistics, and published studies found through a literature search. So, it’s not just a straight compilation, but estimates as well.

Of course, if this figure of 73 million, per year, is even remotely accurate, it would be somewhere between 2 and 5 billion children have been aborted since the 1970s, when the movement really took off.

Restrictive abortion regulation can cause distress and stigma, and risk constituting a violation of human rights of women and girls, including the right to privacy and the right to non-discrimination and equality, while also imposing financial burdens on women and girls. Regulations that force women to travel to attain legal care, or require mandatory counselling or waiting periods, lead to loss of income and other financial costs, and can make abortion inaccessible to women with low resources.

Estimates from 2006 show that complications of unsafe abortions cost health systems in developing countries US$ 553 million per year for post-abortion treatments. In addition, households experienced US$ 922 million in loss of income due to long-term disability related to unsafe abortion. Countries and health systems could make substantial monetary savings by providing greater access to modern contraception and quality induced abortion.

A set of scoping reviews from 2021 indicate that abortion regulations – by being linked to fertility – affect women’s education, participation on the labour market and positive contribution to GDP growth. The legal status of abortion can also affect children’s educational outcomes, and their earnings on the labour market later in life. For example, legalization of abortion – by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus increasing the likelihood that children are born wanted – can be linked to greater parental investments in children, including in girls’ schooling.

Does W.H.O. condemn the hundreds of millions — if not billions — of lives that are lost through this? Not exactly. The rights of the unborn never seem to factor into the equation.

W.H.O. attempts to make several economic arguments as to why abortion should be legal and as accessible as possible. Of course, they don’t seem to bother with addressing the long term physical and psychological impacts of women who do abort their children.

The World Health Organization also has its own division on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research (SRH). (See archive). It’s funded both by various governments and private companies, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (See archive). They always seem to be around whenever there are population reduction programs involved.

5.6 Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences

Enshrining abortion is also written right into Agenda 2030, which was signed by “Conservative” Stephen Harper in 2015. (See archive). It’s item #5.6 on the Treaty.

One might think it strange that population control groups are interested in keeping abortion legal and readily available. Then again, once one realizes the scale of this mass infanticide, things start to make a whole lot more sense.

Furthermore, the W.H.O. and U.N. link to the U.N. Population Fund, their 2014 Programme of Action, and to the Beijing Declaration And Platform For Action. (See archive). In a sick twist, abortion is promoted as women’s rights, and pregnancy an often unwanted evil.

Of course, 50% or so of the babies who are killed would have grown up to become women. This is something that many women’s rights groups don’t get, or at least pretend they don’t.

It’s interesting that groups like the United Nations claim to be against child exploitation and human trafficking. That said, they support encourage practices that ensure the deaths of countless unborn, while their remains can be sold off for a variety of purposes.

It’s even more disturbing that the U.N. keeps detailed and up-to-date records of abortion regulations across countries. Guess it’s one way of tracking where the most victims are likely to come from.

Has abortion been stopped, or slowed over the last 2 1/2 years during this so-called pandemic? Not at all. In fact, it’s one of the few things that were still available in Canada the entire time. Sure, weddings, churches, and funerals were “non-essential”. However, abortion, weed and liquor were still accessible.

SOURCE MATERIAL
(1) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/eugenics-in-canada-20-of-babies-aborted-in-pro-choice-movement/
(3) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32710833/
(4) https://www.who.int/teams/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-research-(srh)/human-reproduction-programme
(5) https://archive.ph/uyd8J
(6) https://www.who.int/teams/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-research-(srh)/human-reproduction-programme/donors
(7) https://archive.ph/7tb5Q
(8) https://www.un.org/ohrlls/sites/www.un.org.ohrlls/files/2030_agenda_for_sustainable_development_web.pdf
(9) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development web
(10) https://www.unfpa.org/publications/international-conference-population-and-development-programme-action
(11) https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/CSW/PFA_E_Final_WEB.pdf
(12) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/UN-Beijing-Declaration-And-Platform-For-Action.pdf
(13) https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/related-health-issues
(14) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331561/WHO-2019-nCoV-essential_health_services-2020.1-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
(15) WHO-2019-nCoV Essential Health Services 2020 March 2020
(16) WHO-2019-nCoV-essential_health_services June 2020
(17) https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/policy/AbortionPoliciesReproductiveHealth.pdf

May 11, 2022May 11, 2022

Illegal Aliens Coming Into Canada: 2022, And Earlier

Things are picking up again, particularly in Quebec.

YEAR: 2022
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
January	2,367	0	16	0	2,383
February	2,154	1	9	0	2,164
March	2,492	2	8	0	2,502
TOTALS	7,013	3	33	0	7,049

It appears that illegals coming into Canada is back in full swing, not that it ever stopped. Over 7,000 people were intercepted by the RCMP in the first 3 months of 2022. Of course, this is just what’s on the books, and just what’s publicly available.

The police didn’t seem to have any issues with shutting down businesses, stopping peaceful protests, enforcing mask orders, and the like. However, enforcing borders is something they lack the willpower to do. But they do make good bellhops.

Of course, this problem has been going on for a very long time. Here are some earlier years, to show the trends. There was a significant drop (although not a complete stop) during this “pandemic” psy-op. Perhaps Government at least needs to put on appearances.

Let’s not pretend that this is an unsolvable problem. Governments could put a stop to mass illegal entries very quickly, if that was their goal. But they don’t, regardless of what party is in power.

PROVINCE/TERRITORY	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Newfoundland	0	0	0	0	0	0
Prince Edward Island	0	0	0	0	0	0
Nova Scotia	0	0	0	0	0	0
New Brunswick	10	5	5	?	?	25
Quebec	1,335	1,295	785	875	1,035	2,595
Ontario	2,660	2,340	1,995	2,630	2,790	3,7935
Manitoba	20	15	25	10	225	505
Saskatchewan	?	?	?	?	?	30
Alberta	35	40	35	65	70	120
British Columbia	125	85	110	130	170	220
Yukon	0	0	0	0	0	5
Northwest Territories	0	0	0	0	0	0
Nunavut	0	0	0	0	0	0
TOTALS	4,185	3,770	2,955	3,715	4,290	7,365

Illegals were still coming into Canada via land border crossings during the Harper years. However, it’s only considered an issue when Trudeau is in power.

YEAR: 2017
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
January	245	19	46	5	315
February	452	142	84	0	678
March	654	170	71	2	897
April	672	146	32	9	859
May	576	106	60	0	742
June	781	63	39	1	884
July	2,996	87	51	0	3,314
August	5,530	80	102	0	5,712
September	1,720	78	79	4	1,881
October	1,755	67	68	8	1,890
November	1,539	38	46	0	1,623
December	1,916	22	40	0	1,978
TOTAL	18,836	1,018	718	22	20,593

YEAR: 2018
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
January	1,458	18	41	0	1,517
February	1,486	31	48	0	1,565
March	1,884	53	33	0	1,970
April	2,479	50	31	0	2,560
May	1,775	36	53	0	1,869
June	1,179	31	53	0	1,263
July	1,552	51	31	0	1,634
August	1,666	39	39	3	1,747
September	1,485	44	68	4	1,601
October	1,334	23	37	0	1,394
November	978	23	18	0	1,019
December	1,242	11	27	0	1,280
TOTAL	18,518	410	479	7	19,419

YEAR: 2019
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
January	871	1	16	1	888
February	800	1	6	2	808
March	967	13	22	0	1,002
April	1,206	15	25	0	1,246
May	1,149	27	20	0	1,196
June	1,536	26	5	0	1,567
July	1,835	23	15	1	1,874
August	1,712	26	22	2	1,762
September	1,706	19	17	0	1,737
October	1,595	18	8	1	1,622
November	1,118	9	21	0	1,148
December	1,646	2	5	2	1,653
TOTAL	16,136	180	182	9	16,503

YEAR: 2020
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
January	1,086	7	7	0	1,100
February	976	2	2	0	980
March	930	7	18	0	955
April	1	0	5	0	6
May	17	0	4	0	21
June	28	1	3	1	33
July	29	2	17	0	48
August	15	3	0	0	18
September	30	4	7	0	41
October	27	0	4	0	31
November	24	0	8	0	32
December	26	2	8	0	36
TOTAL	3,189	28	84	1	3,302

YEAR: 2021
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
January	28	1	10	0	39
February	39	0	1	0	40
March	29	5	2	0	36
April	29	2	2	0	33
May	12	3	13	0	28
June	11	0	6	0	17
July	28	5	6	0	39
August	63	2	11	0	76
September	150	0	19	0	169
October	96	0	17	0	113
November	832	1	12	0	845
December	2,778	0	33	0	2,811
TOTAL	4,095	19	132	0	4,246

One can only imagine how bad the rest of 2022 will end up being with this issue. Of course, the vast scale of LEGAL immigration is a much, MUCH bigger problem than the illegal entries. That said, it’s not an issue that can be ignored.

There are of course some other points to bring up to give additional context to the subject of illegal border crossings.

Something not really reported on in 2019 was the fact that the Canadian Government scrapped the DCO, or Designated Country of Origin policy. This stopped people from 42 countries (mainly in Europe) from being able to abuse the refugee system with bogus claims.

The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.

As for the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, people are still allowed to enter, and it’s still being gamed by human smugglers and traffickers.

Section 8 of the text makes it clear that the UNHCR, or United Nations High Commission on Refugees, is a Party to this Treaty. Interestingly, this detail is never reported by the mainstream press.

In addition to the people who ILLEGALLY enter Canada, our “authorities” LEGALLY let in thousands of people each year who had initially been denied for a variety of reasons. IRPA, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, has at least 2 provisions to allow inadmissible people in anyway. These are sections 24(1) and 25.1(2).

Even if previously deemed inadmissible to Canada to be given Temporary Resident Permits anyway. Here are the totals from the Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration. Note: the first one listed only started in 2010.

Those allowed in under Rule 25.1(2) of IRPA

YEAR	TRP Issued	Cumulative
2010	17	17
2011	53	70
2012	53	123
2013	280	403
2014	385	788
2015	1,063	1,851
2016	596	2,447
2017	555	3002
2018	669	3,671
2019	527	4,198
2020	115	4,313

From 2010 to 2020, a total of 4,313 people who were otherwise inadmissible to Canada were allowed in anyway under Rule 25.1(2) of IRPA. This is the category that Global News previously reported on. As for the other one, under Rule 24(1) of IRPA, Global News leaves that out:

Year	Permits	Cumulative
2002	12,630	12,630
2003	12,069	24,699
2004	13,598	38,297
2005	13,970	52,267
2006	13,412	65,679
2007	13,244	78,923
2008	12,821	91,744
2009	15,640	107,384
2010	12,452	119,836
2011	11,526	131,362
2012	13,564	144,926
2013	13,115	158,041
2014	10,624	168,665
2015	10,333	178,998
2016	10,568	189,566
2017	9,221	198,787
2018	7,132	205,919
2019	6,080	211,999
2020	2,044	214,043

From 2002 to 2020 (inclusive), a total of 214,043 people previously deemed inadmissible to Canada were given Temporary Resident Permits anyway. This has almost certainly been going on for a lot longer, but is as far back as the reports go. Now let’s consider the reasons these people are initially refused entry.

SEC = Security (espionage, subversion, terrorism)
HRV = Human or International Rights Violations
CRIM = Criminal
S.CRIM = Serious Criminal
NC = Non Compliance
MR = Misrepresentation

YEAR	Total	SEC	HRV	Crim	S.Crim	NC	MR
2002	12,630	?	?	?	?	?	?
2003	12,069	17	25	5,530	869	4,855	39
2004	13,598	12	12	7,096	953	4,981	20
2005	13,970	27	15	7,917	981	4,635	21
2006	13,412	29	20	7,421	982	4,387	18
2007	13,244	25	8	7,539	977	4,109	14
2008	12,821	73	18	7,108	898	4,170	17
2009	15,640	32	23	6,619	880	7,512	10
2010	12,452	86	24	6,451	907	4,423	36
2011	11,526	37	14	6,227	899	3,932	11
2012	13,564	20	15	7,014	888	5,206	18
2013	13,115	17	10	6,816	843	5,135	8
2014	10,624	12	2	5,807	716	3,895	14
2015	10,333	3	3	5,305	578	4,315	28
2016	10,568	8	4	4,509	534	2,788	20
2017	9,221	10	5	5,035	591	3,412	121
2018	7,132	5	3	4,132	559	2,299	131
2019	6,080	2	0	3,202	546	2,139	175
2020	2,044	2	1	666	131	1,000	37

In 2020, only 2,044 people barred were allowed in under Rule 24(1) of IRPA, which is the lowest it’s been since this legislation was enacted. Nonetheless, ZERO of these people should be coming in.

Interestingly, even though the Government has wide discretion to let people into the country under 24(1) and 25.1(2) of IRPA, it chose not to use its discretion to prohibit anyone from entering.

The data for these tables was compiled from the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament. They are included at the bottom as source material.

Even if people are excluded from Canada — for a variety of valid reasons — often they will still be given temporary entrance into Canada. Will they ever leave? Who knows?

Not only are people let in who shouldn’t be, but sanctuary cities like Toronto and Montreal provide social services (at taxpayer expense) to people here illegally. Do right wingers oppose this? Nope, many of them have facilitated this problem.

Of course, none of this addresses the elephant in the room: the genocidal levels of replacement migration that come in through various legal channels on visas.

It’s strange that so many who identify as conservatives or nationalists are silent on what’s going on. Worse, these gatekeepers condemn and mock people who speak up on these important issues. To all those constitutionalists out there: how will you maintain your systems of law when you are eventually outvoted by people who want very different things?

Category: UN/WHO

World Health Organization Constitution: Have You Actually Read It?

Like this:

World Circular Economy Forum, Related Groups

Like this:

NACIA, And Insect Consumption, Alternative Protein Market

Like this:

Cricket Production Subsidies; Aspire Food Group’s New Plant

Like this:

U.N. Death Cult: 73 Million Abortions Annually Worldwide

Around 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year. Six out of 10 (61%) of all unintended pregnancies, and 3 out of 10 (29%) of all pregnancies, end in induced abortion

Like this:

Illegal Aliens Coming Into Canada: 2022, And Earlier

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Around 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year. Six out of 10 (61%) of all unintended pregnancies, and 3 out of 10 (29%) of all pregnancies, end in induced abortion

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: