Canada’s Bill C-76 (Vouch Voting, No I.D. Necessary)

(Voting is critical to a democracy, but there must be safeguards)

***********************************************************************
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
***********************************************************************

Bill C-76 is now getting its third reading in the House of Commons in Ottawa.

For some additional reading and context, this article covers citizenship and criminality for voting, while this article covers voter ID laws. They cover Canada/US/UK/Australia/New Zealand.

Cased in this omnibus bill, C-76 (which Liberals claim they hated while in opposition), is this, which waters down the requirements to vote legally in a Canadian election. From the summary:

The enactment also amends the Act to modernize voting services, facilitate enforcement and improve various aspects of the administration of elections and of political financing. Among other things that it does in this regard, the enactment….

(d) authorizes the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with information about permanent residents and foreign nationals for the purpose of updating the Register of Electors;

(e) removes the prohibition on the Chief Electoral Officer authorizing the notice of confirmation of registration (commonly known as a “voter information card”) as identification;

(f) replaces, in the context of voter identification, the option of attestation for residence with an option of vouching for identity and residence;

(g) removes the requirement for electors’ signatures during advance polls, changes procedures for the closing of advance polls and allows for counting ballots from advance polls one hour before the regular polls close;

(h) replaces the right or obligation to take an oath with a right or obligation to make a solemn declaration, and streamlines the various declarations that electors may have the right or obligation to make under specific circumstances;

Yes, this is what is seems. (e) allows for Voter ID cards to be used as actual ID; (f) without ID, you can just sign an attestation or have somebody vouch for you; (g) means no signatures necessary in advance polling; (h) No oath needed after all?!

Rebutting those claims:
Leftist and social justice types claim that having strict voter ID laws is discrimination, as it makes it harder for poor people, and disadvantaged groups to get their voices heard. These disadvantaged people don’t often have proper ID or paperwork. They also claim that there is no evidence of “voter fraud”, despite what more right leaning people claim. However, these assertions are easily debunked.

(1) How is it discrimination to ensure that everyone voting has photo identification. There is no discrimination for the simple reason that everyone gets treated the same.

(2) Everyone who is a citizen of Canada or a legal resident has some sort of paper trail. They have a birth certificate (if born in Canada), or a citizenship card (if immigrated legally). However, if someone in the country illegally was trying to vote, then they wouldn’t have “documentation”.

(3) Everyone legally in the country is able to get photo ID, and to imply they are unable to is condescending. This seems like a ruse to make it easier for non-citizens to vote.

(4) There is the rebuttal that there are no documented cases of voter fraud. However, if the person is “undocumented”, then there would be no documentation of fraud. Bizarrely, lefties are actually correct about this.

(5) If, as they claim, large groups are unable to get valid photo identification for years on end, should they really be making decisions on the future of the country?

Now, for some of the revisions in the bill:

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

ORIGINAL

Alternative proof of residence

143(3) An elector who proves his or her identity by providing two pieces of identification of a type authorized under subsection (2.1) that establish the elector’s name may instead prove his or her residence by taking an oath in writing in the prescribed form — the form including the statement that he or she has received the oral advice set out in subsection 143.1(1) — if he or she is accompanied by another elector whose name appears on the list of electors for the same polling division who

(a) proves their own identity and residence to the deputy returning officer and poll clerk by providing the piece or pieces of identification referred to in paragraph (2)(a) or (b), respectively; and

(b) attests to the elector’s residence on oath in writing in the prescribed form, the form including the statements that

(i) they have received the oral advice set out in subsection 143.1(2),
(ii) they know the elector personally,
(iii) they know that the elector resides in the polling division,
(iv) they have not attested to the residence of another elector at the election, and
(v) their own residence has not been attested to by another elector at the election.

REPLACEMENT

Subsection 143(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Solemn declaration

(3) An elector may instead prove his or her identity and residence by making the solemn declaration referred to in subsection 549.‍1(1) in writing if he or she is accompanied by another elector whose name appears on the list of electors for the same polling station and who

(a) provides the election officer referred to in subsection (1) with the piece or pieces of identification referred to in paragraph (2)‍(a) or (b), respectively; and
(b) vouches for the elector by making the solemn declaration referred to in subsection 549.‍1(2) in writing.

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

ORIGINAL

Name and address corresponding closely to another
146 If a name and address in the list of electors correspond so closely with the name and address of a person who demands a ballot as to suggest that it is intended to refer to that person, the person shall not be allowed to vote unless he or she takes the prescribed oath.

Person in whose name another has voted
147 If a person asks for a ballot at a polling station after someone else has voted under that person’s name, the person shall not be allowed to vote unless he or she takes an oath in writing in the prescribed form. The form is to state the penalty that may be imposed under this Act on a person who is found guilty of requesting a second ballot at an election contrary to section 7 or of applying for a ballot in a name that is not his or her own contrary to paragraph 167(1)(a).

Name crossed off list in error
148 If an elector claims that his or her name has been crossed off in error from an official list of electors under subsection 176(2) or (3), the elector shall not be allowed to vote unless the returning officer verifies that the elector’s name was crossed off in error or the elector takes the oath referred to in section 147 in writing.

Failure to prove identity or residence
148.1 (1) An elector who fails to prove his or her identity and residence in accordance with section 143 or to take an oath otherwise required by this Act shall not receive a ballot or be allowed to vote

REPLACEMENT

Sections 146 to 148.‍1 of the Act are replaced by the following:

Name and address corresponding closely to another

146 If the name and address of a person who asks for a ballot do not appear in the list of electors but a different name and address in that list correspond so closely as to suggest that they are intended to refer to that person, the person shall not be allowed to vote unless he or she makes a solemn declaration in the prescribed form.

Person in whose name another has voted

147 (1) If a person asks for a ballot at a polling station after someone else has voted under that person’s name, the person shall not be allowed to vote unless he or she makes the solemn declaration referred to in subsection 549.‍1(1) in writing.

Requirement before making solemn declaration

(2) An election officer shall, before the person makes the solemn declaration, advise the person in writing of the penalty that may be imposed under this Act on a person who is found guilty of voting or attempting to vote more than once contrary to section 281.‍5 or of requesting or applying for a ballot or special ballot in a name that is not his or her own contrary to paragraph 281.‍7(1)‍(a).

Name crossed off list in error

148 If an elector claims that his or her name has been crossed off in error from an official list of electors under subsection 176(2) or (3), the elector shall not be allowed to vote unless the returning officer verifies that the elector’s name was crossed off in error or the elector makes the solemn declaration referred to in subsection 549.‍1(1) in writing.

Failure to prove identity or residence

148.‍1 (1) An elector who fails to prove his or her identity and residence in accordance with section 143 or to make a solemn declaration otherwise required by this Act shall not receive a ballot or be allowed to vote.

When elector refuses to make solemn declaration

(2) If an elector refuses to make a solemn declaration on the ground that he or she is not required to do so under this Act, the elector may appeal to the returning officer. If, after consultation with the election officer in whose opinion the elector is required to make the solemn declaration, the returning officer decides that the elector is not required to make it, and if the elector is entitled to vote in the polling division, the returning officer shall direct that he or she be allowed to do so.

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

The bill goes on and on. Rather than go through the entire document, here is the takeaway:

The federal government, under the guise of “inclusivity” is watering down the requirements to vote. Demanding photo ID is a necessary step to ensure: (1) that the people voting are who they say they are; (2) that they have the right to vote in an election; (3) that they are not voting multiple times.

This requirement is not excessive, or an unreasonable thing to ask. However, it is an essential step in ensuring the fairness and accuracy of our elections.

Lawsuit Against Harvard for Racial Quotas Continues

(Harvard University, one of the most well known U.S. schools)


The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE


A lawsuit continues today against Harvard University filed by several Asian students. They allege that Harvard has “racial quotas” to fill, and that Asian students, despite on average having higher academic accomplishment, are not getting offers of admission at the rates they should.

The suit alleges that only about 20% of offers of admission — in continuous years — go to Asian students, even though their population is applying in even higher proportional rates, and that they are on average more accomplished.

Let’s make an important distinction of equality.
(1) Equality of opportunity: Everyone is treated the same. Everyone has the same chances to rise or fall based on their own actions. This creates a merit based society, as is explained here.
(2) Equality of outcome: Different rules are used to ensure certain results are obtained. If 50% of the general population are women, then 50% of the group will be women. If 35%, 25%, and 10% percent of the population are races A, B, C, then the racial makeup of the group will be 35%, 25%, and 10%. This completely undermines a meritocracy, as double standards will almost always have to be used.

The Washington Post linked a transcript in one of its articles. It is worth a read. Although that is appreciated, there were a few commenters in the article that merit listing.

There was Sarah F. Cole, and African American who graduated in 2016, who said: “Race-blind admissions is an act of erasure. To not see my race is to not see me.”

and this one ….

“Tang Diep, a Vietnamese immigrant who is currently a senior, said: “I personally, really believe that I benefited from affirmative action. Like in allowing the admissions process to take into account my race and ethnicity, it allows my immigration history to be taken into account. It allows my own experiences of overcoming the — my racial identity when I was younger and understanding that to really be portrayed….

That is right. These people are actually defending race-based discrimination. Rather, they seem to completely miss the point, while this man didn’t. Disregarding a person’s race for college admissions or job offers is not “erasing” them. Rather, it is treating them equally and fairly.

The EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the 14th Amendment reads as follows:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The U.S. Supreme Court has already made some rulings on the issue of affirmative action. For example:

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) ruled that affirmative action was legal, but that setting aside a certain number of spots for a specific group was illegal. Actually, this seems to be what Harvard was (allegedy) doing.

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) ruled that the University of Michigan Law School could have affirmative action in order to bolster underrepresented groups, but like with Bakke, specific quotas could not be set.

The Supreme Court has ruled that affirmative action was okay within the parameters of merit, in essence. So equality of outcome is okay, as long as it is done within equality of opportunity. Oh, the mental gymnastics of the Supreme Court Justices.

Race and IQ has long been a contentious topic for debate. So has the topic of race and academic accomplishment. Here is one such finding. And a quick online search will find many studies done which contrast IQ and race.

One development worth watching is the U.S. President Donald Trump is encouraging colleges to stop the practice of affirmative action, and to steer more towards a racially-blind admissions process.

Of course, there is a Canadian perspective of the issue to be shown here. (This is CanuckLaw after all). Affirmative Action is directly mentioned in Section 15(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

>Equality Rights
Marginal note:
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Marginal note:
Affirmative action programs
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

In fact, there is an inherent contradiction within the Canadian Charter itself. 15(1) promotes equality of opportunity, while 15(2) promotes equality of outcome.

Canadian National Railway Co.v. Canada (Human Rights Comm.) and Action travail des femmes (1987), 8 C.H.R.R. D/4210 (S.C.C.) was one such case in Canada, where the Canadian National Railway was ordered to have 1 of every 4 new hires to be women. The Supreme Court of Canada noted that 0.7% were female, and enforced the original Human Rights Tribunal order.

The fact that women were, on average, much less inclined to seek heavy manual labour was irrelevant. The vast discrepancy “had” to be because of systemic bias.

In summary, affirmative action (whether it is racial, gender, or otherwise) should not be a part of society. In a “merit-based” society, people succeed on their positive merits: education, experience, attitude, work ethic, qualifications, etc…. Further, people should fail based on negative traits: lack of experience, lack of education, poor attitude, etc….

As was outlined earlier in the article, there is a huge difference between (1) Equality of Opportunity; and of (2) Equality of Outcome. The former promotes the idea that hard work drives success, while the latter argues all of that should be negated in favour of a “politically correct” group that reflects the general population. These 2 ideas cannot co-exist, as they are contrary to each other.

It will be interesting to see how the U.S. case plays out. The U.S. Supreme Court has (for now) been willing to allow affirmative action to take place in higher education, provided no specific quotas were used. This appears to violate that exception, but we will have to see.

Final thought: A workforce or a college class should comprise a group that works hard. It should not look like a random sample of society …. just because it’s 2015, or some such nonsense.

ECHR Upholds Islamic Blasphemy Law in Austria

(From the European Court of Human Rights press release)

***********************************************************************
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
***********************************************************************

An Austrian woman had her appeal rejected and will have to pay 480 Euros for truthful comments she made at 2 seminars calling Muhammad a paedophile for marrying a 6 year old girl.

An interesting side note, as exampled in the video, Islam is not a race, and hence criticism of it is not ”racism”. That claim is often used to derail legitimate debate.

For some context, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is a European-based court in France where people can contest judgements if they claim human rights have been violated. This court will consider cases after other legal remedies have been exhausted in the home country.

Conviction for calling Muhammad a paedophile is not in breach of Article 10
In today’s Chamber judgment1

in the case of E.S. v. Austria (application no. 38450/12) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned the applicant’s conviction for disparaging religious doctrines; she had made
statements suggesting that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies.

The Court found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context
of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the
right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving
religious peace in Austria. It held that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the
permissible limits of an objective debate, and by classifying them as an abusive attack on the
Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace, the domestic courts put
forward relevant and sufficient reasons.

That was the summary of the case, The press release goes on to list the facts:

Principal facts

The applicant, E.S., is an Austrian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Vienna (Austria). In October and November 2009, Mrs S. held two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam”, in which she discussed the marriage between the Prophet Muhammad and a six-year old girl, Aisha, which allegedly was consummated when she was nine. Inter alia, the applicant stated that Muhammad “liked to do it with children” and “… A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”.

On 15 February 2011 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies, and convicted Mrs S. for disparaging religious doctrines. She was ordered to pay a fine of 480 euros and the costs of the proceedings. Mrs S. appealed but the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming in essence the lower court’s findings.

The facts were not really in question, just the findings

Decision of the Court
Article 10

The Court noted that those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion under Article 9 of the Convention could not expect to be exempt from criticism. They must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs. Only where expressions under Article 10 went beyond the limits of a critical denial, and certainly where they were likely to incite religious intolerance, might a State legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures.

The Court observed also that the subject matter of the instant case was of a particularly sensitive nature, and that the (potential) effects of the impugned statements, to a certain degree, depended on the situation in the respective country where the statements were made, at the time and in the context they were made. Accordingly, it considered that the domestic authorities had a wide margin of appreciation in the instant case, as they were in a better position to evaluate which statements were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country.

……….

The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the domestic courts carefully balanced the applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings
protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society.

3
The Court held further that even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the
Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression.

The ECHR press release pretty much sums it up in 2 statements

(1) Criticising Islam can lead to religious unrest

(2) Protecting religious feelings (of Muslims) trumps free speech

Actually, the ruling and press release could be taken as a good sign that some religions simply do not belong in a Western country. If mere criticism can result in ”religious violence” then it is obviously incompatible.

The ECHR excused the practice, saying that it should be considered that child marriages were historically a reality. But switch that around. That historical reality would be considered paedophilia under today’s laws. So the statement is factually correct.

But before sounding too smug, the Liberal Party of Canada passed a non-binding motion (M-103) which


a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could

(i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making,

(ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Notice that Islam is the only religion mentioned in the motion. It should also be noted that the Liberals rejected an alternative motion that would passed the same intent, but with no mention to any specific religion.

No other religious group in the western world acts this way, or has to have certain laws passed to appease it.

Religion and Government should remain 2 separate entities. However, that becomes next to impossible when importing a culture that believes religious law should govern civil law. Another example of multiculturalism not working at all. This nonsense needs to stop.

Destroying National Borders — The U.N. Global Compact for Migration

(Canadian YouTuber, Rants Derek, summarizes the danger here. If you’re reading this Derek, you rock)

***********************************************************************
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
***********************************************************************

This agreement, though it sounds harmless enough, should send chills down the spine of anyone who values having a nation, and a national identity.

For some perspective, the European Union, (E.U.) decided to impose migrant quotas on memberstates, with or without their consent. Last September, the European Court of Justice rejected challenges brought by Hungary and Slovakia. Poland and now Hungarynow face the loss of voting rights. The E.U. will punish member states who dare to act in accordance with their constituents’ wishes

Victor Oraban of Hungary has become a de facto leader of defending nation’s rights in Europe. See here, see here, and see here.

For those of you interested in the topic of nationalism, Steve Turley is a YouTuber and conservative author I frequently watch, and here is a review of one of his latest books. Check him out.

As for the UN Global Compact on Migration, it would in essence be the global version of what the E.U. is already doing to Europe. Member states are having their arms twisted and threatened with loss of voting rights and other sanctions for not complying.

Derek is correct, that it is in the hundreds of millions.

Today, there are over 258 million migrants around the world living outside their country of birth. This figure is expected to grow for a number of reasons including population growth, increasing connectivity, trade, rising inequality, demographic imbalances and climate change. Migration provides immense opportunity and benefits – for the migrants, host communities and communities of origin. However, when poorly regulated it can create significant challenges. These challenges include overwhelming social infrastructures with the unexpected arrival of large numbers of people and the deaths of migrants undertaking dangerous journeys.

The full text of the agreement is about 34 pages. It lists 16 ”preambles”, and a further 23 ”objectives”. Here are a few:

4. Refugees and migrants are entitled to the same universal human rights and fundamental freedoms, which must be respected, protected and fulfilled at all times. However, migrants and refugees are distinct groups governed by separate legal frameworks. Only refugees are entitled to the specific international protection as defined by international refugee law. This Global Compact refers to migrants and presents a cooperative framework addressing migration in all its dimensions.

On the surface this sounds harmless enough. But remember, Trudeau (with Conservative support) is for letting people stay in the country, even if they sneak in under false pretenses. Remember, you get a hearing as long as you ”claim” to be a refugee.

7. This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, cooperative framework that builds on thencommitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and
Migrants. It fosters international cooperation among all relevant actors on migration, acknowledging that no State can address migration alone, and upholds the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law.

At least on paper, this is an improvement over the E.U. migrant quota scheme (which punishes dissent). However, we will see how ”voluntary” it really is.

Shared Responsibilities
11. This Global Compact offers a 360-degree vision of international migration and recognizes that
a comprehensive approach is needed to optimize the overall benefits of migration, while addressing risks and challenges for individuals and communities in countries of origin, transit and destination. No country can address the challenges and opportunities of this global phenomenon on its own. With this comprehensive approach, we aim to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration, while reducing the incidence and negative impact of irregular migration through international cooperation and a combination of measures put forward in this GlobalCompact.

The UN document is using the same dishonest language of ”irregular migrants”. They are illegal immigrants, and border hoppers. I also don’t like when it says that no country can address the problem on its own.

National sovereignty: The Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction, in conformity with international law. Within their sovereign jurisdiction, States may distinguish between regular and irregular migration status, including as they determine their legislative and policy measures for the implementation of the Global Compact, taking into account different national realities, policies, priorities and requirements for entry, residence and work, in accordance with international law.

Again, referring to ”illegal aliens” as ”irregular migrants”. This manipulation of language is infuriating. Reiterating that this is voluntary, but it will be interesting to see how much pressure is applied later.

OBJECTIVE 1: Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence based policies

17. We commit to strengthen the global evidence base on international migration by improving and investing in the collection, analysis and dissemination of accurate, reliable, comparable data, disaggregated by sex, age, migration status and other characteristics relevant in national contexts, while upholding the right to privacy under international human rights law and protecting personal data.

This sounds creepy and Orwellian. Will nations be forced to give up personal data to international agencies? See the last article here.

OBJECTIVE 4: Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate
documentation

20. We commit to fulfil the right of all individuals to a legal identity by providing all our nationals with proof of nationality and relevant documentation, allowing national and local authorities to ascertain a migrant’s legal identity upon entry, during stay, and for return, as well as to ensure effective migration procedures, efficient service provision, and improved public safety. We further commit to ensure, through appropriate measures, that migrants are issued adequate documentation and civil registry documents, such as birth, marriage and death certificates, at all stages of migration, as a means to empower migrants to effectively exercise their human rights.

The wording of this is troubling. How exactly will the UN help people gain identification? Will they take them at their word? Also, does this document refer to migration as a human right?

OBJECTIVE 11: Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner

27. We commit to manage our national borders in a coordinated manner, promoting bilateral and regional cooperation, ensuring security for States, communities and migrants, and facilitating safe and regular cross-border movements of people while preventing irregular migration. We further commit to implementborder management policies that respect national sovereignty, the rule of law, obligations under international law, human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status, and are non-discriminatory, gender-responsive and child-sensitive.

Arguably the worst of them all. ”Manage borders in an integrated manner”? This would destroy national sovereignty.

Okay, here is the full list of the 23 objectives:


Objectives for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration
(1) Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence-based policies
(2) Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin
(3) Provide accurate and timely information at all stages of migration
(4) Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation
(5) Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
(6) Facilitate fair and ethical recruitment and safeguard conditions that ensure decent work
(7) Address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration
(8) Save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants
(9) Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants
(10) Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration
(11) Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner
(12) Strengthen certainty and predictability in migration procedures for appropriate screening, assessment and referral
(13) Use migration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
(14) Enhance consular protection, assistance and cooperation throughout the migration cycle
(15) Provide access to basic services for migrants
(16) Empower migrants and societies to realize full inclusion and social cohesion
(17) Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to
shape perceptions of migration
(18) Invest in skills development and facilitate mutual recognition of skills, qualifications and
competences
(19) Create conditions for migrants and diasporas to fully contribute to sustainable development in all countries
(20) Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants
(21) Cooperate in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as sustainable reintegration
(22) Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits
(23) Strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships for safe, orderly and regular migration

This global compact will undermine if not destroy what it means to be a nation.

If Canada (or any other nation) has to coordinate or integrate its border policies with the United Nations, then we don’t have borders.

Further, while under the pretense of ”helping refugees” the UN seems to want to have a say in how national migration policies IN GENERAL are handled.

Side Note: See here for a piece on ID requirements to vote in some Common Law countries. Derek mentioned vouching for potential voters. It is true.

Overall, the UN Global Compact for Migration is a frightening agreement. Anyone who values the sovereignty and independence of their country should be aware of, and opposed to this.

Statistics Canada Wants Banks to Hand Over Customer Data

(An Orwellian scheme is being devised here)

***********************************************************************
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
***********************************************************************

If true, this story is disturbing. Statistics Canada wants to collect the banking data from 500,000 Canadians each year.

Statistics Canada claims it wants: “to start collecting, on a limited basis, financial transactions data from banks, as well as other organizations that may process financial transactions data.

Section 13 of the Statistics Act reads as follows:

Access to records

13 A person having the custody or charge of any documents or records that are maintained in any department or in any municipal office, corporation, business or organization, from which information sought in respect of the objects of this Act can be obtained or that would aid in the completion or correction of that information, shall grant access thereto for those purposes to a person authorized by the Chief Statistician to obtain that information or aid in the completion or correction of that information.
R.S., 1985, c. S-19, s. 13;

So, “anyone” with “any” records of “any” sort MUST disclose them if Statistics Canada believes the information can be used for statistical purposes. That is what the law says.

Furthermore, the Canadian Privacy Act is really no help here. It claims data collection is okay, as long as it relates to its purpose.

Collection, Retention and Disposal of Personal Information
Marginal note:

Collection of personal information

4 No personal information shall be collected by a government institution unless it relates directly to an operating program or activity of the institution.

While this seems — at least on paper — to be legal, one could easily argue that neither the Statistics Act nor the Privacy Act were ever designed for this

The transaction data would include:
(a) Description of the transaction
(b) Date and Time
(c) Location
(d) Value of the transactions

The transactions would be linked to a customer by way of:
(I) Name
(II) Social Insurance Number
(III) Date of Birth
(IV) Gender
(V) Address

Spokesman James Tabreke claims that obtaining all the personal identifiers is necessary in order to “gain a snapshot” of certain types of customers. He says that StatsCan is not interested in anyone in particular, but just using the information to observe trends.

Even if this were true, the idea of banks handing over such information “without the customers’ knowledge or consent” is quite chilling indeed.

The math provided by the Global article is confusing.

First, supposedly, 500,000 people’s data is to be taken. It states the odds of being chosen are 1 in 20. That would only be true if there were 10 million people in Canada. There are 36-37 million at this point. Teenagers and adolescents frequently have bank accounts too. So, where does the 1 in 20 chance come from?

Second, if this were being done for statistical purposes, why would 500,000 people need to be selected? Political polling, for example, uses samples between 500 and 2000. A sample of perhaps 10,000 would obtain results accurate to within 1% error.

Third, an omission here: if there were to be 500,000 Canadians each year, would StatsCan be using the data of the same people, and contrasting their behavioural changes, or would it be 500,000 more Canadians?

For media inquiries of the Canadian Banker’s Association:
Aaron Boles
Tel: (416) 362-6093 ext. 350
Cell: (647) 274-8495
Email:aboles@cba.ca

For media inquiries from Statistics Canada:
Media Relations — Media Hotline
613-951-INFO (951-4636)
8:30am to 5:00pm Eastern Time, Monday to Friday, excluding holidays.
E-mail: statcan.mediahotline-ligneinfomedias.statcan@canada.ca

At the time of writing, messages have been left with both institutions.

Tabreke claims that this method of forcing banks to hand over personal data will improve on, and eventually replace the surveys that have traditionally been mailed out. While the honesty is refreshing, it is downright creepy how calm and straightforward he is.

Of course, it leaves out the obvious question — why not get the stores to report their consumer trends? Not customer information, but sales trends. Why go for this invasive tactic?

Yes, that is indeed what he says. Forget voluntary disclosure. We will rummage through your financial life and take the information for ourselves. This is wrong on many levels.

Going cash only or using crypto-currency seem like appealing options at this point.


Followup to the Story

Aaron Boles did return the call quite shortly after this article was published. He stated that the C.B.A. has and will continue to refuse the demand. Although the C.B.A. and banks ”do” comply with most requests from Statistics Canada, this was just too far. Boles stated quite bluntly that banks need to have the trust of their customers, and this would erode it.

The C.B.A. claims that no data sharing proposed here has so far actually taken place. Here is the statement they released to Global Media:

Statement from the Canadian Bankers Association

Protecting the information privacy of their valued customers is a top priority for banks in Canada. Banks believed this proposed data acquisition project was still in the exploratory stages and were not aware that Statistics Canada was moving to compel disclosure of this information. No customer transaction data or other personal information has been transferred to Statistics Canada under this request. The CBA is working with members to understand the nature of this request and next steps.

Further Followup (October 29)
The Liberal government has announced in Parliament that it is okay with the push by Statistics Canada, and claims it is necessary in order to advance government policy. See this video.

My Walkaway Story

(Also referred to as my journey to the dark side….)

A Much Simplified Version

Without going into the specifics, I am part of a group that (at least politically) identifies with the political left. Growing up in a very small town, it seemed suffocating to be limited in the people I can know and the different world out there.

Even as a youngster, I had a lot of curiosity about how things worked (such as law and governance), and spent a lot of time reading.

First, there was a brief ”fling” with the NDP/Socialist Party on the left.  They claimed to be for helping people, and who could be against that?  However, it quickly became obvious that they really did support a welfare state, and that it was not going to work for anybody with a true work ethic. Other than my identity, I could think of no reason to support these people. We have nothing in common

Next was a short interest in the Liberals, starting in 2003.  They identified themselves as ”centrists” or ”moderates”.  It seemed they were a more sensible alternative to the NDP.  But after a while I realized that these were just buzzwords for ”standing for nothing”.  Furthermore, they would frequently shut down critics by fear mongering, calling their opponents ”hateful” or ”divisive”.  See this. Jean Cretien and Paul Martin did this sort of thing repeatedly.  It was revolting to see them embrace divisive identity politics and outright smear jobs.

It struck me how deceitful the Liberals were: claiming ”fear and division” while robbing taxpayers to pay off Quebec. They stroke separatist sentiments while claiming to want to save Canada.

The interest in reading and law had an interesting side effect: it helped me recognise straw-man arguments when people were talking, and to pick up on when they were changing subjects. I would years later stumble across this website.

In 2007, there came a move to Toronto for school and work. This was Canada’s largest, and most ”diverse” city. However, it was a very crude awakening. Despite all the claims of being open and tolerant, Toronto is not. Rather, it is largely divided (Balkanized) along ethnic and cultural lines. Toronto is not a warm city. The downside to ”multiculturalism” is that there is no cohesion between people, and nothing that holds the society together.

While our leaders crow about a diverse society, it is socially forbidden to point it out this fragmentation. People get called a racist or bigot for stating truthful facts.

Toronto is not a ”tolerant” city, but rather an ”indifferent” one. To ask a simple question: would i want to raise a family here? No.

While moving further to the right, the Conservative Party (merged under Stephen Harper in 2003), seemed to be about the only mainstream alternative left.  However, in practice, the Conservatives acted just like Liberals: (a) massive debts; (b) no clear foreign policy; (c) corporate welfare; (d) payoffs from special interests; (e) bloated government; (f) squashing transparency rather than promoting it; (g) mass immigration; (h) payoffs to UN and climate change groups; etc…   Harper’s populism turned out to be completely fake. It seemed that there was no home for me.

While the Conservatives weren’t gung ho with leftist identity politics, they seemed to go out of their way to avoid addressing difficult issues. Spineless wimps.

Because of a variety of events while in Toronto, (and having little money), it was useful to read up more on law, and certain government procedures. A few class electives in law helped, and they were much cheaper than paying for a lawyer. The interest didn’t wane.

I left Toronto permanently in 2013, and headed west. Since then, I have lived in a few much smaller towns. In each of them, it felt warmer and friendlier than the Toronto days. While at least in principle a conservative, the actual parties seemed morally corrupt, and not to have any core beliefs.

Heading to Toronto was supposed to be an escape from the seemingly small and fairly monolithic societies that were suffocating. Now, more monolithic and cohesive societies offered a nice change from the emptiness of major cities. In short, those 6 years in Toronto resulted in a major backlash from getting what I thought I wanted.

We can have differences within our societies, but unless there is something holding them together, then it will just fragment. Multiculturalism just doesn’t work. From there, a sense of nationalism grew within me. This is not at all a call to racial supremacy, but an acknowledgement that unity is what brings us together. It can be language, culture, religion, traditions, many things….

Tolerance has to have a limit. Here is just one example.

Toronto is just a distant memory now, having been gone over 5 years now.

Over the last year, I have spent much more time online. Much of the nonsense in the news (such as the Lindsay Shepherd case), has driven me to learn more about other people’s points of views and perspectives. There are so many different voices out there.

The website here culminates 2 interests: (a) an interest in law; and (b) an interest in national unity and strength. Knowing our laws is one thing, comparing and contrasting to others is something else.

Perhaps the final wakeup was when Maxime Bernier, in August 2018, tweeted some fairly innocuous comments seen here,
seen here, seen here, and seen here, about where should the limits be towards diversity and multiculturalism. Shouldn’t be we focusing on what we have in common rather than embracing more and more division? Seems reasonable.

Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, rather than embracing an opening of discussion, actually condemned the remarks and threw Bernier under the bus. Most of the caucus then followed suit. It was no surprise to see the NDP and Liberals condemn nuanced discussion, but Scheer is supposed to be a conservative. What a cuck.

Max Bernier soon left the Conservatives, and started his own party. Interestingly, Bernier cited policy differences in leaving, while Scheer claimed it was personal. Further, Bernier posted a full agenda within days on the website. The CPC/Liberals/NDP don’t have any.

Bernier struck a chord with many of his tweets and public appearances in 2018. At least someone seemed willing to address and speak to difficult issues.

Disclaimer: I did join the PPC a few weeks ago, and am interested in seeing this through. Bernier’s new party is an experiment I can support.

That is my walkaway story.

Honourable mentions: In writing this, a few names stick out for me: (i) Steve Turley; (ii) Candace Malcolm; (iii) Tucker Carlson.

South Korea, Japan Ban Citizens From Toking in Canada, U.S. Bans Pot Investors

(South Korean and Japanese citizens will not be allowed to smoke marijuana in Canada, even though it is legal here)

Marijuana, or weed, was legalized in Canada, as of October 17, 2018. Far from the most controversial legislation is has passed since getting elected in 2015. While the substance will for now still be regulated, for all practical purposes it is completely legal. A number of developments from this are happening.

First, is that the Canadian government intends to make it easier to apply for a pardon for those with a pot conviction. This similar to prior moves years ago which pardoned gays and lesbians for consensual sexual acts.

Second, it remains to be seen how the economy will be effected by this legislation. There has been widespread speculation that it will boost economic growth. The details are outside the scope of this article, though more information is coming available.

Third, the United States says it intends to ban those who smoke cannabis, or even those who invest in the product, such as stock or bond holders. While the U.S. does have the right to refuse entry to anyone it wishes, this does raise 2 interesting questions: (a) how would Border Control even find out; (b) does it infringe on citizens doing lawful activity abroad? In later versions of the story, the U.S. is said to be backing off on that proposal — at least for now.

Fourth, and probably the most interesting here is that South Korea has formally declared that any of its citizens who smoke weed may be arrested. This applies even in Canada, where the act itself is legal. South Korean citizens are subjected to its laws regardless of where they are in the world. Japan has done the same, warning citizens that they may be subjected to home laws even while abroad.

As an aside, it would be interesting to know how the officials would ever learn about it. However, people today do brag about just about everything online. Also, given the distance, bringing witnesses for a criminal trial may prove difficult.

Furthermore, could a Korean or Japanese national smoke weed, and then claim asylum here, on grounds that they are being persecuted? This sounds absurd, but not outside the realm of possibility.

The Japanese and South Korea model stand in stark contrast to Canadian, American, and other Western nations, who oblige their citizens to follow the laws of wherever they happen to be at that time.

Fifth, and also worth noting, Russia has condemned the move as hypocritical. The Russian government says that legalization flies in the face of several anti-narcotic treaties, and does and end run around those agreements. Canada was a party to the following:

CLICK HERE, for the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

CLICK HERE, for the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

CLICK HERE, for the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances.

CLICK HERE, for the 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.

Russia has a valid point. The legalization push by the Trudeau government “will” undoubtedly make anti-drug matters more complicated. After all, how committed can Canada be to fighting the marijuana trade considering the substance is legal here?

The October 17 legalization will bring a number of challenges both here and abroad. Too early to say where things will go, but there will almost certainly be a followup article on at least one of these points.

Canada’s Bill C-75 (Watering Down Penalties for Terrorism, Rioting, Weapons)

(The Canadian Criminal Code, which typically gets amended every year)

Criminal offences in Canada are categorized like this

SUMMARY OFFENCE: more minor, lesser penalties (misdemeanor)
INDICTABLE OFFENCE: more serious, harsher penalties (felony)
HYBRID OFFENCE: Prosecutor has discretion as to proceed “summarily” or “by indictment”

For a good video on this subject, Julie Mora posted a video seen here. It had 2 parts: (a) an expanded gun registry, Bill C-71, and (b) changes to the Canadian Criminal Code, Bill C-75. Julie is a fine blogger, and her videos are well worth a watch by all Canadians. She claims in this video that the bill will “hybridize” many serious charges, meaning that they may now be tried summarily. And she is right. Below are the major points.

This is not trivial at all. Terrorism and rioting offence should be treated seriously. Yet, if this bill were actually to pass, the penalties for serious crimes may be gutted. True, for hybrid offences, Prosecutors could still choose to try the case by indictment. However, most people would agree that the option should not exist

Relevant links are below:
CLICK HERE for the Criminal Code as it currently exists.
CLICK HERE for the Liberal Bill C-75.


ORIGINAL

Marginal note:
Punishment of rioter
65 (1) Every one who takes part in a riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Marginal note:
Concealment of identity
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) while wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal their identity without lawful excuse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

REPLACEMENT

Punishment of rioter
65 (1) Every person who takes part in a riot is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Concealment of identity
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) while wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal their identity without lawful excuse is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.


ORIGINAL

Neglect by peace officer
69 A peace officer who receives notice that there is a riot within his jurisdiction and, without reasonable excuse, fails to take all reasonable steps to suppress the riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

REPLACEMENT

Neglect by peace officer
69 A peace officer who receives notice that there is a riot within their jurisdiction and, without reasonable excuse, fails to take all reasonable steps to suppress the riot is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.


ORIGINAL

Possession without lawful excuse
82 (1) Every person who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on the person, makes or has in the possession or under the care or control of the person any explosive substance is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

REPLACEMENT

14 Subsection 82(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Possession of explosive
82 (1) Every person who, without lawful excuse, makes or has in their possession or under their care or control any explosive substance is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.


ORIGINAL

Financing of Terrorism
Marginal note:
Providing or collecting property for certain activities
83.02 Every one who, directly or indirectly, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, provides or collects property intending that it be used or knowing that it will be used, in whole or in part, in order to carry out
(a) an act or omission that constitutes an offence referred to in subparagraphs (a)(i) to (ix) of the definition of terrorist activity in subsection 83.01(1), or
(b) any other act or omission intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to a civilian or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, if the purpose of that act or omission, by its nature or context, is to intimidate the public, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or refrain from doing any act,
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

REPLACEMENT

Providing or collecting property for certain activities
83.‍02 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, directly or indirectly, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, provides or collects property intending that it be used or knowing that it will be used, in whole or in part, in order to carry out
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.


ORIGINAL

Providing, making available, etc., property or services for terrorist purposes
83.03 Every one who, directly or indirectly, collects property, provides or invites a person to provide, or makes available property or financial or other related services
(a) intending that they be used, or knowing that they will be used, in whole or in part, for the purpose of facilitating or carrying out any terrorist activity, or for the purpose of benefiting any person who is facilitating or carrying out such an activity, or
(b) knowing that, in whole or part, they will be used by or will benefit a terrorist group,
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

REPLACEMENT

Providing, making available, etc.‍, property or services for terrorist purposes
83.‍03 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, directly or indirectly, collects property, provides or invites a person to provide, or makes available property or financial or other related services
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.


ORIGINAL

Using or possessing property for terrorist purposes
83.04 Every one who
(a) uses property, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, for the purpose of facilitating or carrying out a terrorist activity, or
(b) possesses property intending that it be used or knowing that it will be used, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, for the purpose of facilitating or carrying out a terrorist activity,
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

REPLACEMENT

Using or possessing property for terrorist purposes

83.‍04 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction


ORIGINAL

Offences — freezing of property, disclosure or audit
83.12 (1) Every one who contravenes any of sections 83.08, 83.1 and 83.11 is guilty of an offence and liable
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both; or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

REPLACEMENT

Paragraphs 83.‍12(1)‍(a) and (b) of the Act are replaced by the following:

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or to both.


ORIGINAL

Participation in activity of terrorist group
83.18 (1) Every one who knowingly participates in or contributes to, directly or indirectly, any activity of a terrorist group for the purpose of enhancing the ability of any terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

REPLACEMENT

Participation in activity of terrorist group
83.‍18 (1) Every person who knowingly participates in or contributes to, directly or indirectly, any activity of a terrorist group for the purpose of enhancing the ability of any terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than10 years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.


ORIGINAL

Leaving Canada to participate in activity of terrorist group
83.181 Everyone who leaves or attempts to leave Canada, or goes or attempts to go on board a conveyance with the intent to leave Canada, for the purpose of committing an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be an offence under subsection 83.18(1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years

REPLACEMENT

21 Section 83.‍181 of the Act is replaced by the following:

Leaving Canada to participate in activity of terrorist group
83.‍181 Every person who leaves or attempts to leave Canada, or goes or attempts to go on board a conveyance with the intent to leave Canada, for the purpose of committing an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be an offence under subsection 83.‍18(1) is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.


ORIGINAL

Advocating or promoting commission of terrorism offences
83.221 (1) Every person who, by communicating statements, knowingly advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism offences in general — other than an offence under this section — while knowing that any of those offences will be committed or being reckless as to whether any of those offences may be committed, as a result of such communication, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.

REPLACEMENT

22 Subsection 83.‍221(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Advocating or promoting commission of terrorism offences
83.‍221 (1) Every person who, by communicating statements, knowingly advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism offences in general — other than an offence under this section — while knowing that any of those offences will be committed or being reckless as to whether any of those offences may be committed, as a result of such communication, is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction


ORIGINAL

Concealing person who carried out terrorist activity
83.23 (1) Everyone who knowingly harbours or conceals any person whom they know to be a person who has carried out a terrorist activity, for the purpose of enabling the person to facilitate or carry out any terrorist activity, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment
(a) for a term of not more than 14 years, if the person who is harboured or concealed carried out a terrorist activity that is a terrorism offence for which that person is liable to imprisonment for life; and
(b) for a term of not more than 10 years, if the person who is harboured or concealed carried out a terrorist activity that is a terrorism offence for which that person is liable to any other punishment.

REPLACEMENT

Concealing person who carried out terrorist activity
83.‍23 (1) Every person who knowingly harbours or conceals another person whom they know to be a person who has carried out a terrorist activity, for the purpose of enabling that other person to facilitate or carry out any terrorist activity, is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years, if the person who is harboured or concealed carried out a terrorist activity that is a terrorism offence for which that person is liable to imprisonment for life; and
(b) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years or an offence punishable on summary conviction, if the person who is harboured or concealed carried out a terrorist activity that is a terrorism offence for which that person is liable to any other punishment.


ORIGINAL

Concealing person who is likely to carry out terrorist activity
(2) Everyone who knowingly harbours or conceals any person whom they know to be a person who is likely to carry out a terrorist activity, for the purpose of enabling the person to facilitate or carry out any terrorist activity, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

REPLACEMENT

Concealing person who is likely to carry out terrorist activity
(2) Every person who knowingly harbours or conceals another person whom they know to be a person who is likely to carry out a terrorist activity, for the purpose of enabling that other person to facilitate or carry out any terrorist activity, is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction


ORIGINAL

Person to be brought before judge
(3) A peace officer who arrests a person in the execution of the warrant shall, without delay, bring the person, or cause them to be brought, before the judge who issued the warrant or another judge of the same court. The judge in question may, to ensure compliance with the order, order that the person be detained in custody or released on recognizance, with or without sureties.

REPLACEMENT

25 Subsection 83.‍29(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Person to be brought before judge
(3) A peace officer who arrests a person in the execution of a warrant shall, without delay, bring the person, or cause the person to be brought, before the judge who issued the warrant or another judge of the same court. The judge in question may, to ensure compliance with the order, order that the person be detained in custody or make a release order, the form of which may be adapted to suit the circumstances

[Note: the new wording is such that is seems intended to make it easier to release suspected terrorists]


ORIGINAL

Possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition

Punishment
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(i) in the case of a first offence, three years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

REPLACEMENT

27 Paragraph 95(2)‍(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


ORIGINAL

Possession of weapon obtained by commission of offence

96 (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition that the person knows was obtained by the commission in Canada of an offence or by an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence.
Marginal note:
Punishment
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

REPLACEMENT

28 Paragraph 96(2)‍(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


As absurd as it sounds, here is the “SUMMARY” of Bill C-75.

SUMMARY

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) modernize and clarify interim release provisions to simplify the forms of release that may be imposed on an accused, incorporate a principle of restraint and require that particular attention be given to the circumstances of Aboriginal accused and accused from vulnerable populations when making interim release decisions, and provide more onerous interim release requirements for offences involving violence against an intimate partner;
(b) provide for a judicial referral hearing to deal with administration of justice offences involving a failure to comply with conditions of release or failure to appear as required;
(c) abolish peremptory challenges of jurors, modify the process of challenging a juror for cause so that a judge makes the determination of whether a ground of challenge is true, and allow a judge to direct that a juror stand by for reasons of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice;
(d) increase the maximum term of imprisonment for repeat offences involving intimate partner violence and provide that abuse of an intimate partner is an aggravating factor on sentencing;
(e) restrict the availability of a preliminary inquiry to offences punishable by imprisonment for life and strengthen the justice’s powers to limit the issues explored and witnesses to be heard at the inquiry;
(f) hybridize most indictable offences punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years or less, increase the default maximum penalty to two years less a day of imprisonment for summary conviction offences and extend the limitation period for summary conviction offences to 12 months;
(g) remove the requirement for judicial endorsement for the execution of certain out-of-province warrants and authorizations, expand judicial case management powers, allow receiving routine police evidence in writing, consolidate provisions relating to the powers of the Attorney General and allow increased use of technology to facilitate remote attendance by any person in a proceeding;
(h) allow the court to exempt an offender from the requirement to pay a victim surcharge if the offender satisfies the court that the payment would cause the offender undue hardship, provide the court with guidance as to what constitutes undue hardship, provide that a victim surcharge is to be paid for each offence, with an exception for certain administration of justice offences if the total amount of surcharges imposed on an offender for those types of offences would be disproportionate in the circumstances, require courts to provide reasons for granting any exception for certain administration of justice offences or any exemption from the requirement to pay a victim surcharge and clarify that the amendments described in this paragraph apply to any offender who is sentenced after the day on which they come into force, regardless of whether or not the offence was committed before that day; and
(i) remove passages and repeal provisions that have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, repeal section 159 of the Act and provide that no person shall be convicted of any historical offence of a sexual nature unless the act that constitutes the offence would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code if it were committed on the day on which the charge was laid.

The enactment also amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act in order to reduce delays within the youth criminal justice system and enhance the effectiveness of that system with respect to administration of justice offences. For those purposes, the enactment amends that Act to, among other things,
(a) set out principles intended to encourage the use of extrajudicial measures and judicial reviews as alternatives to the laying of charges for administration of justice offences;
(b) set out requirements for imposing conditions on a young person’s release order or as part of a sentence;
(c) limit the circumstances in which a custodial sentence may be imposed for an administration of justice offence;
(d) remove the requirement for the Attorney General to determine whether to seek an adult sentence in certain circumstances; and
(e) remove the power of a youth justice court to make an order to lift the ban on publication in the case of a young person who receives a youth sentence for a violent offence, as well as the requirement to determine whether to make such an order.

Finally, the enactment amends among other Acts An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons) so that certain sections of that Act can come into force on different days and also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Bill C-75 is too long to possibly cover entirely in one article, though this is the most serious of it.


Having much smaller bills introduced would certainly be preferable. Far too often, governments ram through much unrelated material into a bill, called “omnibus bills”, such that proper debate never actually happens.

A more thorough debate could be had if this were broken up into 6-8 separate bills

And just reiterate, terrorism and other major crimes should always be tried by indictment.

YouTube Channel Just Went Up

(A Compilation of Diversity Quotes)

The YouTube Channel is now active. It is meant to be complimentary to the website, adding a more satirical or humourous take on legal and political events. Though an addition to this site, it is not meant as a substitute to the articles provided.

The above video calls into question the statement Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made comparing “Diversity” to “Entropy”. Given his diversity push, it raised eyebrows. Entropy of course, is:

lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.
“a marketplace where entropy reigns supreme”
synonyms:
deterioration, degeneration, crumbling, decline, degradation, decomposition, breaking down, collapse; More

Also linked in the channel are several fine Canadian producers. Their content is well worth a watch.

Motorcycle Helmet Law Exemptions

(A new option for motorcycle riders in Ontario)

In British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, and now Ontario, Sikhs are now exempt from wearing helmets while riding motorcycles.

Other areas around the Western World have either implemented such an exemption, or have looked into it.

The Ontario law is to take effect on October 18.

This is being done under the guise of “accommodation” and “human rights”. But it is absurd. Helmets are worn to keep people safe. In the event of an accident, the helmet can prevent the riders head from getting cracked open. A piece of cloth is not a helmet, and does not provide protection. If the rider lands on his head, the road won’t care that the turban is a religious item.