Category: UN/WHO

Posted on

Canada’s Open Borders Encourage Human Smuggling/Trafficking

Human trafficking, smuggling, and child exploitation are directly connected to the open borders policies that Western Governments have supported for years.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Check the link for more information on the TSCE series. Also, more information on Canada’s borders is available here, here, here, here, and here. Open borders, sanctuary cities, and human smuggling/trafficking are directly linked. The first 2 help enable the other 2.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for previous CBSA rules, air departure loophole.
CLICK HERE, for current CBSA exit system for air departures.
http://archive.is/v25lM
CLICK HERE, for 2016 proposal to have entry/exit system.
CLICK HERE, for UNODC on the smuggling/open borders connection.
Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review
CLICK HERE, for Canada ending “Safe Country” designations.
http://archive.is/dShJ9
CLICK HERE, for UNHCR partnership list.
CLICK HERE, for full text of Safe Third Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for Safe 3rd Country Agreement struck down.
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s policy on DNA testing migrants.
CLICK HERE, for Canada checking ancestry sites, DNA tests.
http://archive.is/mD5JB
https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/refugee.dna_.testing.unchr_.1.pdf
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-75: terrorism/child crimes.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-32, lowering age of consent.

3. Conservatives Act As Controlled Opposition

To make this clear: so-called “conservatives” are fully complicit in efforts to erase the Canadian border, and to allow people to come en masse. While they SAY a lot of the right things, their actions speak very differently. Conservatives cannot be trusted on issues such as border security or immigration.

4. Entry/Exit System Finally Implemented

Canada collects basic biographic information on travellers who enter and leave the country by land to ensure complete travel history information is available, thereby strengthening the management of our border.
.
Biographic entry information is routinely collected directly from all travellers entering Canada upon presentation to a CBSA officer at a port of entry as part of the primary inspection process. Canada also collects exit information in the land mode. Canada receives biographic entry information from the United States (U.S.) on all travellers who enter the U.S. through a land border crossing, thereby enabling the creation of a Canadian exit record.
.
Regulatory amendments for the air mode are expected to come into force in Summer 2020. Once fully implemented in the air mode, Canada will collect basic exit information directly from air carriers through passenger manifests. Exit information collected in the air mode will not be shared with the U.S.

Simply put, travel to countries other than the U.S. are not logged by the Canada Border Services Agency. That site has been altered, and now contains the following information.

Effective June 25, 2020, the CBSA requires air carriers to submit manifests, including those carriers that previously tested and were certified for the Air Exit Program prior to 2020. To begin onboarding, the CBSA encourages all air carriers to contact us as soon as possible.

In the previous system, there was a major loophole in the exit system. Exits were only tracked of people going to the United States (by air, sea, or land crossings). Since June 25, however, all air travel out of the country is logged by the CBSA, closing a very large loophole.

This is good news to see this implemented. However, CBSA confirmed that they don’t actually do anything with the information unless they are looking for specific people.

Interestingly, it is the Trudeau Government that implemented this change. The previous Harper Government was in power for 10 years but chose not to do anything about it. Sure, it took 4 years to come into effect.

5. Smuggling/Trafficking & Open Borders Link


Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review

2.2 Conceptualization of smuggling of migrants
2.2.1 Smuggling as an illegal migration business
The conceptualization of smuggling as a migration business was formally developed by Salt and Stein in 1997, even if one may find reference to this theory in earlier literature. This new interpretation of the smuggling phenomenon had a great influence on academic circles, and the concept was then borrowed by many academics. In a critical analysis of this concept, Herman stresses that the focus of expert discussions then revolved around the notion of a migration industry and its professionalization, in which migrants are seen as “products” and “people who aid migrants are called ‘smugglers’, and are portrayed as illegal ‘entrepreneurs’”

The model conceives trafficking and smuggling as an intermediary part of the global migration business facilitating movement of people between origin and destination countries. The model is divided into three stages: the mobilization and recruitment of migrants; their movement en route; and their insertion and integration into labour markets and host societies in destination countries. Salt and Stein conclude their theory by citing the need to look at immigration controls in a new way, placing sharper focus on the institutions and vested interests involved rather than on the migrants themselves.

This was addressed in Part 9 of the series. Even the United Nations recognizes the connection between illegal entry, and human smuggling & trafficking. While this 2011 study focused on borders, the same idea applies to sanctuary cities. After all, it will be a lot easier for illegals to get by if they can access social services without actually having to be in the country lawfully.

6. (Foreign) NGOs Trying To Open Borders

Faced with many complex challenges in recent years, UNHCR has redoubled its efforts to strengthen its partnerships with UN organizations and NGOs, both international and national, seeking to maximise complementarity and sustainability in its work for refugees and others of concern.

Today, UNHCR works with more than 900 funded, operational and advocacy partners to ensure that the rights and needs of populations of concern are met. UNHCR continues to give high priority to its relations with partners, and strives to strengthen strategic and operational collaboration at global, regional and country levels.

By its own admission, the UN High Commission on Refugees (UNCHR) partners with more than 900 NGOs and civil society groups.

7. (Foreign) NGOs Wage Lawfare In Court

This was discussed in other articles, but there have been at least 3 major attempts in Federal Court to strike down the concept of a “safe country”, and make it easier for people identifying as refugees to come to Canada. See this page for a summary. Groups like Amnesty International, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and the Canadian Council of Churches are not entirely Canadian, despite what names they may go by.

8. Abolishing The “Safe Country” Concept

On May 17, 2019, Canada removed the Designated Country of Origin (DCO) practice. That meant some 42 countries — mostly in Europe — which were considered safe countries were not anymore. The only remaining one was the United States, as covered by the Safe 3rd Country Agreement.

9. UNHCR Was Always A Party To S3CA

CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;

ARTICLE 8
(1) The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
(2) These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
(3) The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.

Something few people know is that the UNHCR is actually a party to the Safe 3rd Country Agreement. It is not just an agreement between the U.S. and Canada, but includes the UN in a consulting role.

10. Federal Court Erasing S3CA Altogether

Thanks to a recent decision by the Federal Court of Canada, the Safe Third Country Agreement has been struck down entirely. This means that anyone “identifying” as a refugee can now come to Canada from the United States.

Canada does have the option to appeal, and this ruling gives 6 months to draft new legislation. However, with this government, it seems unlikely either will happen.

11. Opening The Floodgates LEGALLY

No, bringing people into Canada in large numbers doesn’t have to be in a sneaky way. Keep in mind, all parties support genocidal levels of replacement migration, and support various globalist initiatives. Conservatives are just as bad, however many people are duped into thinking otherwise.

12. Erasing Borders: CANZUK/UN GMC


(Andrew Scheer finally speaks on the 2018 UN Global Migration Compact. He feigns being indignant, and pretends that borders are something conservatives actually care about. He would come across as believable, if he showed any consistency.)

Conservatives offer nothing except the illusion of opposing. In this example: Andrew Scheer claims to oppose the UN Global Migration Compact (after initially remaining silent). However, CANZUK — an open borders treaty that can be expanded — is official party policy. Some real mental gymnastics are at play here. Furthermore, Erin O’Toole explicitly states at 2:00 in the CANZUK video that he wants to expand CANZUK to other countries.

There is bipartisan support for open borders. But, do politicians at least enact measures to ensure that people, especially children, are not subject to exploitation? Not exactly.

13. Reluctance For DNA Testing: Child/Parent

When to do DNA testing
An applicant may be given the option of undergoing DNA testing in cases in which documentary evidence has been examined and there are still doubts about the authenticity of a parent-child genetic relationship (where it has been claimed) or when it is not possible to obtain satisfactory relationship documents. A DNA test to prove a genetic relationship should be suggested by IRCC only as a last resort.

Canada only does DNA testing of alleged family members when it cannot establish otherwise that there is a relationship. This has been public for years now, but is still rare. Considering the amount of fraud that has been documented elsewhere, logic dictates that this should be the norm, in order to protect children from being trafficked. Even the UNHCR frowns on the practice of DNA testing, calling on it to be a last resort. The UNCHR also advises not to deny applications simply because of the DNA may not match. See this post for more background information.

14. Weakening Child Sex-Crime Penalties

Because of Bill C-75, criminal prosecutors now have discretion to try the following offences summarily (lesser) as opposed to mandatory indictment (more severe). Check out the list:

  • Section 58: Fraudulent use of citizenship
  • Section 159: Age of consent for anal sex (reduced)
  • Section 172(1): Corrupting children
  • Section 173(1): Indecent acts
  • Section 180(1): Common nuisance
  • Section 182: Indecent interference or indignity to body
  • Section 210: Keeping common bawdy house
  • Section 211: Transporting to bawdy house
  • Section 242: Not getting help for childbirth
  • Section 243: Concealing the death of a child
  • Section 279.02(1): Material benefit – trafficking
  • Section 279.03(1): Withholding/destroying docs — trafficking
  • Section 279(2): Forcible confinement
  • Section 280(1): Abduction of child under age 16
  • Section 281: Abduction of child under age 14
  • Section 291(1): Bigamy
  • Section 293: Polygamy
  • Section 293.1: Forced marriage
  • Section 293.2: Child marriage
  • Section 295: Solemnizing marriage contrary to law
  • Section 435: Arson, for fraudulent purposes
  • Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime

One of Trudeau’s big bills (Bill C-75) in his first term was to reduce the criminal penalties for many sex crimes against children, and for terrorism offences.

15. Lowering The Age Of Consent For Anal

One of Trudeau’s earlier pieces of legislation was Bill C-32. However, the contents were eventually shoved into Bill C-75. This would have reduced the age of consent for anal sex form 18 to 16. If Trudeau was interested in “equality”, perhaps a better solution all around would be raising the overall age to 18.

16. Controlled Opposition “Tough On Crime”

Remember Stephen Harper, who was supposedly “tough on crime”? His idea of being hard on child sex offenders was raising the minimum sentence (for indictable offences), from 3 months to 1 year. That’s still pretty lenient, at least in most people’s eyes.

17. Courts Strike Mandatory Minimum Sentences

If it isn’t politically helpful to reduce the penalties, there is another option: have judges strike down existing penalties as “cruel and unusual”. Have a judge find some reasoning to make it work.

There are plenty of examples of this sort of this in action.

18. Sanctuary Cities Help “Disappear” People

toronto.human.trafficking.prevention

(page 9) Service access: The City has many services, as noted above, that may be useful to survivors of human trafficking. However, some people may be fearful of accessing services because they do not have immigration status. The City’s Access Toronto policy is relevant. In February 2013, City Council affirmed its commitment to ensuring access to services to all Torontonians, including those without full status or without full status documents.

(page 11) Access to income: Toronto Employment and Social Services has established several policies to support individuals who are vulnerable and at-risk of exploitation, including human trafficking survivors. For example, within eligibility for Ontario Works, procedures are in place that permit the waiver of documentation requirements on a short term basis when information is not readily available due to circumstances beyond a person’s control.

Individuals without immigration status in Canada can access Toronto Employment and Social Services Employment Centres, and apply for financial support through the Hardship Fund or Emergency Energy Fund that is administered by Toronto Employment and Social Services. Additionally, Toronto Employment and Social Services Service Delivery Guidelines ensure clients are connected to relevant support services and community resources.

The City of Toronto is fully aware that a portion of victims (though it’s not clear how many), are in the country illegally. Open borders, combined with sanctuary status, ensures that this will only get worse.

19. Child Exploitation As “Multiculturalism”

Along with racial and cultural differences, multiculturalism brings other serious problems. One of them is having to accept sketchy practices like child marriages, and grooming gangs as “being tolerant”. When there are no standards, then anything goes.

20. These Things Are Connected

There is a relationship between border security and trafficking or exploitation of people. The open borders policies of Western nations have the dual effect of allowing anyone to cross international lines, and of bringing incompatible ideologies with them. These are not random events, but a coordinated effort to overrun and replace our nations. This is a bipartisan effort — and no one is blameless in politics.

To borrow the famous quote: tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.

Posted on

CV #4(B): Zakery Blais, (AG Lametti’s Former Assistant) Renews Registration As GAVI/Crestview Lobbyist

Crestview Strategy lobbyist (and former assistant to the now Attorney General David Lametti), Zakery Blais, renewed his official registration as a lobbyist on behalf of the Gates funded GAVI. Effective August 1st. To clarify, Lametti was only a Parliamentary Secretary when Blais worked for him, but that hardly excuses the behaviour.

1. Zakery Blais Worked For David Lametti

Zakery Blais is a Consultant with Crestview Strategy. With a focus on Canada-U.S. relations and international development, Zakery services clients globally.

His experience spans both the public and private sectors. He previously worked as a Legislative Assistant to a Canadian Member of Parliament, providing strategic political and communications advice. Prior to joining Crestview Strategy, Zakery also worked in various capacities in public affairs, including as an analyst focused on the energy and natural resources sectors.

Zakery holds an Honours BSocSc in Political Science from the University of Ottawa, and a Master of Public Administration (MPA) from Queen’s University

Although the Member of Parliament is not identified in Blais’ Crestview profile, looking at his LinkedIn, we can tell it is David Lametti. Lametti was a Parliamentary Secretary at the time, but is now the sitting Attorney General of Canada.

Bit of a side note: Blais’ profile also has him spending almost a year working for the Liberal Research Bureau.

2. Lack Of Transparency In Public Office Holding

Blais claims to have never been a public office holder. While true in a technical sense, it is very misleading. Blais WORKED FOR Lametti, who was a public officer holder, and now sits as the Attorney General of Canada. But you wouldn’t get that information from looking at the Lobbying Commissioner’s website.

Crestview lobbies on behalf of GAVI, trying to get government grants to vaccinate the planet. So far, Ottawa has shelled out some $800 million. And it needs to be emphasized, there is no arms-length relationship here at all.

Most readers will know this, but for those who don’t: GAVI is the Global Vaccine Alliance, which is heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

3. Crestview’s M-132 Conflict Of Interest

M-132 was introduced in November 2017 by Liberal MP Raj Saini. It was covered here and here. One might wonder why GAVI is interested in lobbying on a motion to finance drugs and drug research for Canada and the entire world.

4. CS Co-Founded By Katie Telford’s Husband

Liberal strategist and former pundit Rob Silver said Monday he has left the government relations firm he helped create, citing his wife’s position as Justin Trudeau’s chief of staff.

“Effective Dec. 31, 2015 I am no longer a shareholder or employee of Crestview Strategy,” Silver said in an email Monday afternoon.

Silver was a partner in the Toronto- and Ottawa-based public affairs agency that, among other things, lobbies the federal government on behalf of clients.

Rob Silver, husband of Katie Telford, Trudeau’s Chief-of-Staff, helped start up Crestview Strategy, the lobbying firm that GAVI hired to push the vaccine agenda.

5. Rob Silver’s New Conflict Of Interest

OTTAWA – The Trudeau government is paying up to $84 million to a company that employs Chief of Staff Katie Telford’s husband as a senior executive to administer its COVID-19 emergency commercial rent assistance program for small businesses.

Due to the ties between Telford and her husband, Robert Silver, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) assures that their chief of staff has recused herself from any decisions that may involve MCAP, Silver’s employer.

According to his LinkedIn profile, Silver became Senior Vice-President, Strategy, Policy, Risk at MCAP in January 2020. MCAP bills itself as one of Canada’s largest private mortgage companies, with over 300,000 customers and $105 billion in assets under management.

According to LinkedIn, this is Silver’s first job in the private sector since leaving Crestview — the government relations firm he helped create — following the October 2015 elections. At the time, he cited his wife’s job as new chief of staff to the prime minister as the reason for his departure.

Silver may have left Crestview Strategy, but it appears his old ways haven’t changed. Yet another conflict of interest that should never have happened.

This was addressed in Part 5, but Crestview Strategy has many political connections, and they extend across party lines. In some sense, it really doesn’t matter who is actually in power. Crestview has connections. And Zakery Blais is still at it.

Posted on

CV #39: Forced Or Coerced Vaccination Violates Nuremberg Code

If the Nuremberg Code provides very reasonable guidelines on performing medical experiments, then what possible stretch of logic would prohibit people from refusing forced vaccines?

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For much more on the coronavirus “pandemic”, check out this series. Know the real story about the lies, inflated death tolls, rampant lobbying, financial conflicts of interest, and other deception that the mainstream media will not report on.

2. Text Of Nuremberg Code

  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
  2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
  3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
  4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
  5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
  6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
  7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
  8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
  9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
  10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

3. Does Forcing Vaccines Violate Code?


It stands to reason that if forcing people to participate in medical experiments is unethical, then forcing vaccines on people should be as well. Considering the lack of testing and safety mechanisms, it would be hard to argue that this is not still experimental.

Beyond actual force, making it unreasonably difficult to live one’s life without being vaccinated should also imply a lack of informed consent. Would a Government put a “boot on the neck” under the guise of public safety? Well, they are already.

What will happen should this be put in a court challenge? Guess only time will tell.

Posted on

Heritage #3: Annexation Makes UNESCO Sites World’s 2nd Largest “Country”

1. Understanding Our History

(A) https://canucklaw.ca/un-declaration-on-rights-of-indigenous-peoples-bc-and-feds/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/the-indian-act-of-canada/

2. Important Links

(1) https://whc.unesco.org/en/faq/23
(2) https://en.unesco.org/covid19/cultureresponse/monitoring-world-heritage-site-closures
(3) https://unesco.org.uk/national-value
(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area
(5) https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/UN.new_.development.financing.2012.178pages.pdf
(7) http://www.clubdeparis.org/en/communications/page/debt-swap
(8) Debt for Nature Swaps _ UNDP (1)
(9) https://www.cov.com/en/news-and-insights/news/2004/08/covington-advises-on-debt-for-nature-swap-to-protect-unesco-world-heritage-site
(10) https://canucklaw.ca/ccs-14-uns-new-development-financing-the-bait-and-switch/

3. Who Actually Owns UNESCO Sites?

Who owns a site once it’s inscribed on the World Heritage List?
.
The site is the property of the country on whose territory it is located, but it is considered in the interest of the international community to protect the site for future generations. Its protection and preservation becomes a concern of the international World Heritage community as a whole.

An interesting explanation. So the host nation owns it, but is not allowed to do anything with it unless approved by the international community. Perhaps it’s like renting an apartment: it’s your space, but the interest of the landlord.

4. How Many UNESCO Sites Are There?

This includes the closure of natural and cultural World Heritage sites in the 167 countries they are located in. Please consider the following when reviewing the map:
The World Heritage Convention has been ratified by 193 States Parties but only 167 countries have properties on UNESCO’s World Heritage List;
The List includes a total of 1,121 natural, cultural and mixed World Heritage sites;
In some countries with federal systems there may be a different approach for certain areas within the country;
For some types of sites such as city centres, urban ensembles or agricultural landscapes access may be still possible to certain public areas of the sites, while other parts of the site may be closed, including site museums, visitor centres, religious or emblematic buildings;
For some countries, sites are being re-opened, such as in China;
While sites are closed, monitoring activities by site management may continue, especially for natural sites, including by anti-poaching units, monitoring by satellite images or drones and emergency interventions, for example in case of fires.

According to UNESCO, there are 1,121 UNESCO sites across the world. Now, it must be asked how big they are collectively.

5. How Large Are UNESCO Sites In Total?

The research demonstrates that UNESCO designations deliver the UK’s commitment to creating a more sustainable, peaceful and equitable future at a local, national and international level. It provides governments, stakeholders, communities, designations and the public an opportunity to understand the contribution a global network covering 12% of the UK, or 10 million km2 globally (equivalent to the size of Canada) makes.

According to UNESCO UK, 12% of Britain is considered a UNESCO heritage site. In total, approximately the area of Canada is formed by these different sites.

Rank Country, Region Area (square km)
1 Russia 17,098,246
n/a Antarctica 14,000,000
2 Canada 9,984,670
3 China 9,596,961
4 United States 9,833,517
5 Brazil 8,515,767
6 Australia 7,692,024
7 India 3,287,263

According to Wikipedia, the national land areas are distributed as such. If UNESCO heritage sites were combined, those 10 million square kilometers would actually make it the second largest mass, after Russia. Keep in mind, that while the countries still “own” the heritage sites, they are considered to be the interest of the international community.

6. Canada’s Various UNESCO Heritage Sites

Year Site
1978 Nahanni National Park
1978 L’Anse aux Meadows National Historic Site
1979 Dinosaur Provincial Park
1979/92/94 Tatshenshini-Alsek
1981 SGang Gwaay
1981 Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump
1983 Wood Buffalo National Park
1984/1990 Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks
1985 Historic District of Old Québec
1987 Gros Morne National Park
1995 Old Town Lunenburg
1995 Waterton Glacier International Peace Park
1999 Miguasha National Park
2007 Rideau Canal
2008 Joggins Fossil Cliffs
2012 Landscape of Grand Pré
2013 Red Bay Basque Whaling Station
2016 Mistaken Point
2019 Writing-on-Stone / Áísínai’pi

Over the last 50 years Canada has piece-by-piece been giving away parts of itself to UNESCO as “heritage sites”. And again, while it’s stated that we still own the property, it’s considered to be in the interest of the so-called global community. In reality, we don’t have control over them.

7. UN Debt-Land Conversion Mechanism: Usury

UN.new.development.financing.2012.178pages

(Page 88, 56 in document)
Debt-for-nature swaps Debt conversion first emerged, in the guise of debt-for-nature swaps, during the 1980s debt crisis, following an opinion article by Thomas Lovejoy, then Executive Vice-President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), in the New York Times in 1984. Lovejoy argued that a developing country’s external debt could be reduced (also providing tax relief to participating creditor banks) in exchange for the country’s taking measures to address environmental challenges. Estimates based on Sheikh (2010) and Buckley, ed. (2011) suggest that between $1.1 billion and $1.5 billion of debt has been exchanged through debt-for-nature swaps since the mid–1980s, although it is not possible to assess how much of this constitutes IDF, for the reasons discussed in box III.1

There have been two basic forms of debt-for-nature exchanges (Buckley and Freeland, 2011). In the first, part of a country’s external debt is purchased by an environmental non-governmental organization and offered to the debtor for cancellation in exchange for a commitment to protect a particular area of land. Such transactions occurred mainly in the late 1980s and 1990s and were generally relatively small-scale. An early example was a 1987 deal under which Conservation International, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental non-governmental organization, bought $650,000 of the commercial bank debt of Bolivia (now Plurinational State of Bolivia) in the secondary market for $100,000, and exchanged this for shares in a company established to preserve 3.7 million acres of forest and grassland surrounding the Beni Biosphere Reserve in the north-east part of the country.

In the second form, debt is exchanged for local currency (often at a discount), which is then used by local conservation groups or government agencies to fund projects in the debtor country. Swaps of this kind are generally much larger, and have predominated since the 1990s. The largest such swap came in 1991, when a group of bilateral creditors agreed to channel principal and interest payments of $473 million (in local currency) into Poland’s Ecofund set up to finance projects designed to counter environmental deterioration. The EcoFund financed 1,500 programmes between 1992 and 2007, providing grants for conservation projects relating to cross-border air pollution, climate change, biological diversity and the clean-up of the Baltic Sea (Buckley and Freeland, 2011).

This is nothing short of predatory lending and usury. Lending out large sums of money (often debt financed by donor countries), to other countries who can’t pay it back. The debts can be forgiven in return for consideration, such as rendering sections of land unavailable for use.

In short, these lands are taken away in return for debt forgiveness.
See the more sinister variation at the end.

It should be pointed out that UNESCO is not the only organization that is involved in debt swaps. There are private groups that do it too.

8. The Paris Club – Debt Swapper

The Paris Club is just one group that is involved in the debt swaps when countries can’t afford to make payments on their debts. While presented as harmless, it takes away national sovereignty. Keep in mind, that the average citizen isn’t responsible for racking up this debt.

9. UN Development Program

Debt for Nature Swaps _ UNDP (1)

The UN Development Program also runs a version of the same scheme. Here is a short guide they provide on the details.

10. Argentina Debt-For-Nature Swap

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 19, 2004 – The United States Government and the Government of Panama signed a debt-for-nature swap agreement today that will reduce the sovereign debt of the Government of Panama and help conserve 579,000 hectares (over 2,200 square miles) of tropical rainforest, an area larger than the State of Delaware. The deal will fund conservation efforts in a portion of the Darién National Park, an area of dense rainforest, sandy beaches, freshwater marshes and rocky coasts that is environmentally, anthropologically and historically rich.

The park has been officially recognized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization as a World Heritage site and as a Biosphere Reserve. It is located in an ecologically vital area that forms a land-bridge between the North and South American continents. The region is home three major indigenous groups, the Emberá, Waunaan and Kunas, who continue to live by traditional practices. The Darién coast was explored by Christopher Columbus in 1502 and visited by Spanish conquistadors. The Darién Gap region is inhabited by numerous rare animal species, including the jaguar, white-lipped peccary, giant anteater, bush dog, mantled howler monkey and harpy eagle (Panama’s national bird).

And with that, a piece of land larger than the State of Delaware has been signed over to UNESCO, in return for having some of its debt reduced. Remember, while the land officially stays in the hands of the country, it is now considered the interest of the global community.

In addition to the debt-for-nature swaps, there are also debt-for-health swaps. These can be even more nefarious.

11. UN Debt-Vaccine Conversion Mechanism

Look familiar? In Part 14 we mentioned IFFIm, the International Finance Facility for Immunization. How this works is that nations make legally binding pledges to IFFIm. IFFIm then takes those pledges and issues bonds to the World Bank, who sells them on the open market. Money then goes to World Bank, who gives it to IFFIm, who in turn provides it to GAVI. GAVI (also funded by Gates), uses it for vaccine research and development.

A reasonable person may ask why not give the money directly to GAVI. That’s because other people can’t line their pocket it that happened.

Funnelling money through “vaccine bonds” does nothing except allow others to skim from it. Now, what happens to the money that actually does arrive? It’s used in another predatory way.

(Page 89, 57 in document)
Debt2Health Since the development of debt swaps in the 1980s, there has been a diversification of their uses to encompass social projects, most recently in the area of health under the Debt2Health initiative, which was launched by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in 2007 to harness additional resources for its programmes. Under Debt2Health, a donor country agrees to reduce part of a loan ineligible for debt relief under global initiatives such as the HIPC and Multilateral Debt Reduction Initiatives, in exchange for a commitment by the debtor to invest (in local currency) half of the nominal value of the debt in programmes approved by the Global Fund. The Global Fund is committed to devoting all of the funds thus generated to financing programmes in the country rather than overhead costs (Buckley, 2011c)

This is an alternative to the debt-for-nature swap. Want your debt forgiven? Take your sterilizing and possibly paralysing vaccines.

12. Taking Advantage Of Desperate People

A lot of the loans and conditional foreign aid are not free. They come with strings attached.

Loans are handed out with terms that cannot possibly be met. What happens afterwards is an “arrangement” to cancel or reduce the debt. This can require ceding control over part of the land to outsiders, or having to play along with a certain agenda.

A variation of that is the debt-for-health swap, where debt is forgiven in return for adopting certain health measures. This includes vaccines, which can cripple or kill.

One has to wonder how UNESCO got its 1,121 heritage sites.

Posted on

The New USMCA & Its Globalist Provisions

On July 1, 2020, the United States, Mexico & Canada Agreement (USMCA) replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Some may wonder why this deal had to be replaced. However, upon reading the new treaty, it becomes clear that USMCA is far more reaching and covers areas which NAFTA didn’t. In short, this is not merely an alteration of NAFTA, but a new agreement which contains many more globalist provisions. This is far more than a trade agreement.

This review will not address all of the points of USMCA, just the more alarming or interesting ones.

1. National Treatment Provisions

Article 2.3: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord national treatment to the goods of another Party in accordance with Article III of the GATT 1994, including its interpretative notes, and to this end, Article III of the GATT 1994 and its interpretative notes are incorporated into and made part of this Agreement, mutatis mutandis.
.
2. The treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraph 1 means, with respect to a regional level of government, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment that regional level of government accords to any like, directly competitive, or substitutable goods, as the case may be, of the Party of which it forms a part.

Article 14.4: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
.
2. Each Party shall accord to covered investments treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments in its territory of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.

Article 17.3: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords to its own investors, in like circumstances, with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of financial institutions, and investments in financial institutions in its territory.
.
2. Each Party shall accord to financial institutions of another Party, and to investments of investors of another Party in financial institutions, treatment no less favorable than that it accords to its own financial institutions, and to investments of its own investors in financial institutions, in like circumstances, with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of financial institutions and investments.

Article 20.8: National Treatment
1. In respect of all categories of intellectual property covered in this Chapter, each Party shall accord to nationals of another Party treatment no less favorable than it accords to its own nationals with regard to the protection of intellectual property rights.

So what’s the problem here? Why would it be wrong to enforce rules that ensure equal treatment between the parties?

Quite simply, it makes protecting your own industries and businesses illegal. In fact, the Canadian Government has been sued –successfully — in the 1990s. This was because NAFTA meant that we could no longer enforce things like environmental laws if they were bad for business.

Governments (should) take steps to ensure that people are able to have decent work in their communities. However, that becomes much harder when foreign companies can come in and undercut local merchants. This works in a similar way when mass migration creates downward pressure on wages.

While this may result in lower costs for good and services, there is a bigger picture to consider. Decimating communities that are dependent on a few big employers is not offset by having cheaper products at Walmart.

However, this concern for society becomes a thing of the past. Note: these provisions were in other trade deals as well such as NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

2. Ch #14: Investments And Corporations

Article 14.11: Senior Management and Boards of Directors
1. No Party shall require that an enterprise of that Party that is a covered investment appoint to senior management positions a natural person of a particular nationality.
.
2. A Party may require that a majority of the board of directors, or any committee thereof, of an enterprise of that Party that is a covered investment, be of a particular nationality, or resident in the territory of the Party, provided that the requirement does not materially impair the ability of the investor to exercise control over its investment.

While much of the chapter is okay, this is rather disturbing. The reason is that appointing foreigners to head a corporation (much like putting foreigners in government), leads to a conflict of interest. In order to ensure the well being of a company — and its employees — it’s important to have people loyal to the country in question.

Call it bigoted, but I don’t believe this dual loyalty can be resolved in a way that benefits society as a whole.

3. Ch #16: Temporary Entries Must Be Allowed

It has been discussed here many times how Canada is experiencing a flood of people coming under: (a) Temporary Foreign Worker Program; (b) International Mobility Program; (c) student visas; and (d) other programs. However, USMCA contains provisions in Chapter 16 for this to happen on an even bigger scale (at least regarding workers).

usmca.chapter.16.temporary.entry

Article 16.4: Grant of Temporary Entry
2. A Party may refuse to grant temporary entry or issue an immigration document authorizing employment to a business person where the temporary entry of that person might adversely affect:
.
(a) the settlement of a labor dispute that is in progress at the place or intended place of employment; or
.
(b) the employment of a person who is involved in that dispute.

Article 16.7: Dispute Settlement
1. A Party may not initiate proceedings under Article 31.5 (Commission Good Offices, Conciliation, and Mediation) regarding a refusal to grant temporary entry under this Chapter or a particular case arising under Article 16.3(1) unless:
.
(a) the matter involves a pattern of practice; and
.
(b) the business person has exhausted the available administrative remedies regarding the particular matter.

It should be pointed out there are a few good provisions in this chapter. These include not importing workers to cross picket lines, and limiting ability to challenge refusals. That being said, there are many bad provisions.

Article 16.2: Scope
1. This Chapter applies to measures affecting the temporary entry of business persons of a Party into the territory of another Party.
.
2. This Chapter does not apply to measures affecting natural persons seeking access to the employment market of another Party, nor does it apply to measures regarding citizenship, nationality, residence or employment on a permanent basis.
.
3. Nothing in this Agreement prevents a Party from applying measures to regulate the entry of natural persons of another Party into, or their temporary stay in, its territory, including those measures necessary to protect the integrity of, and to ensure the orderly movement of natural persons across, its borders, provided that those measures are not applied in a manner as to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to any Party under this Chapter.

While this sounds great in theory, the reality is that Canada offers many options to “temporary” workers and students to remain in the country much longer and work towards permanent residence. This just lowers the threshold for getting the foot in the door.

Article 16.5: Provision of Information
1. Further to Article 29.2 (Publication), each Party shall publish online or otherwise make publicly available explanatory material regarding the requirements for temporary entry under this Chapter that will enable a business person of another Party to become acquainted with them.

On the surface, nothing wrong with this. However, it is unsettling to publish or make available instructions for how to bring hordes of people into the country.

Article 16.6: Temporary Entry Working Group
1. The Parties hereby establish a Temporary Entry Working Group, comprising representatives of each Party, including representatives of immigration authorities.
.
2. The Working Group shall meet at least once each year to consider:
.
(a) the implementation and administration of this Chapter;
.
(b) the development of measures to further facilitate temporary entry of business persons on a reciprocal basis;
.
(c) the waiving of labor certification tests or procedures of similar effect for spouses of business persons who have been granted temporary entry for more than one year under Section B, C or D of Annex 16-A (Temporary Entry for Business Persons);
.
(d) proposed modifications of or additions to this Chapter; and
.
(e) issues of common interest related to the temporary entry of business persons, such as the use of technologies related to processing of applications, that can be further explored among the Parties in other fora.

While this is presented as a very limited admission for business, it makes it pretty clear that it include bringing spouses along, and can be modified to include other groups of workers. How difficult would it be to lower the requirements so that entry level workers can be added?

Looking at the list of “professionals” who qualify for temporary entry, one has to wonder how this will effect wages and job prospects of locals. After all, flooding the market with more workers (supply) has consequences to the wages (demand) of those already here.

A section of Chapter 17, specifically 17.5(1)(d)(iv), provides a loophole in that there are no limits to the number of employees a company may have. Theoretically, a company can have an almost endless number of workers who need to cross the border

1. No Party shall adopt or maintain with respect to:

(d) imposes a limitation on:

(iv) the total number of natural persons that may be employed in a particular financial service sector or that a financial institution or cross-border financial service supplier may employ and who are necessary for, and directly related to, the supply of a specific financial service in the form of numerical quotas or the requirement of an economic needs test; or

usmca.chapter.17.financial.services

Section 139 of the Conservative Party Policy Declaration promotes generating more pilot programs for mass migration, and converting “temps” to permanent residents where possible.

Section 152 of the Conservative Party Policy Declaration refers to CANZUK, an open border scheme that may be extended beyond just Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

cpc.policy.declaration

In fact, once (almost) free movement is factored in alongside this free trade, it begins to look like a North American version of CANZUK. That of course is official CPC policy.

Of course, even when there is a fake pandemic, and millions of Canadians are unemployed, our government still finds it necessary to import hundreds of thousands of workers. Seriously, if the Government won’t protect Canadians’ jobs in a time like this, they won’t ever do it.

4. Ch #19: Social Media, Interactive Services

Article 19.17: Interactive Computer Services
1. The Parties recognize the importance of the promotion of interactive computer services, including for small and medium-sized enterprises, as vital to the growth of digital trade.

2. To that end, other than as provided in paragraph 4, no Party shall adopt or maintain measures that treat a supplier or user of an interactive computer service as an information content provider in determining liability for harms related to information stored, processed, transmitted, distributed, or made available by the service, except to the extent the supplier or user has, in whole or in part, created, or developed the information.

3. No Party shall impose liability on a supplier or user of an interactive computer service on account of:
(a) any action voluntarily taken in good faith by the supplier or user to restrict access to or availability of material that is accessible or available through its supply or use of the interactive computer services and that the supplier or user considers to be harmful or objectionable; or
(b) any action taken to enable or make available the technical means that enable an information content provider or other persons to restrict access to material that it considers to be harmful or objectionable.

Doesn’t look too good for protecting free speech and viewpoint diversity. No consequences for deplatforming people with dissident viewpoints.

5. Ch #20: Intellectual Property Rights

Article 20.7: International Agreements
1. Each Party affirms that it has ratified or acceded to the following agreements:
.
(a) Patent Cooperation Treaty, as amended on September 28, 1979, and modified on February 3, 1984;
.
(b) Paris Convention;
.
(c) Berne Convention;
.
(d) WCT; and
.
(e) WPPT

2. Each Party shall ratify or accede to each of the following agreements, if it is not already a party to that agreement, by the date of entry into force of this Agreement:
.
(a) Madrid Protocol;
.
(b) Budapest Treaty;
.
(c) Singapore Treaty;
.
(d) UPOV 1991;
.
(e) Hague Agreement; and
.
(f) Brussels Convention.

usmca.chapter.20.intellectual.property

This isn’t merely a trade agreement we have signed. It also forces to be committed to 11 different international treaties on intellectual property. Essentially, this is setting a global standard for I.P. In fairness, Canada is a party to many of them already. However, what will happen when people with Canadian patents are forced to compete with people holding similar patents elsewhere?

Considering that patenting genes and other biological material is already a reality, what will happen to health care currently available?

6. Ch #22: State Owned Enterprises

1. Each Party shall ensure that each of its state-owned enterprises, when engaging in commercial activities:
.
(a) acts in accordance with commercial considerations in its purchase or sale of a good or service, except to fulfil the terms of its public service mandate that are not inconsistent with subparagraphs (b) or (c)(ii);
.
(b) in its purchase of a good or service:
.
(i) accords to a good or service supplied by an enterprise of another Party treatment no less favorable than it accords to a like good or a like service supplied by enterprises of the Party, of any other Party or of a non-Party, and
.
(ii) accords to a good or service supplied by an enterprise that is a covered investment in the Party’s territory treatment no less favorable than it accords to a like good or a like service supplied by enterprises in the relevant market in the Party’s territory that are investments of investors of the Party, of another Party or of a non-Party; and
.
(c) in its sale of a good or service:
.
(i) accords to an enterprise of another Party treatment no less favorable than it accords to enterprises of the Party, of any other Party or of a non-Party, and
.
(ii) accords to an enterprise that is a covered investment in the Party’s territory treatment no less favorable than it accords to enterprises in the relevant market in the Party’s territory that are investments of investors of the Party, of another Party or of a non-Party

usmca.chapter.22.state.owned.enterprises

While this “sounds” okay, consider that state owned enterprises are typically funded by taxpayer dollars. They typically mean Crown Corporations and branches of the Government. Under the national treatment rules, these public groups will have to compete with foreigners, and treat them no worse. This comes despite the fact that foreigners don’t pay the taxes that keep them going. This is, in effect, a tax subsidy.

7. Ch #23: International Labour Org. (UN Group)

usmca.chapter.23.labour

Article 23.2: Statement of Shared Commitments
1. The Parties affirm their obligations as members of the ILO, including those stated in the ILO Declaration on Rights at Work and the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (2008).
.
2. The Parties recognize the important role of workers’ and employers’ organizations in protecting internationally recognized labor rights.
.
3. The Parties also recognize the goal of trading only in goods produced in compliance with this Chapter.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) is a UN group which Canada, the U.S., and Mexico are all part of. In essence, this gives the UN a very large role in setting the agenda for work standards on the continent.

Article 23.14: Labor Council
1. The Parties hereby establish a Labor Council composed of senior governmental representatives at the ministerial or other level from trade and labor ministries, as designated by each Party.
.
2. The Labor Council shall meet within one year of the date of entry into force of this Agreement and thereafter every two years, unless the Parties decide otherwise.
.
3. The Labor Council may consider any matter within the scope of this Chapter and perform other functions as the Parties may decide.
.
4. In conducting its activities, including meetings, the Labor Council shall provide a means for receiving and considering the views of interested persons on matters related to this Chapter. If practicable, meetings will include a public session or other means for Council members to meet with the public to discuss matters relating to the implementation of this Chapter.
.
5. During the fifth year after the date of entry into force of this Agreement, or as otherwise decided by the Parties, the Labor Council shall review the operation and effectiveness of this Chapter and thereafter may undertake subsequent reviews as decided by the Parties.
.
6. Labor Council decisions and reports shall be made by consensus and be made publicly available, unless the Council decides otherwise.
.
7. The Labor Council shall issue a joint summary report or statement on its work at the end of each Council meeting.

This Council is to be made up of members chosen by the governments. There’s no indication that the public will have any say in choosing them. Decisions don’t have to be made public, which means we may never see what goes on. Meetings are to take place once every 2 years (as a default). Not very accountable.

UN SDGs International Labour Organization Partnered With

  • BORDERLESS SUSTAINABLE INITIATIVES FORUM
  • Economic inclusion and sustainable development of Andean grain producers in Ayacucho and Puno
  • Equal Pay International Coalition
  • FarmBiz Youth
  • Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data
  • Improving transitions from school to work through engaging youth in policy dialogue
  • Japanese Technical Cooperation Project for Promotion of Regional Initiative on Solid Waste Management in Pacific Island Countries (J-PRISM)
  • Pacific Financial Inclusion Programme (PFIF)
  • Pacific Youth Development Framework Partnership (PYDF Partnership)
  • Solutions for Youth Employment (S4YE)
  • Strengthening Women’s Ability for Productive New Opportunities (SWAPNO) in Bangladesh
  • Sustainable Week
  • United Nations Pacific Interagency Task Force on Noncommunicable Disease Prevention and Control (UN PIATF)

It’s beyond the scope of this article to go into each group that ILO partners with. However, take a look at the webpage to see for yourself what ILO does with the rest of its time. Anyhow, this is the group whose labour standards we must now comply with.

8. Ch #24: UNSDA Environmental Agenda

Article 24.1: Definitions
For the purposes of this Chapter:
environmental law means a statute or regulation of a Party, or provision thereof, including any that implements the Party’s obligations under a multilateral environmental agreement, the primary purpose of which is the protection of the environment, or the prevention of a danger to human life or health, through:
.
(a) the prevention, abatement, or control of the release, discharge, or emission of pollutants or environmental contaminants;

Article 24.2: Scope and Objectives
1. The Parties recognize that a healthy environment is an integral element of sustainable development and recognize the contribution that trade makes to sustainable development.
.
2. The objectives of this Chapter are to promote mutually supportive trade and environmental policies and practices; promote high levels of environmental protection and effective enforcement of environmental laws; and enhance the capacities of the Parties to address trade-related environmental issues, including through cooperation, in the furtherance of sustainable development.

A lot of the content here looks like it was cut and pasted directly from Agenda 2030. There are also references to pollution and emissions, which one can assume refers to the Paris Accord and the climate change scam. Quite the long read.

usmca.chapter.24.environmental.regulations

9. Ch #26: Focus On Competitiveness

Article 26.1: North American Competitiveness Committee
1. Recognizing their unique economic and commercial ties, close proximity, and extensive trade flows across their borders, the Parties affirm their shared interest in strengthening regional economic growth, prosperity, and competitiveness.

2. With a view to promoting further economic integration among the Parties and enhancing the competitiveness of North American exports, the Parties hereby establish a North American Competitiveness Committee (Competitiveness Committee), composed of government representatives of each Party.

3. Each Party shall designate a contact point for the Competitiveness Committee, notify the other Parties of the contact point, and promptly notify the other Parties of any subsequent changes. Recognizing the need for a comprehensive and coordinated approach to enhance North American competitiveness, each Party’s contact point shall coordinate with its relevant government departments and agencies.

usmca.chapter.26.competitiveness.committee

There is to be a committee to enhance competitiveness. In practice, it means a committee devoted to goods and services at the lowest possible cost. Certainly this group will ensure that countries aren’t able to enact any protectionist policies to aid their own people.

10. Ch #27: Anticorruption Measures

6. In order to prevent corruption, each Party shall adopt or maintain measures as may be necessary in accordance with its laws and regulations, regarding the maintenance of books and records, financial statement disclosures, and accounting and auditing standards, to prohibit the following acts carried out for the purpose of committing the offenses described in paragraph 1:
.
(a) the establishment of off-the-books accounts;
(b) the making of off-the-books or inadequately identified transactions;
(c) the recording of non-existent expenditure;
(d) the entry of liabilities with incorrect identification of their objects;
(e) the use of false documents; and
(f) the intentional destruction of bookkeeping documents earlier than foreseen by the law.

usmca.chapter.27.corruption

While these certainly are good things to prohibit, it’s unclear why this is being put into a trade agreement. It’s also ambiguous how there would be any real enforcement of such clauses.

11. USMCA A New Level Of Globalism

USMCA is touted as NAFTA 2.0, or the New NAFTA. However, much of its contents have nothing to do with trade, but enforcing other areas of society.

Chapter 2 (and elsewhere), make local protection impossible
Chapter 14 focuses on “investments”, which is extremely broad
Chapter 16 makes it easier to being people across the borders for work purposes. Touted as temporary, but we all know this isn’t the case
Chapter 17 allows for an unlimited number of workers
Chapter 19 restricts free speech protections online
Chapter 20 is uniform intellectual property laws
Chapter 22 undermines government agencies and organization
Chapter 23 forces compliance with ILO social justice agenda
Chapter 24 brings back all the environmental agendas
Chapter 26 focuses on competitiveness (lowest cost) over protectionism
Chapter 27 focuses on corruption.

Of course this is not all of USMCA’s content, but the more important parts. Canada, the U.S. and Mexico are signing away large parts of their (remaining) autonomy with this deal.

CLICK HERE, for USMCA on US Trade/Commerce site.
CLICK HERE, for ILO labour standards.
CLICK HERE, for SDGs that ILO is partnered with.

usmca.chapter.02.national.treatment
usmca.chapter.14.investments
usmca.chapter.16.temporary.entry
usmca.chapter.17.financial.services
usmca.chapter.20.intellectual.property
usmca.chapter.22.state.owned.enterprises
usmca.chapter.23.labour
usmca.chapter.24.environmental.regulations
usmca.chapter.26.competitiveness.committee
usmca.chapter.27.corruption

cpc.policy.declaration

Posted on

The Vaccine Confidence Project, And “Vaccine Hesitancy”

Refusing to inject yourself (and family) with chemicals created by outsiders is apparently just a relationship problem. Nothing to do with what is actually in them, or the history of destroyed lives.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/
(2) http://archive.is/szSHr
(3) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/partners-funders
(4) http://archive.is/Ah9Pw
(5) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/vcp-mission
(6) http://archive.is/saio2
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5088&regId=892445&blnk=1
(8) http://archive.is/xxQJe
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=3653&regId=895048&blnk=1
(10) http://archive.is/AYdhO
(11) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=12241&regId=880634&blnk=1
(12) http://archive.is/GH1Cy
(13) https://twitter.com/vaccine_trust

3. Context For This Article

The topic of vaccine hesitancy was introduced in Part 8 of the coronavirus series. Now will explore a more organized group, which is the Vaccine Confidence Project. As the name implies, the group is researching in ways to make vaccines an easier sell to the public.

Note: They are not researching ways to MAKE vaccines more safe. Instead they are researching ways to CONVINCE people that they are safe. The goals are really quite different.

Also worth noting that several of the groups funding this project also have lobbying and financial ties to the Canadian Government. The conflicts on interest here cannot be downplayed.

In the next section the VCP group states — in their own words — what the goals of the program are. Just know that this project is being funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and other vested interests.

Also worth pointing out: this project is not just an isolated case. There are many, MANY more groups conducting research into vaccine hesitancy. Consider this as glorified market research.

4. What Is Vaccine Confidence Project?

Vaccine confidence concerns the belief that vaccination – and by extension the providers and range of private sector and political entities behind it – serves the best health interests of the public and its constituents. The Oxford English Dictionary defines confidence as “the mental attitude of trusting in or relying on a person or thing”. In light of that, we are not examining the well-studied domain of supply and access barriers to vaccination, but rather what is typically called the “demand” side of immunisation. However, our focus on confidence takes the “demand” rubric a step further than the more traditional notion of building demand through increasing knowledge and awareness of vaccines and immunisation to understanding what else drives confidence in vaccines, and the willingness to accept a vaccine, when supply, access and information are available. In other words, understanding vaccine confidence means understanding the more difficult belief-based, emotional, ideological and contextual factors whose influences often live outside an immunisation or even health programme but affect both confidence in and acceptance of vaccines.

The purpose of the project is to monitor public confidence in immunisation programmes by building an information surveillance system for early detection of public concerns around vaccines; by applying a diagnostic tool to data collected to determine the risk level of public concerns in terms of their potential to disrupt vaccine programmes; and, finally, to provide analysis and guidance for early response and engagement with the public to ensure sustained confidence in vaccines and immunisation. This initiative also defines a Vaccine Confidence Index™ (VCI) as a tool for mapping confidence globally.

Despite the historic success of immunisation in reducing the burden of childhood illness and death, episodes of public concerns and rumours around vaccines have occurred around the world, spreading quickly and sometimes seriously eroding public confidence in immunisation and ultimately leading to vaccine refusals and disease outbreaks.

This project seeks to address these unmet needs and monitor public confidence in immunisation programs by listening for early signals of public distrust and questioning and providing risk analysis and guidance to engage the public early and pre-empting potential programme disruptions.

In their own website, CVP describes their work as “information surveillance for early detection of public concerns”. In other words, the focus isn’t on creating safe and effective vaccines, but rather on convincing people that they are. The techniques involve amount to little more than emotional and psychological manipulation.

5. Partners/Funders Of Vaxx Confidence

Funders of Vaccine Confidence Project

  • European Commission
  • European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)
  • Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Merck
  • University College London

Partners of the Vaccine Confidence Project

  • Brighton Collaboration
  • Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)
  • Chatham House
  • European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
  • European Commission
  • European Medicines Agency
  • Gallup International
  • Imperial College London
  • International Pediatric Association
  • International Vaccine Institute
  • LVCT Kenya
  • National University of Singapore
  • ProMED
  • Public Health England (PHE)
  • Public Health Foundation of India
  • Sabin Vaccine Institute
  • World Health Organization (WHO)

Yes, we have spent considerable time recently in this registry. This is the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner. Keep in mind, this only applies to people/groups who are lobbying at the Federal level. It doesn’t cover Provincial or Municipal influence peddling.

According to registry records, Yoo-Seok Hong, President of GlaxoSmithKline, has lobbied the Federal Government 187 times since becoming registered in 1996. GSK is listed as a funder of the Vaccine Confidence Project.

Looking at the same registry, Merck Canada is listed as having lobbied the Federal Government 103 times since they became registered in 2001.

This was addressed in Part 2 of the series, but worth bringing up again. VIDO-InterVac has partnered with the International Vaccine Institute. The IVI is based in South Korea, and gets funding from the Gates Foundation and the United Nations. VIDO-InterVac and IVI have their partnership working with the University of Saskatchewan.

This was covered in Part 13 of the series, but repeated here. Theresa Tam sits on the Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee for the WHO Health Emergencies Programme. In other words, she sits on a World Health Organization Board at the same time she is the Chief of Public Health in Canada. Her colleague, Geeta Rao Gupta, previously worked for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In fact, after the United States, the Gates Foundation is the largest contributor to the World Health Organization.


efpia-health-collaboration-guide_2019_final

The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations lists many partner organizations, several of whom have lobbied governments in Canada.

This was previously covered in Part 4 and Part 5 in the coronavirus series. GAVI, the Global Vaccine Allience (funded largely by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), lobbied the Federal Government 20 times between 2018 and 2020.

Additionally, the Center for Disease Control (CDC), located in the United States, is heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It greatly influences their decision making.

To repeat from before: this project has nothing to do with MAKING vaccinations safe or effective. Instead, the effort is to CONVINCE people that vaccines are safe and effective. This has nothing to do with conducting any sort of medical research whatsoever.

6. VCP’s Twitter Page

To begin with, the account was only created in February 2020, and has an extremely low following. But let’s take a look and see who they are connected to on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/VaxPsychStrath
https://twitter.com/trevormundel
https://twitter.com/IFPMA
https://twitter.com/voice_evidence

This is just a few of them. However, there is nothing to see here, and we should all just move along.

7. Tricks To Beat “Vaccine Hesitancy”

The World Health Organization has done considerable research on the subject of “vaccine hesitancy”. This of course is the natural reaction of people to be reluctant to put needles of unknown substances into their bodies.

Improving vaccination demand and addressing hesitancy
Increasing and maintaining vaccination uptake is vital for vaccines to achieve their success. Addressing low vaccination requires an adequate understanding of the determinants of the problem, tailored evidence-based strategies to improve uptake, and monitoring and evaluation to determine the impact and sustainability of the interventions.

Hesitancy in relation to vaccination may affect motivation, causing people to reject it for themselves or their children. Hesitancy can be caused by individual, group, and contextual influences, as well as any vaccine-specific issues.

Given the potential for hesitancy to rapidly undermine vaccination coverage in specific settings, it is important that all countries take steps to understand both the extent and nature of hesitancy at a local level, on a continuing basis. Accordingly, each country should develop a strategy to increase acceptance and demand for vaccination, which should include ongoing community engagement and trust-building, active hesitancy prevention, regular national assessments of concerns, and crisis response planning

It’s fair to take from this, that the efforts to understand hesitancy do not at all seem rooted in any altruistic motivation. Rather, they seem designed to form the basis to manipulate and otherwise persuade people into taking something that could be extremely harmful to them.

Meeting participants, from left to right: Kerrie Wiley, Neetu Abad, Gilla Shapiro, Alina Lack, Wenfeng Gong, Nick Sevdalis, Julie Leask, Monica Jain, Gustavo Correa, Noel Brewer, Saad Omer, Cornelia Betsch, Charles Wiysonge, Gillian SteelFisher, Lisa Menning, Eve Dubé

In May 2019, a group of people got together to come up with ways to make mass vaccination an easier sell to the public. Read the report and decide whether this is harmless enough.

The World Health Organization has released several other papers and research findings into vaccine hesitancy. Either they are moronic, or they truly think that what they are doing is for the best of humanity.
hesitancy.research
hesitancy.research.02
hesitancy.research.strategies.for.addressing
hesitancy.conclusions.for.addressing

In addition to the above research, there are questionnaires that are available. Asking and probing for certain types of information will give the illusion that you are concerned with the person’s well being.

hesitancy.survey.questionnaires

In January 2015, this paper was released, giving insight into the various reasons people are likely to avoid taking vaccines. It also provided helpful information to convincing the subject that it was still in their best interest.

hesitancy.recommendations.to.correct

There is of course more research available on the subject. But the point is that it has been extensively studied. A cynic might wonder if the WHO spends more effort researching ways to pitch vaccines to the public than they do researching to see if they are actually safe.

8. Programs Operate In Canada

Several such programs are already in operation in Canada, and are funded. Yes, Canada already has programs to combat “vaccine hesitancy”.

9. Tip Of The Iceberg

This article just scratches the surface of what is out there. Do a simple search, or go on YouTube and look up videos under the heading “vaccine hesitancy”. It is shocking the number of hits that will come up.

Why is there so much research being done on overcoming “vaccine hesitancy”? Quite simply, it is economics. Vaccines that are used globally are worth a lot of money. Therefore, considerable money and resources must be spent in convincing potential customers that it is a worthwhile product. Think of it as a glorified marketing strategy.

In the various videos, you may notice that the marketers never address the legitimate concerns people have about the safety of vaccines. Rather, they are going through the motions of “appearing to address” the concerns. Not the same thing.

Understand that this is little more than psychological manipulation in order to push an agenda. The well being of the people involved is a secondary concern — if it is one at all.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress