Reply Arguments In Appeal Of Dismissal To S3CA Challenge

1. Quotes From Gov’t Defense Of Dismissal

2. Previous Posts On Case

CLICK HERE, for abuse of Safe Third Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for Prothonotary strikes out Statement of Claim.
CLICK HERE, for Uppity Peasants on the moral arguments.
CLICK HERE, for arguments to appeal S3CA dismissal.

3, Text Of Plaintiff’s Reply

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

(1) To avoid rehashing the entire written submissions section in the original Motion Record, this will be limited to 5 follow up questions for the Court to consider.

ISSUES

  • Should “due diligence” be required before making rulings?
  • To what degree should court officials be able to decide what cases are important?
  • What role should Prothonotaries have in striking out documents?
  • Should the government be allowed to submit conflicting, or incoherent pleadings?
  • Does Canada owe an obligation (beyond S3CA) to protect its borders?

(2) The above questions are to aid the Court in determining whether the original ruling should be allowed to stand, and the bigger issues at stake here.

Should “due diligence” be required before making rulings?

(3) Part of the appeal is on the grounds that Prothonotary Milczynski made overriding palpable error in the findings that claims of mass illegal crossings were just “opinion” and “unsupported”. The defence suggests that there was no reason to have submitted the evidence affidavit in the motion record.

(4) Where was the opportunity to submit proof of this?
First: Evidence is not supposed to be submitted with the Statement of Claim.
Second: Evidence is not allowed in Rule 221 motions to strike.

(5) So where exactly was the opportunity to prove any of the allegations? Remember, the standard of review for findings of fact is “overriding palpable error”. Unless this can be demonstrated, the default position is to “give deference” to the lower court ruling.

(6) So yes, it was necessary to submit the evidence affidavit with the motion record. This was the first opportunity to have this evidence submitted, and it shows irrefutably that Prothonotary Milczynski was completely wrong about Roxham Road crossings. So yes, it is important to the course of justice.

(7) Fact is, illegals have been crossing the Canada/U.S. border for years, particularly at Roxham Road in Quebec. This is public information, and has been in the media fairly regularly. There is a “loophole” in the agreement, in that simply going around border ports allows entry into Canada.

(8) Prothonotary Milczynski seems not to have been at all aware of this, despite the media attention. Instead, the allegations in the Statement of Claim were labelled as “opinions” and “bald face assertions”. Even a minimal amount of research (even a Google search) would have immediately found a wealth of media, photographic and video evidence corroborating every assertion made in the Statement of Claim.

(9) The affidavit contained only a tiny piece of the evidence available to prove the Plaintiff’s claims. No one, with any seriousness, can deny the hordes of illegals crossing into Canada. Again, the loophole (not any intended outcome), was that it doesn’t apply BETWEEN official border ports.

(10) In my view, this falls far short of what should be considered acceptable by a Court official. If a Prothonotary or Judge is going to call a Plaintiff’s statements “opinion”, then some due diligence should be done. Prothonotary Milczynski committed overriding palpable error in those findings, and the affidavit should outweigh the default position to “give deference”.

(11) While it is true that Court Officers have a heavy workload, there must be some due diligence performed before declaring a Statement of Claim to be “opinion”. The information included in the SoC has been public knowledge for about 3 years now, and could have been easily verified. This falls far short of what should be acceptable from a Prothonotary.

To what degree should court officials be able to decide what case are important

(12) Admittedly there is a level of discretion for the Prothonotary or Judgeinvolved. There has to be some leeway to decide what cases are important.

(13) That being said, the discretion was improperly used. From the Vancouversex workers case the Defendant referred to earlier.

[1] This appeal is concerned with the law of public interest standing in constitutional cases. The law of standing answers the question of who is entitled to bring a case to court for a decision. Of course it would be intolerable if everyone had standing to sue for everything, no matter how limited a personal stake they had in the matter. Limitations on standing are necessary in order to ensure that courts do not become hopelessly overburdened with marginal or redundant cases, to screen out the mere “busybody” litigant, to ensure that courts have the benefit of contending points of view of those most directly affected and to ensure that courts play their proper role within our democratic system of government: Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance), 1986 CanLII 6 (SCC), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607, at p. 631.The traditional approach was to limit standing to persons whose private rights were at stake or who were specially affected by the issue. In public law cases, however, Canadian courts have relaxed these limitations on standing and have taken a flexible, discretionary approach to public interest standing, guided by the purposes which underlie the traditional limitations.

[2] In exercising their discretion with respect to standing, the courts weigh three factors in light of these underlying purposes and of the particular circumstances. The courts consider whether the case raises a serious justiciable issue, whether the party bringing the action has a real stake or a genuine interest in its outcome and whether, having regard to a number of factors, the proposed suit is a reasonable and effective means to bring the case to court: Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1992 CanLII 116 (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236, at p. 253. The courts exercise this discretion to grant or refuse standing in a “liberal and generous manner” (p. 253).

(14) First, this case is not about some minor or trivial thing. Rather, it is about trying to close the Canadian border to illegals trying to enter Canada. The Government of Canada “should” be taking this seriously. In fact, providing a secure border is arguably the most important function a government should serve.

(15) It is asinine to suggest that a citizen does not have a legitimate interest in having secure borders, and asinine that society as a whole is not impacted by mass illegal entries. Protecting its borders and sovereignty is arguably the most important function a government has. Without borders to mark and enforce its territory, the nation dies.

(16) It is not enough to simply have signs saying “Welcome to Canada” or some such thing. Borders must be enforced by people, and they must have laws — laws with teeth — enforcing them.

(17) Second, on a personal level, it does impact the Plaintiff. She has to pay more in taxes, it cheapens her citizenship if anyone can simply enter Canada if they go AROUND the border crossings, and social service access is limited as more resources are used on illegals who have no right to be in the country. On a public level, the same issues apply. Tax dollars are spent when they shouldn’t be.

(18) Third, as for being a reasonable means of bringing the court hearing the case, what’s the alternative? If the Government won’t act in ways that are most conducive to the safety and well being of its people, then what options are there other than the court?

(19) Although there is clearly discretion in whether or not to grant standing to hear such cases, it was inappropriately used here, especially when the Federal Court has the jurisdiction to hear it. (This is not a trivial or minor case). See the Federal Courts Act

Jurisdiction of Federal Court
Marginal note:
Relief against the Crown 17 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act or any other Act of Parliament, the Federal Court has concurrent original jurisdiction in all cases in which relief is claimed against the Crown.

Extraprovincial jurisdiction
25 The Federal Court has original jurisdiction, between subject and subject as well as otherwise, in any case in which a claim for relief is made or a remedy is sought under or by virtue of the laws of Canada if no other court constituted, established or continued under any of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 has jurisdiction in respect of that claim or remedy.

What role should Prothonotaries have in striking out documents?

(20) The Defendant makes a straw-man argument alleging I claim that Prothonotaries have no jurisdiction to hear motions to strike. That is weasly, and a misrepresentation.

(21) What was actually said (and cited by many cases) is that: (a) Amendments should be allowed prior to striking; (b) striking should be reserved to only when pleading is bad beyond argument; (c) Claims should not be struck out just because they are novel; (d) Prothonotaries should not strike on matters that are not fully settled before the courts. From the COMER case (Commission on Monetary and Economic Reform), submitted with motion record.

[30] The Plaintiffs remind the Court of the general principles to be applied on a motion to strike. The facts pleaded by the Plaintiffs must be taken as proven: Canada (Attorney General) v Inuit Tapirasat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] 2 SCR 735; Nelles v Ontario (1989), DLR (4th) 609 (SCC) [Nelles]; Operation Dismantle Inc., above; Hunt, above; Dumont v Canada (Attorney General), 1990 CanLII 131 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 279 [Dumont]; Trendsetter Developments Ltd v Ottawa Financial Corp. (1989), 32 OAC 327 (CA) [Trendsetter]; Nash v Ontario (1995), 1995 CanLII 2934 (ON CA), 27 OR (3d) 1 (Ont CA) [Nash]; Canada v Arsenault, 2009 FCA 242 (CanLII) [Arsenault]. A claim should be struck “only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading is bad beyond argument” (Nelles, above, at 627), or where it is “‘plain and obvious’ or ‘beyond doubt’” that the claim will not succeed (Dumont, above, at 280; Trendsetter, above). It is inappropriate to strike a claim simply because it raises an “arguable, difficult or important point of law” (Hunt, above, at 990-91), or because it is a novel claim: Nash, above; Hanson v Bank of Nova Scotia (1994), 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA), 19 OR (3d) 142 (CA); AdamsSmith v Christian Horizons (1997), 14 CPC (4th) 78 (Ont Gen Div); Miller (Litigation Guardian of) v Wiwchairyk (1997), 1997 CanLII 12256 (ON SC), 34 OR (3d) 640 (Ont Gen Div). Indeed, in the law of torts in particular, this may make it critical that the claim proceed so that the law can evolve in response to modern needs (Hunt, above, at 991-92). Matters not fully settled by the jurisprudence should not be decided on a motion to strike: R.D. Belanger & Associates Ltd v Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd (1991), 1991 CanLII 2731 (ON CA), 5 OR (3d) 778 (CA). The Plaintiffs say that, in order to succeed, the Defendants must produce a “decided case directly on point from the same jurisdiction demonstrating that the very same issue has been squarely dealt with and rejected”: Dalex Co v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman (1994), 1994 CanLII 7290 (ON SC), 19 OR (3d) 463 (Gen Div). Furthermore, the Court should be generous with respect to the drafting of the pleadings, permitting amendments before striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA); Toronto-Dominion Bank v Deloite Hoskins & Sells (1991), 1991 CanLII 7366 (ON SC), 5 OR (3d) 417 (Gen Div). Finally, the Claim has to be taken as pleaded by the Plaintiffs, not as reconfigured by the Defendants: Arsenault, above.

[31] The Plaintiffs say that the Prothonotary correctly stated the test on a motion to strike, but wholly misapplied it by determining substantive matters that should have been left for the trial judge, striking the Claim despite acknowledging that it was a “novel” and “complex” one, and making an erroneous ruling on the application of the Charter.

(22) As possible amendments, if certain statements were vague, or needed rewriting, that would certainly be possible to do. The option should have been given previously.

(23) With all of these principles in mind, striking with leave to amend (rewrite, clarify or otherwise fix) the Statement of Claim would have been the proper course rather than striking without leave. Here are a few proposed amendments if needed

  • Rewriting, redrafting the Statement of Claim, with more precise detail as seen fit.
  • Rewriting, redrafting the SoC, to make the legal arguments more clear
  • Modifying remedies sought, and just focusing on the law itself, not the fake refugees already here.

(24) If specific facts alleged should have clearer or more specific, that was — and still is — something that the Court can direct. Throwing the case out completely should not have been the first reaction.

Should the government be allowed to submit conflicting, or incoherent pleadings?

(25) The Defendant/Respondent has not disclosed that they have been fighting a case with a similar issue in Toronto since 2017. 3 “refugee claimants” are appealing the denial of their entry into Canada from the “warzone” that is the United States.

MOHAMMAD MAJD MAHER HOMSI ET AL v. MCI ET ALL
Court File: #IMM-775-17

NEDIRA JEMAL MUSTEFAv. MIRC ET AL
Court File: #IMM-2229-17

THE CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR RFUGEES ET AL v. MIRC ET AL
Court File: #IMM-2977-17

(26) The mental gymnastics are stunning. The Canadian Government tells the TORONTO Court that the Safe 3rd Country Agreement is necessary to protect Canadian borders from abuse. That same Government tells the VANCOUVER Court that an obvious loophole should not be closed, since the challenger is not a refugee claimant.

(27) That’s right. In Toronto, the Federal Government is telling the Court (and just had a 5 day hearing) that the Safe 3rd Country Agreement is vital. But in Vancouver, the Feds try to strike out a Claim attempting to close the loophole, which allows people to enter, just as long as they go around the actual border ports.

(28) In Toronto, border security is a critically important issue. In Vancouver, the case to secure the border from mass illegal entry is considered “busybody” work.

(29) Although the two cases are separate, and have separate parties, there is a palpable level of cognitive dissonance required in order for the Federal Government to argue both positions. As such, it should be considered arguing in bad faith, or being deliberately obfuscating.

Motion to strike
 221 (1) On motion, the Court may, at any time, order that a pleading, or anything contained therein, be struck out, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that it:
(a) discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be
(b) is immaterial or redundant
(c) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious
(d) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action,
(e) constitutes a departure from a previous pleading, or
(f) is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court
,

(30) Considering that the Toronto cases were started in 2017 — before this one — the defense in this case (the motion to strike) should actually not have been allowed to proceed. If not for contradictory pleadings, then for arguing in bad faith. 221(1)(e)

(31) In addition to the mental gymnastics of the 2 cases, the original motion to strike (filed by Aman Owais) was an abuse of the process of the court 221(1)(f)

(32) On top of that, take a look at the agreement itself. In the “understanding” portion of the Agreement, the following is written out.

EMPHASIZING that the United States and Canada offer generous systems of refugee protection, recalling both countries’ traditions of assistance to refugees and displaced persons abroad, consistent with the principles of international solidarity that underpin the international refugee protection system, and committed to the notion that cooperation and burden-sharing with respect to refugee status claimants can be enhanced;

DESIRING to uphold asylum as an indispensable instrument of the international protection of refugees, and resolved to strengthen the integrity of that institution and the public support on which it depends;

(33) In the original Motion to Strike, previous counsel Aman Owais argued that there was no loophole in the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, and that it was INTENDED to apply only to official border points (not the vast areas around them). This is utter nonsense and the Court should reject such arguments.

(34) The Agreement openly states that both Canada and the United States offer generous systems of refugee protection. It is therefore incoherent babble that people should be able to “asylum shop” simply by-passing official ports. This would reward people for breaking the law. The Government’s absurd claims like this are an abuse of the Court process in violation of Rule 221(1)(f), and the Motion should have been denied for that reason alone.

Does Canada owe an obligation (beyond S3CA) to protect its borders?

(35) Section 39, 40 of Immigration & Refugee Protection Act

39. A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or unwilling to support themself or any other person who is dependent on them, and have not satisfied an officer that adequate arrangements for care and support, other than those that involve social assistance, have been made

40(1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation (a) for directly or indirectly misrepresentations or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this act.

(36) Section 39 and 40 of the Act are not for the protection of foreigners coming into Canada. Rather, they are to protect Canadians from people who are unwilling to support themselves, or who lie in order to get into Canada.

(37) The United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in their 2011 publication “Smuggling of Migrants”

(38) A Global Review and Annotated Bibliography of Recent Publications”, noted the connection between illegal entry (which they call “irregular migration”) and the smuggling of people.

2.1 Smuggling of migrants and the concepts of irregular migration and trafficking in persons 2.1.1 Irregular migration
.
The relationship between irregular migration and smuggling of migrants has been discussed in the literature, with most authors acknowledging the crucial role of smuggling of migrants in facilitating irregular migration. The legal definition of smuggling of migrants finds wide acceptance among the academiccommunity, which usually refers to articles 3 and 6 of the Smuggling of migrants Protocol.

Contrary to the concept of smuggling, the notion of irregular migration does not have a universally accepted definition; however, most academics and experts refer to the definition provided by IOM, which highlights that the most common forms of irregular migration are illegal entry, overstaying and unauthorized work. In looking at the relationship between the two concepts, Friedrich Heckmann stresses that smuggling of migrants plays a crucial role in facilitating irregular migration, as smugglers may provide a wide range of services, from physical transportation and illegal crossing of a border to the procurement of false documents

(39) By refusing to properly protect and enforce the Canada/U.S. border, is Canada not taking the risk of aiding and abetting in the possible human smuggling across international borders?

(40) Objective 10 of the UN Global Migration Compact (which this government signed) requires Canada to act in ways to prevent smuggling and trafficking ofpersons

OBJECTIVE 10: Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration
.
To realize this commitment, we will draw from the following actions:
.
a) Promote, ratification, accession and implementation of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC)
.
b) Promote the implementation of the Global Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Persons and take into consideration relevant recommendations of the UNODC Toolkit to Combat Trafficking in Persons and other relevant UNODC documents when developing and implementing national and regional policies and measures relating to trafficking in persons

(41) Also, read article 11 of the UN Protocol to Prevent, Supress and Punish Trafficking In Persons, particularly woman and children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. Canada ratified it in 2003, and is still a party to it.

(42) To state the obvious, how exactly does allowing fake refugees to come in BETWEEN official border ports?

(43) These are the 5 questions being asked in this reply

  • Should “due diligence” be required before making rulings?
  • To what degree should court officials be able to decide what cases are important?
  • What role should Prothonotaries have in striking out documents?
  • Should the government be allowed to submit conflicting, or incoherent pleadings?
  • Does Canada owe an obligation (beyond S3CA) to protect its borders?

(44) If the Court thinks it proper, I am willing to make necessary changes to fix whatever problems may exist in the original Statement of Claim. Here are a few ideas to consider:
(a) Rewriting, redrafting the Statement of Claim, with more precise detail as seen fit.
(b) Rewriting, redrafting the Statement of Claim, to make the legal arguments more clear
(c) Modifying remedies sought, and just focusing on the law itself, not the fake refugees
already here.

4. Authorities Cited

[1] Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement
[2] UN Protocol to Prevent, Supress and Punish Trafficking In Persons, particularly woman and children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime
[3] Federal Courts Act
[4] UN Global Migration Compact
[5] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
[6] UN Office Of Drugs and Crime (UN Site down)
https://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Migrant
Smuggling/Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review.pdf

5. Order Sought

The Plaintiff, Moving Party requests:
(a) The decision of Prothonotary Milczynski be overturned and
 The Claim be allowed to proceed, or
 Necessary amendments be allowed to be made
(b) Costs for the appeal (revoking the earlier waiver)

Free Trade #8: What The Research Says About Societal Costs

(From U.S. Census Bureau in 2014)

(EPI reports on rise in “temporary” labour)

(EPI on surging U.S. trade deficit with China)

(EPI on globalist trade driving down wages)

(EPI on free trade & mass migration removing bargaining power)

(EPI on responding to currency manipulation with tariffs)

(EPI on 3.4M jobs lost to China)

(CPC policies are to: create new immigration pilot programs, transition “temps” to permanent residents where possible)

(CPC policy is also implementation of CANZUK)

(Tucker Carlson on foreign replacements at Uber getting preferential treatment. He also calls out Charlie Kirk’s “stapling green cards to diplomas” line)

1. Important Links

In This Series
CLICK HERE, for a previous review of CANZUK.
CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #1, thoughts on Canada-China free trade.
CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #2, intro to NAFTA, problems involved.
CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #3: more on NAFTA’s hidden costs.
CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #4: Bill C-79, Trans-Pacific Partnership.
CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #5, why Donald Trump dumped the T.P.P.
CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #6, outsourcing Canada’s industries.
CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #7, professional outsourcing, stagnant wages, mass migration.

Other Reviews On CDN Immigration
CLICK HERE, for mass/replacement migration at 1M/year in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for replacement migration programs in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for replacement migration since 2003/04.
CLICK HERE, for domestic violence path to permanent residence.
CLICK HERE, for International Mobility Program.
CLICK HERE, for remittances and brain drain.
CLICK HERE, for economic migration during high unemployment.
CLICK HERE, for CANZUK (Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Org).
CLICK HERE, for TD article on true scale of replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for student visas — pathway to PR.
CLICK HERE, for start up visas — purchase PR status

Free Trade/Mass Migration Research
CLICK HERE, for U.S. Census, most STEM grads don’t work in STEM.
CLICK HERE, for the myth of the STEM shortage.
CLICK HERE, for EPI: STEM shortage a manufactured crisis.
CLICK HERE, for EPI: rise in temporary labour wave.
CLICK HERE, for CDN Gov’t splits up TFWP.
CLICK HERE, for free trade, US trade deficit with China.
CLICK HERE, for trade deficits caused by NAFTA.
CLICK HERE, for EPI: free trade is driving down wages.
CLICK HERE, for Pew Research on wage stagnation.
CLICK HERE, for EPI: extra costs from globalization.
CLICK HERE, for tariffs levied on currency manipulation.
CLICK HERE, for EPI: 3.4M jobs lost to China.
CLICK HERE, for T.P.P.: National Treatment

2. Context For This Article

True, the content of this site is primarily focused on Canada. However, the issues that face the United States are similar. What happens over there spills over here, and there is lots of data available on it.

There are 2 linked concepts to discuss:

  • Mass Economic Immigration
  • Free Trade Agreements

How are these ideas linked? Because they are 2 ends of the same problem. Mass economic immigration involves importing large numbers of people into a country. It leads to a much higher supply of workers, and more competition for the same jobs. As a result, it helps drive down wages as it becomes an employer’s market. It INCREASES the demand for jobs in developed countries. Free trade works by exporting jobs and entire industries to other nations where the work can be done for less. In other words, it DECREASES the supply of local jobs available. Now combine them.

MORE competition + LESS work = disaster.

For the purposes of this article, concerns that the U.S. has can be viewed as happening (or at risk to happen) in Canada as well.

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) is a left leaning think tank in Washington. Among the topics it covers are free trade and immigration. EPI points out repeatedly that there are high social costs to the conservative or libertarian policies. Let’s get into it.

3. STEM Field Is Glutted

The U.S. Census Bureau reported today that 74 percent of those who have a bachelor’s degree in science, technology, engineering and math — commonly referred to as STEM — are not employed in STEM occupations.

“STEM graduates have relatively low unemployment, however these graduates are not necessarily employed in STEM occupations,” said Liana Christin Landivar, a sociologist in the Census Bureau’s Industry and Occupation Statistics Branch.

According to new statistics from the 2012 American Community Survey, engineering and computer, math and statistics majors had the largest share of graduates going into a STEM field with about half employed in a STEM occupation. Science majors had fewer of their graduates employed in STEM. About 26 percent of physical science majors; 15 percent of biological, environmental and agricultural sciences majors; 10 percent of psychology majors; and 7 percent of social science majors were employed in STEM.

These numbers are shocking. It speaks volumes about the state of education when half (or more) of STEM graduates aren’t even employed in fields relating to their studies.

The EPI report tends to focus on the relevance of these findings to guest worker programs and other immigration issues. The tech industry has long suggested that it cannot find STEM workers in America and therefore needs immigration changes that will enable it to bring in more workers from abroad. Skeptics have rebuffed that the tech industry really is just interested in cheaper STEM labor and that its proclamations about a dearth of STEM-qualified domestic workers is just a convenient cover story. This report provides ammunition to the latter camp to say the least.

It’s a long repeated myth that the United States (and Canada too) cannot find qualified STEM people. Strange, as there are so many of them coming out of schools. But the real issue seems to be finding “cheaper” workers.

Contrary to its report and public statements, Microsoft (and other employers in STEM fields) already have plenty of avenues to hire and retain new foreign graduates to work in STEM occupations. Recent research suggesting that the most highly educated graduates in STEM fields are in fact remaining in the United States for the long term supports this conclusion. Keeping the best and brightest foreign STEM workers in the United States to fill labor shortages in STEM occupations should be a national priority, but recent data show that no significant labor shortages exist, and suggest that an adequate number of foreign graduates in STEM fields are already remaining in the United States to fill the limited job openings available in the stagnating U.S. labor market.

The EPI study claims there is no shortage of tech workers available, and that rather this is a manufactured crisis used to bring in even more people. Why? To drive down wages. U.S. workers will often be willing to work for less if they know it’s easy to replace them. And if need be, just replace them anyway.

4. “Temporary” Workers Depressing Wages

What appears to be a neat match between excess labor supply in some countries and unfulfilled demand in others is often messy in practice. Economics teaches that there are often alternative ways of producing goods and services, so that recruiting and hiring migrant workers is only one option available to firms and employers. The alternatives may include making jobs more attractive to local workers, using labor-saving mechanization, or increasing imports. Employers who approach governments for permission to hire migrant workers have usually decided that employing migrant workers is their best or least expensive option, and the question for governments is whether to permit employers to hire migrants and to determine how to regulate the movement and employment of migrant workers.

The major policy question for governments weighing claims of labor shortages is whether they should allow naturally occurring wage changes to balance labor supply and demand when employers complain of labor shortages, or whether they should use migration policy to admit new workers into the country to address shortages. And if governments decide to admit new migrant workers, the next question that arises is what the terms and conditions of their admission should be. For example, should new migrant workers be admitted as permanent immigrants with freedom in the labor market or as temporary workers who are tied to a particular employer? In recent decades, many governments have chosen the latter, leading to a proliferation of TLMPs.

Many countries have youth exchange programs to facilitate cultural exchanges and promote development in poorer countries (Table 1, row 4). Japan allows employers to hire trainees who work and learn for several years, while the J-1 visa program in the United States allows exchange visitors to work while learning about the United States and traveling, for a few months to a few years, depending on the program. Australia has a Working Holiday Maker program that allows youth from many countries to work to earn money to cover the cost of their vacation in the country. While these are not standard TLMPs, they are included in Table 1 because some of these programs have been criticized as operating mainly as employment rather than cultural exchange programs and, as a sort of “TLMP in disguise,” offering few protections for local workers and fewer protections and benefits for migrants than traditional TLMPs (Costa 2011; Stewart 2015; Osumi 2018).

Other rationales for TLMPs include allowing multinational corporations and firms to move employees between offices and subsidiary companies in different countries. These mobile workers include intra-company or intra-corporate transferees (ICTs), and “posted” workers, who are workers employed by a company in one country who are sent or posted to work in another. As with other programs not linked explicitly to labor shortages, governments usually allow multinational corporations to move managers and workers with specialized skills from one country to another with minimum bureaucracy. However, abuses have arisen, and some employers wind up using ICTs and posted workers as low-cost guest workers because the programs sometimes lack prevailing wage rules, or the ICT or posted-worker wages are exempt from all or some payroll taxes (Avalos 2014; Flinders 2011).

I would disagree with this report in one area: the notion that these are temporary workers. The reality is that people are staying longer and longer, and many transitioning into permanent residents. So the temporary label is somewhat misleading.

In Canada, the Temporary Foreign Worker was loudly criticized for replacing Canadians with cheap foreign labour. The response was to split up the TFWP, and to boost the International Mobility Program (which was basically an open work permit). This was a cosmetic solution that didn’t address the real problem.

EPI points out that a lot of these temporary positions pay less and have less job security. That is true. The response will be to enshrine ever more rights on these “temporary” workers. EPI is also correct that a lot of the support behind increasing these programs is the cheaper labour that results from it.

5. Remittances Sent Abroad

This was covered in a previous article, but what about the money that gets sent overseas by “temporary” workers in this country? It is billions every year.

Aside from welfare cases (which is another story), yes the wages were fairly earned. But it is disingenuous to exclude this fact from the debate. Economic immigration leads to money being sent outside the country.

6. Free Trade, Soaring Trade Deficits

The rapidly growing U.S. trade deficit with China is directly linked to the growth of multinational firms operating in China. Of China’s more than $200 billion in exports in 1998, over 40% had their source in multinational firms operating in China (Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation 2000).

• The activities of U.S. multinational firms, together with China’s protectionist trade policies, have had a significant role in increasing the U.S. trade deficit with China. A 10% increase in the level of U.S. direct investment in an industry in China is associated with a 7.3% increase in the volume of U.S. imports from China and a 2.1% decline in U.S. exports to China in that industry. • Supporters of China’s WTO and PNTR agenda typically assert that jobs lost to China trade threaten only low-skill, low-wage jobs in the United States, while expanded exports to China will create high-wage U.S. jobs. However, the changing composition of imports from China over the last 10 years has led increasingly to job losses among higher-wage and more-skilled U.S. manufacturing workers. Although in 1989 only 30% of imports from China competed against goods produced by high-wage industries in the U.S. market, by 1999 that percentage had risen to 50%. [2] To make matters worse, although U.S. workers are five times as productive as their Chinese counterparts, average compensation in the United States is at least 10 and maybe even 20 times larger than that paid by U.S. multinationals to Chinese workers. Thus, U.S. workers will be unable to compete with the much cheaper labor in China despite their higher levels of productivity. U.S. firms build export-oriented production base in China

Trade between the U.S. and China is not a level playing field, to put it mildly. Hypocritically, China relies on its own protectionist measures while doing what it can to secure access to U.S. markets. And because many of the U.S. corporate leaders put profit over well being of their people, they are quite happy to outsource U.S. to China. Products get made cheaper, but American workers pay with their jobs and livelihoods. Of course, this is not limited to one country. NAFTA caused the same problems.

In addition to the lost jobs, this creates a huge trade deficit, where hundreds of billions of dollars leave the U.S. annually. Certainly there will always be some surpluses and deficits in trading internationally. But it can’t be so one sided as it is simply unsustainable.

7. Free Trade Driving Down Wages

A standard model estimating the impact of trade on American wages indicates that growing trade with less-developed countries lowered wages in 2011 by 5.5 percent—or by roughly $1,800—for a full-time, full-year worker earning the average wage for workers without a four-year college degree. One-third of this total effect is due to growing trade with just China.

Trade with low-wage countries can explain roughly a third of the overall rise since 1979 in the wage premium earned by workers with at least a four-year college degree relative to those without one. However, trade with low-wage countries explains more than 90 percent of the rise in this premium since 1995.

For full-time wage earners without a college degree, annual earnings losses due to trade with low-wage nations are larger than income losses under a hypothetical policy that permanently extends the Bush-era tax cuts by making across-the-board cuts to government transfer payments such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment insurance.

Free trade has hurt the middle class more than anyone else. Manufacturing was a booming industry that people — mainly men — could earn a decent living even without higher education. However, profit driven corporations have outsourced more and more of that manufacturing, leaving those worker to fight for lower paying jobs.

The topic of wage stagnation has also been covered by Pew Research. If wages stay the same, or decrease, but inflation remains, then real buying power decreases.

Serious question: how much will it help these companies in the end when no one can afford to buy their products?

8. Free Trade Removes Bargaining Power

The textbook analysis of the effects of trade on wage suppression discussed earlier assume that these effects run through trade flows that shift the relative demand for different types of labor. But trade’s effects on wages could run through other channels as well. After all, in the real world, wages are not set in perfectly competitive labor markets solely through shifts in demand and supply curves. Rather, the relative bargaining power of employers and employees matters greatly for wage-setting, and the threat effects of growing globalization surely hamstring this bargaining power for many American workers. In previous eras, the only fallback position for employers in the face of a breakdown in wage bargaining was to stop production. Now employers have the option of setting up production facilities abroad. This improved fallback position boosts employers’ bargaining power vis-à-vis their American employees, and this can lead to substantial downward pressure on wages.

As is always the case, measuring bargaining power at all, let alone its ebb and fall, is difficult, so the precise empirical impact of this channel of globalization’s wage-suppressing effects is hard to gauge. But there is growing evidence that these effects could be significant. Bertrand (2004), for example, shows that import competition tears down the protection that incumbent workers’ wages have traditionally enjoyed against rising unemployment. Senses (2007) finds that offshoring is associated with greater elasticity of labor demand—implying that wage gains will cut more sharply into employment gains. Bivens (2006) finds evidence that industry-level rent-sharing is eroded by growing import shares. Jayadev (2007) finds capital account openness associated with a shift from labor to capital income shares across countries, and attributes this finding to the bargaining channel. Anderson, Tang, and Wood (2006) construct a model of globalization eroding American workers’ privileged access to institutional and human capital and lowering wages through this channel. They find empirically that greater ease of movement of high-credential, high-skill managers leads to wage declines for American labor, supporting the predictions of their model.

To clarify, this article faults both the mass migration policies and free trade policies in creating these problems. In both cases, it becomes a race to the bottom. Either we import a replacement workforce here, or we export the work to the foreign labour force. The result is much the same.

It is also pointed out that collective bargaining and other rights get eroded once the option to replace the workforce becomes practical. So much for looking after your own.

9. Tariffs V.S. Currency Manipulation

According to Scott, Trump’s proposals fail to effectively address currency manipulation, the single largest cause of manufacturing job loss over the past 20 years. While Trump cites currency manipulation as a major problem, Scott argues, his strategy for dealing with it—calling for higher tariffs on imports from currency manipulators and promising to negotiate “better” trade deals—doesn’t reflect an analytical understanding of how currency manipulation works and what to do about it.

“Trump could not, as pledged, bring back American manufacturing jobs by negotiating ‘great trade deals’ because he doesn’t understand why globalization and trade and investment deals have hurt U.S. workers,” said Scott.

Trump’s plan to deal with currency manipulation by imposing tariffs would make other countries’ goods more expensive in the United States but do nothing to make U.S. goods less expensive in those countries. Scott recommends that the Fed conduct countervailing currency intervention (CCI) by buying up large amounts of foreign assets denominated in the currencies of the surplus countries, and impose a “market access charge,” a tax or fee on all capital inflows that would reduce the demand for dollar-denominated assets and hence the value of the currency.

It’s nice to see currency manipulation being addressed. Of course, if one or more parties plays games with their currency, they can in effect create products dirt cheap. They won’t have to worry about massive imports, since other nations won’t be able to undercut their manipulated prices.

Trump seems to have a fight-fire-with-fire mentality, but it doesn’t really work when others are not willing to act in good faith.

10. Free Trade Wrecks Communities

The growth of the U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2017 was responsible for the loss of 3.4 million U.S. jobs, including 1.3 million jobs lost since 2008 (the first full year of the Great Recession, which technically began at the end of 2007). Nearly three-fourths (74.4 percent) of the jobs lost between 2001 and 2017 were in manufacturing (2.5 million manufacturing jobs lost).

The growing trade deficit with China has cost jobs in all 50 states and in every congressional district in the United States. The 10 hardest-hit states, when looking at job loss as a share of total state employment, were New Hampshire, Oregon, California, Minnesota, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Texas. Job losses in these states ranged from 2.57 percent (in Texas) to 3.55 percent (in New Hampshire) of total state employment. The five hardest-hit states based on total jobs lost were California (562,500 jobs lost), Texas (314,000), New York (183,500), Illinois (148,200), and Pennsylvania (136,100).

The trade deficit in the computer and electronic parts industry grew the most: 1,209,000 jobs were lost in that industry, accounting for 36.0 percent of the 2001–2017 total jobs lost. Not surprisingly, the hardest-hit congressional districts (those ranking in the top 20 districts in terms of jobs lost as a share of all jobs in the district) included districts in Arizona, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Texas, where jobs in that industry are concentrated. A district in Georgia and another in North Carolina were also especially hard hit by trade-related job displacement in a variety of manufacturing industries, including computer and electronic parts, textiles and apparel, and furniture.

Between 2001 and 2011 alone, growing trade deficits with China reduced the incomes of directly impacted workers by $37 billion per year, and in 2011 alone, growing competition with imports from China and other low wage-countries reduced the wages of all U.S. non–college graduates by a total of $180 billion. Most of that income was redistributed to corporations in the form of higher profits and to workers with college degrees at the very top of the income distribution through higher wages.

Trade with China has caused an estimated 3.4 million jobs to be lost from 2001 to 2017. These job losses have hit every state, and every community.

Directly impacted workers lost $37 billion in wages, and non-college graduates $180 billion overall. How is this at all desirable, or even sustainable to keep driving down wages and incomes? How is outsourcing many of the better paying jobs good for the host country?

Again, it doesn’t matter how cheaply China (or other 3rd world nations) can build their products. If no one can afford to buy them, then they won’t sell.

11. Loss Of Sovereignty

This has been addressed in other posts, but nearly all free trade deals contain a “National Treatment” Clause. In plain English, these clauses prohibit nations from taking any measures to protect jobs or industries. Canada has ben successfully sued for doing so in the past.

See Article 9.4 in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or Chapter 11 in NAFTA.

12. How Does This Benefit Us?

In short, it doesn’t.

Allowing large numbers of people into the country, causing extra demand for work and driving down wages doesn’t help. And we haven’t even gotten into cultural compatibility. Nor the money removed from the economy when vast sums of remittances are sent abroad.

Nor does outsourcing our industries and jobs to the 3rd World help us. Sure, products get made cheaper, but these offshoring kills people’s livelihoods. And what good is all of the formal education received if the jobs that should have resulted are sent away?

Mass economic migration and free trade are two sides of the same coin. The effects are much the same. But you won’t hear conservatives or libertarians talk about this. Ironically, more left leaning political parties are inclined to address such topics.

Globalism (and globalization) kill societies.

UN’s Neverending Quest To Ban Criticism Of Islam

(Quick search of UN index on “Islamophobia” gets 586 hits.)

(The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief)

(2004 UN Secretary General’s speech on Islamophobia)

(2005 Resolution on religious defamation)

(2010 Organization Of The Islamic Conference. Promotes “hijra”, conquest by immigration, and complains about predictable backlash against Muslims who won’t assimilate.)

(2012 Turkey speaks at UN General Assembly. Calls for UN to establish legal framework against religious defamation.)

(2014 Committee on International Terrorism)

(2015 Must stem bigotry, Islamophobia)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Proposed Global Ban On Islamophobia.
CLICK HERE, to search UN database on Islamophobia.

Religious Defamation/Islamophobia
CLICK HERE, for Confronting Islamophobia, Dec 2004.
CLICK HERE, for UN Res 7/19, Relig. Defamation, Mar 2008.
CLICK HERE, for free speech ==> intolerance, April 2009.
CLICK HERE, for UN on religious tolerance, Oct 2009.
CLICK HERE, for World Interfaith Harmony Week, Feb 2010.
CLICK HERE, for OIC calls For minority rights, Sept 2010.
CLICK HERE, for Afghan mission, religious defamation leads to violence, Afghanistan, Sept 2012.
CLICK HERE, UNGA: Islamophobia rampant, Sept 2012.
CLICK HERE, for wars caused by Islamophobia, Sept 2014.
CLICK HERE, for Islamophobia conflates terrorism, Islam.
CLICK HERE, for Islamophobia, intolerance rising, April 2015.
CLICK HERE, for Islamophobia Is Violence, June 2015.
CLICK HERE, for wrong To equate violence/Islam, Sept 2015.
CLICK HERE, for violence caused By bigotry, Oct 2015.
CLICK HERE, for Islamophobia poisoning society, Aug 2017.

CLICK HERE, for Iqra Khalid’s Islamophobia motion, M-103.

Internet Regulation/Censorship
CLICK HERE, for digital cooperation.
CLICK HERE, for Richard Lee on UN regulating the internet.
CLICK HERE, for proposed digital charter.

2. Context For This Piece

The topic of the UN wanting a global ban on criticising Islam has been addressed on this site before. However, after some reflection and a follow-up, there wasn’t nearly enough detail in that last piece.

While the UN search alone uncovered 586 articles, resolutions, drafts, or other documents under the search term “ISLAMOPHOBIA”, we will not be looking at them all.

Instead, several more will be added. Hopefully the bigger picture will become clear.

3. UN Secretary General’s Speech, Dec 2004

When a new word enters the language, it is often the result of a scientific advance or a diverting fad. But when the world is compelled to coin a new term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry, that is a sad and troubling development. Such is the case with Islamophobia.

The word seems to have emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But the phenomenon dates back centuries. Today, the weight of history and the fallout of recent developments have left many Muslims around the world feeling aggrieved and misunderstood, concerned about the erosion of their rights and even fearing for their physical safety. So the title of this series is very appropriate: there is much to unlearn.

Islam’s tenets are frequently distorted and taken out of context, with particular acts or practices being taken to represent or to symbolize a rich and complex faith. Some claim that Islam is incompatible with democracy, or irrevocably hostile to modernity and the rights of women. And in too many circles, disparaging remarks about Muslims are allowed to pass without censure, with the result that prejudice acquires a veneer of acceptability.

Stereotypes also depict Muslims as opposed to the West, despite a history not only of conflict but also of commerce and cooperation, and of influencing and enriching each other’s art and science. European civilization would not have advanced to the extent it did had Christian scholars not benefited from the learning and literature of Islam in the Middle Ages, and later.

Some points in the address to mention:

(a) European would not have advanced to the extent that it did without learning and literature of Islam? Okay, what exactly did it contribute?

(b) Disparaging remarks are allowed to pass without censure? Is this a warning that censorship is coming?

(c) The physical safety of Muslims? What about the physical safety of other people at the hands of Muslims?

4. UN Res 719, Religious Defamation, Oct 2005

2. Also expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations and emphasizes that equating any religion with terrorism should be rejected and combated by all at all levels;

3. Further expresses deep concern at the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;

6. Expresses concern at laws or administrative measures that have been specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination that they experience;

9. Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;

14. Deplores the use of printed, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and of any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any religion;

15. Invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to continue to report on all manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights to the Council at its ninth session;

Sound familiar? This “non-binding” resolution passed in 2005, and contains much of the same language that is in Iqra Khalid’s blasphemy motion, M-103. The goal to ban criticism of Islam is a very long running one.

Almost as if there were legitimate issues they wanted to suppress.

5. UN Press Briefing, April 2009

Asked for her views on the remarks made yesterday by the President of Iran through which he linked Zionism to racism, she said it was regrettable and said she aligned herself to the sentiments purporting that this was a disservice to the people of Iran, a country of cultural values. She said it was regretful the Conference started off of the wrong footing but said she was hopeful it would get back on track.   Personally, she said she firmly believed in freedom of expression regardless of how obnoxious it may be.  Whether it was intolerant or not, depended on who said it.  Statements from people in public positions which were intolerant should be frowned upon

Responding to a question on defamation of religion, she said in the context of international law there was no such thing as defamation of religion; however, there was incitement on the basis of religion.  If one took the notion of defamation of religion that meant all debates on religions had to be asphyxiated. The notion of the defamation of religion was not only detrimental to the mandate of freedom of religion but also to the whole concept of human rights. 

A few interesting points in the briefing. We don’t refer to it as defamation of religious, but there is incitement of religion. Not sure there is much of a difference as far as Islam is concerned. Also, it was nice to point out that intolerant is really a point of view.

6. Rapporteur On Freedom Of Religion Or Belief, Oct 2009

Governments have a central role to play in either preventing or contributing to religious friction, an independent United Nations expert said today, noting that a State’s commitments to non-discrimination, as well as its policies and messages, can promote tolerance.

Asma Jahangir, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, told a news conference in New York that there are preventive measures governments can take to avoid further polarization on the basis of religion before it erupts into violence.

She also noted that while governments are talking about issues such as defamation of religion, there is “less addressing of the issue of religious incitement to violence, discrimination and hatred.”

This should really be a warning sign. Legitimate concern and criticism of religion can become grounds committing violence on the basis of “incitement to violence”. It’s interesting how the conversation shifts from DEFAMATION towards INCITEMENT, as if it were to provide a stronger justification for committing violence.

7. Org. Of Islamic Conference, Sept 2010

I would, in this presentation, essentially approach this multifaceted issue in the light of my experience and role as the Secretary General of the OIC-which with its 57 member states has, over the last four decades, evolved as the second largest International Organization after the UN. We are currently in the process of implementing a Ten Year Programme of Action. Propelled by the vision of ‘moderation and modernization, the Programme has identified priority areas of action. It accords primacy to multilateralism, human rights and cultural diplomacy as key items on the OIC agenda. Each of these issues is relevant to our discussion today. I would, therefore, be sharing a few thoughts in both the spirit and interest of a lively debate that-I am confident -would follow in this prestigious setting.

He then goes on to talk about how many parts of Europe and Eurasia either are majority Muslim, or have large Muslim populations.

The term is “hijra”, which is conquest by immigration. Large parts of those areas have been conquered over time and are now subject to Islamic law. He now gets into the very predictable politics of grievances.

Unfortunately, the Muslims of Europe and other parts of the Western world have become suspect because of a campaign launched by a number of motivated individuals and groups who appear to bear an incomprehensible grudge against Muslims and Islam. The Muslim population of Europe that has for centuries lived in peace and harmony with other communities, are today being regarded as aliens. They are under some pressure to give up some of their cultural traits and practices on the ground that these are not compatible with local customs and practices. This has resulted in a growing divide.

The current tension in relations between Islam and the West is pregnant with risk of transforming the notion of clash of civilizations a self-fulfilling prophecy. Islamophobia and discrimination against Muslims in the West appears to emanate from different physical appearance of Muslims and also in intolerance toward their religion and cultural beliefs.

I don’t see, particularly with the aforementioned historical background, as to why migration of Muslims to Europe and elsewhere in the West should be seen and portrayed as a threat today. Why should they be construed as aliens? Why must the symbols of their identity be denigrated? Why should the expressions of their identity be banned? It is indeed an unfortunate situation that challenges the identity of Muslim migrants. It also defies the salient features of European identity including tolerance, non discrimination and respect for human rights. Most importantly, it poses a clear and present danger to peace, security and stability in the regional as well as the global context.

Of course, what is intentionally left out of this is that the vast majority of Muslims have no intention of ever assimilating. Islam is an ideology that is build on achieving dominance through deceit, political methods, and outright violence.

The taqiyya is strong with this group.

The part about the IOC being 57 members is true though. As such, it wields tremendous influence over the UN and its agenda.

8. UN Afghan Ass’t Mission, Sept 2012

Kabul, 13 September – The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) deplores the disrespectful, insulting and inflammatory material posted on the internet that seeks to denigrate the religious beliefs of Muslims and to incite violence and hate.

The United Nations rejects this despicable action and defamation of religion in all forms. Such intentional acts insulting the religious beliefs of others are unacceptable.

The United Nations itself is the symbol of religious tolerance and inclusive diversity representing as it does all the peoples of the world. We hold Islam and Muslims in the whole world in high esteem.

While the United Nations in Afghanistan joins the people and government of Afghanistan in strongly condemning this abhorrent action, nothing can justify violence or the further loss of life. Following the statement of the UN Secretary General of yesterday, UNAMA calls on all Afghans to exercise restraint in their indignation and to reject calls to violence or vicious behaviour.

The United Nations will continue to help the Afghan people lay the foundations for stability, security and lasting peace in Afghanistan.

While the Mission bent over backwards to kick ass and apologize for Islam, it was nice to at least hear that this violence is not justified. A good start.

9. Turkey At UNGA, Sept 2012

He underlined that the recent attacks against the Prophet Muhammad and against Islam were outright provocations that aimed to pit nations and peoples against each other. Turkey condemned all sorts of incitement to hatred and religious discrimination against Muslims and peoples of other faiths. Unfortunately, Islamophobia had become a new form of racism, like anti-Semitism, and it could no longer be tolerated “under the guise of freedom of expression”. Freedom did not mean anarchy, he stressed in that respect; instead, it meant responsibility. At the same time, he condemned the provocation and violence that followed, saying it “cannot be justified under any pretext”. Because of the alarming increase in the number of acts that defame religions, he believed the time had come to establish the denigration of all religions and their followers as a hate crime. He called for a universal policy and legal instrument that, while protecting free expression, should also ensure respect for religion and prevent intentional insults against faiths. “The solution should not be arbitrary,” he added, calling on the United Nations, in particular, to lead that effort and provide the international legal framework.

Turkey wants the UN to establish an international legal framework? As in what, a global ban on blasphemy? Perhaps it will shut down any speech remotely offensive to anyone.

Let’s be honest though. The real goal is preventing criticism of Islam. After all, you can criticize a political ideology freely, but a religious group is off limits.

10. Comm. On Int’l Terrorism, Oct 2014

AMR EL-HAMAMY (Egypt), speaking for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), denounced atrocities committed by terrorists around the world and stressed that they contradicted the practices and principles of Islam. No religion or religious doctrine encouraged or inspired acts of terrorism, and therefore, none should be portrayed as such. He strongly condemned some politicians’ attempts to link Islam with terrorism, noting that such attempts played in the hands of terrorists and constituted an advocacy of religious hatred, discrimination and hostility against Muslims.

Reaffirming the OIC’s commitment to strengthening mutual cooperation, he said that only a coordinated approach by the international community would yield effective results. Further, a comprehensive strategy must address the root causes of terrorism, such as the unlawful use of force, aggression and political and economic injustice, among others.

He reiterated the need to distinguish between terrorism and the exercise of the legitimate right of peoples to resist foreign occupation, noting that such distinction was duly observed in international law and international humanitarian law. He also called for cooperation in banning the payment of ransoms to terrorist groups. Underscoring the need to make progress on the draft comprehensive convention, he emphasized his determination to resolve outstanding issues, including those related to the legal definition of terrorism and voiced support for the convening of a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations.

It is much the same story here: Muslims and Islam are being discriminated against. However, the topic of resisting occupations is brought up. Of course, depending on what one views as an occupation, almost any violence “could” be justified on those grounds.

11. Must Stem Intolerance, Bigotry, April 2015

However, with “troubling frequency” violent attacks and despicable crimes are being carried out and claiming the lives of innocent men, women and children. From Paris to Tunis, and from Garissa to Yarmouk and Johannesburg to Peshawar, “no person, society of nation is immune” from intolerance or the threat of violent extremism, he added. In places like Iraq Afghanistan and Mali, irreplaceable artefacts are being destroyed.

“There is no justification for such attacks. We must condemn all manifestations of intolerance, including anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and racism,” and all other forms of prejudice, harassment or violence, the General Assembly President said.

As such stories become all too common the world must stand up toward the threat of intolerance and radicalism. “Violent extremism is a global test and our response must solve the problem,” Mr. Ban said.

D’aesh, Al Shabaab and Boko Haram are part of a new generation of terrorist groups threatening international peace and security but the problem goes beyond them and the regions in which they operate. Racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia exists worldwide and to protect the innocent “we must safeguard our moral compass,” he said.

This leaves out the inconvenient fact that most terrorism in the world is committed by Muslims, in the name of Islam. But why should that detail get in the way?

12. Remember Digital Cooperation?

Digital Cooperation was earlier discussed on this site as well. Despite the harmless and well sounding verbiage, it is internet censorship, with the UN at the helm. A recent invention was the proposed Digital Charter, which was along the same lines.

One other note to mention: in a 2019 by-election debate Liberal Candidate Richard Lee proposed having the UN create a body to oversee and regulate the internet.

Internet regulation and banning criticism of Islam go hand and hand. In today’s world, the latter cannot be achieved without the former.

13. UN Global Migration Compact

OBJECTIVE 17: Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration
33. We commit to eliminate all forms of discrimination, condemn and counter expressions, acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, violence, xenophobia and related intolerance against all migrants in conformity with international human rights law. We further commit to promote an open and evidence-based public discourse on migration and migrants in partnership with all parts of society, that generates a more realistic, humane and constructive perception in this regard. We also commit to protect freedom of expression in accordance with international law, recognizing that an open and free debate contributes to a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of migration.

c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media.

Remember this gem? If you wanted to shut down criticism of an ideology, just call it bigotry or Islamophobia and the problem is solved.

14. This Is Just A Small Sample

As stated at the beginning, a quick search of “Islamophobia” in the UN records will net 586 hits. This is not just a one off. A quick search through them comes up with much the same pattern: blame everything on Islamophobia and intolerance, then demand actions be taken.

It’s actually an eerily well organized scam. Once you are not allowed to criticize a group, then they have already won.

Let’s be clear what is going on: these efforts are done in the name of censoring and shutting down legitimate criticism and concern of Islam. Few could publicly justify shutting down POLITICAL ideologies without backlash. However, if those goals were framed as RELIGIOUS in nature, then they would be relatively safe.

Central Banking, Part 5: Globalist Approved Talking Points

(The Bank for International Settlements)

(The Basel Committee)

(30% of Canada’s debt held by foreigners)

(Archived debt information is available)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Part I, To Restore 1934 Bank of Canada Act
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the COMER Case.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, US Federal Reserve (End The Fed)
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Debt reports & email from Ministry.

CLICK HERE, for StatsCan data on National debt.
CLICK HERE, for the Bank for International Settlements.
CLICK HERE, for BIS mainpage.
CLICK HERE, for the 60 banks which own BIS.
CLICK HERE, for the Basil Committee.

CLICK HERE, for link to archived debt reports.
CLICK HERE, for archived documents going back to 1995.
CLICK HERE, for reference tables.

(Rocco Galati, Amanda Lang, COMER)

(Will Abrams explaining the money system)

2. Context For This Article

Are you being given straight answers about National and Provincial debts? Or are you being fed globalist approved talking points?

This article will help you identify
Sections 3-8 cover the typical talking points that globalist politicians, bankers, and media allies will spout off to an unsuspecting public.

3. Ignore Bank For International Settlements

In 1934, the Bank of Canada Act was passed, which created the Bank of Canada. After this, the Federal Government was required to make no-interest loans to help fund infrastructure and social services throughout the country.

Even though money was borrowed from the Bank of Canada, the debt did not rise, since we were printing our own money. This help true for nearly 40 years.

Then in 1974, Pierre Trudeau had Canada join the Bank of International Settlements in Switzerland. The reasons for this were never made clear. The reason the public was told was “inflation control”, but that was never explained. Now Canada, instead of creating its own money, was forced to borrow money and pay interest to outside banks, and often foreign banks. That’s right, outside parties were effectively “printing” Canadian currency and then lending it back to us. Unsurprisingly, the debt skyrocketed from $18 billion in 1974 to almost $700 billion in 2019. And this doesn’t include debt for Provinces, or Crown Corporations.

Now, when asked about central banking, it is best to change the subject. Focus on how other parties are wasteful, and that you will do a better job. If the above facts are mentioned, it will lead to awkward follow-up questions.

4. Make Hysterical Claims About Inflation

Inevitably people will ask about fiat banking. They will want to know why we allow foreigners to print our money, which we then purchase while paying interest.

At this point, it’s best to use scare tactics about uncontrolled inflation, and fiat/central banking being needed to counter act this. If the person asks for specifics or data, pivot again. Tell them that inflation would be much worse if we don’t have this system in place.

5. Focus On “Deficit”, Not Debt

A common diversionary tactic is to focus on the “deficit” and not on the debt. When pressed on this, slick politicians will dodge the issue skillfully.

Remember, the debt is the total amount of money owed, while the deficit is just the shortfall of a certain period (typically a year). Politicians routinely say they will “erase the deficit” within a certain period of time. But all that means is that the nation (or province, or state) will no longer be adding to its debt.

The debt previously accumulated will still be there, and will still be generating interest payments every year. That is what they often don’t want to publicly admit.

6. Focus On “Servicing” The Debt

Another sleight-of-hand is to avoid the words “paying down the debt”. Instead, tell people about “servicing the debt”.

Why? Because paying down the debt implies that it will be finished at some point. Obviously, that goes against the globalist agenda of having payments come out forever. Servicing, however, simply means being able to pay the interest. Servicing can also be in the form of raising the debt obligations.

Remember, you want people to think you want the debt to go away, without actually making it happen.

7. People Don’t Care About Fiat

Rocco Galati taking the Government to court (on behalf of COMER) was an extreme example, but a serious one. People do care about the financial health and sovereignty of Canada. They don’t want outsiders, including foreign banks and foreign powers holding us hostage.

Instead, be dismissive. Repeat the talking point that fiat/central banking has nothing to do with the debt, and that no one cares about it. It’s not just environmental propaganda which these tactics can work on.

Nobody cares about central banking.
Nobody cares about it.
Nobody cares.

8. Divert Attention To Other Things

If all of the above fail, divert the conversation to something else altogether. Focus on the debt and fiscal irresponsibility of previous governments and administrations. Point out the debts left behind (while ensuring not to mention WHY those debts exist in the first place.

Perhaps someone dressed up in blackface, or was allegedly sleeping with a teenager. Maybe someone has made comments about abortion you can take out of context. Could be that a prominent person or a relative has a drinking or drug related scandal. There are plenty of ways to distract from real issues.

Also, find a minor and totally unrelated issue to get people worked up about, such as legalizing marijuana, or complaining about supply management. The sheep need to be distracted from what is really going on.

9. Summary Of Diversionary Tactics

Tactic #1: Ignore the Bank of International Settlements, Basel Committee, and fiat banking altogether unless pressed on it.

Tactic #2: If you are pressed on the above subjects, immediately repeat the claim that abandoning this system will lead to hyper inflation. Use Venezuela or Post-WW1 Germany as examples.

Tactic #3: Make sure you are talking about eliminating the deficit, and dodge the question of the overall debt.

Tactic #4: If pressed on the overall debt, make reference to “servicing” the debt, rather than paying it off completely.

Tactic #5: Be dismissive of the issue altogether. If further confronted about the predatory nature of central banking, deflect. Say that people don’t really care about the issue.

Tactic #6: Finally, divert the conversation to completely other topics entirely. This will hopefully confuse and distract people enough for them to stop caring about it.

TSCE #9: Other Accounts Worth Following

(Paula Loves Children, @paulacblades001)

(Titus Frost, 1984. YouTuber)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for TSCE #1: suing for right to illegally enter U.S.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #2: fake refugees gaming the system.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #3: various topics on issue.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #4: Islamic violence of women, children.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #5: UNHCR is a party to Canada/U.S. S3CA.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #6: UN blurs line, smuggling v.s. “irregular”.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #7: UN research into human smuggling (cont’d)
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #8: UN hypocrisy on sexual and child abuse.

2. Why Follow These Accounts?

I don’t normally recommend specific accounts to follow, but this is a truly exceptional case. The account holder is obviously dedicated to raising awareness on the issue. Paula has been posting consistently for the last year and a half.

Despite efforts to keep this buried, wide spread abuse, exploitation and trafficking of children is still rampant today. It is the dirty secret that a lot of people wish would just go away. And far from being nobodies doing it, these crimes are committed by very powerful people in society.

Any real journalists in Canada, the United States, (or elsewhere) should be interested and concerned with this. Anyone can cover Justin Trudeau and the stupid things he says. Real research and journalism involves getting into the topics that few (or no one else) will.

Also a worth mention is Titus Frost 1984 (Splitting Truth With Titus). He covers a variety of topics, but has several lengthy videos on the topic of human trafficking and smuggling. Also see his Twitter account.

3. Invitation To Readers Of This Site

If you know of other media outlets (Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc…) that are devoted to this topic, and post good content, please let me know. They will be added as references.

TSCE #7: UN Research Into Smuggling and “Irregulars” (Cont’d)

(UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

(There is a connection between smuggling and “irregular migration”)

(UN abhors smuggling, but fake refugees get a pass)

(UN High Commission on Refugees)

(UN insists terrorists be allowed to return home)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for TSCE #1: suing for right to illegally enter U.S.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #2: fake refugees gaming the system.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #3: various topics on issue.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #4: Islamic violence of women, children.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #5: UNHCR is a party to Canada/U.S. S3CA.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #6: UN blurs line between smuggling & “irregular”.

CLICK HERE, for UNODC on smuggling migrants.
CLICK HERE, for a UN guide in circumventing the Canada/U.S. Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for UN guide: details on S3CA loopholes.
CLICK HERE, for UN insisting terrorists be repatriated.
CLICK HERE, for the UN supporting illegal mass invasion (caravans) into the U.S., despite knowing it is unwanted and illegal.
CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact.

2. Context For This Article

This is a continuation to the last article, and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. While the basics were laid out before, there is so much more detail to be included. In fact, the UN has done a surprising amount of research on this topic.

Yet they seem to have learned nothing from this research, or the results are being deliberately ignored.

To reiterate from last time: it is extremely hypocritical for the UN to claim that they are AGAINST smuggling and trafficking of people, yet SUPPORT mass illegal entries (which they minimize as “irregular”).

The connection between “irregulars” (or illegal aliens) and smuggling is straight forward. Human smugglers are the people who facilitate and coordinate these mass movements of people. They directly cause these “irregulars”, which the UN demands Western nations provide for. However, the UN, and other groups condemn the smuggling that is at the heart of it. The illegal aliens themselves are willing participants.

The difference between traffickers and smugglers is one of consent. Smugglers take people against their will. While victims of trafficking are not to blame for their situation, they are not legal immigrants either. And calling them “irregulars” deliberately blurs the line here.

A cynic may wonder if the UN is speaking out both sides of its mouth: demanding that Western nations take hoards of people from the 3rd World, all while pretending to reject the smuggling that at least facilitates this mass invasion.

Now let’s get right into the rest of this review.

3. Direct Connection Between Smuggling/Illegals

2.1 Smuggling of migrants and the concepts of irregular migration and trafficking in persons
2.1.1 Irregular migration
The relationship between irregular migration and smuggling of migrants has been discussed in the literature, with most authors acknowledging the crucial role of smuggling of migrants in facilitating irregular migration.

In looking at the relationship between the two concepts, Friedrich Heckmann stresses that smuggling of migrants plays a crucial role in facilitating irregular migration, as smugglers may provide a wide range of services, from physical transportation and illegal crossing of a border to the procurement of false documents.

Yes, this has been brought up before, but it is designed to hammer the point home. Smuggling of people across borders is directly connected to the “irregular migration” that occurs at the end. It is the end result of these actions which show no respect for national borders or sovereignty. The UN review is rather blunt on the subject.

4. Smuggling As A Business Model

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’”

Salt and Stein suggested treating international migration as a global business that has both
legitimate and illegitimate sides
. The migration business is conceived as a system of institutionalized networks with complex profit and loss accounts, including a set of institutions, agents and individuals each of which stands to make a commercial gain.

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.

In some sense, this is quite obvious. Of course smuggling and trafficking are businesses, where the commodity being shipped is the people.

However, the solution seems almost designed to fail. Let’s focus on the institutions themselves and not the migrants?! If the migrants want what they view as a “better life” in Western nations, the demand will remain high. And as long as there is a demand, with customers willing to pay, then there will be people willing to take the risks.

The migration business theory seems still to be dominant in the literature analysing smuggling trends in North America, South-east Asia and the Pacific region, where smugglers are portrayed as “migration merchants”, while the smuggled migrants are considered clients paying for a service. However, it seems that academic views have evolved recently, with a greater number of authors, such as Zhang and Herman, looking at the role of family members and social networks in the smuggling process. While still endorsing the “migration business” theory, authors such as Doomernik and Kyle call for a more nuanced approach, as the empirical reality includes a mix of people with both altruistic and profit-making goals. empirical research led by Van liempt and Doomernik in the Netherlands in 2003 and 2004 looked at how smugglers of migrants may depict themselves as serving migrants rather than as profit-makers, despite the fees involved. equally, migrants may not use the word “smugglers” when they talk about the person who “helped” them. According to Aranowitz, the “mother of All Snakeheads”—a major Chinese smuggler is probably the symbol of the dual reality of smuggling of migrants, as she was a revered figure in New York’s Chinatown and considered a saint for “reuniting families”.

While this is interesting on some level, it does not change the basic reality. Helping to get people illegally into other countries is smuggling, regardless of whether it is driven by profit or humanitarian reasons.

5. Data From Interviews

3.2 Qualitative methodologies
3.2.1 Interviews with smuggled migrants
Methodological issues
Qualitative information can be extracted from various sources. For example, it can be the outcome of fact-finding missions carried out by researchers in source, transit and/or destination countries, involving interviews with actors in and witnesses of the smuggling process (migrants, migrants’ relatives and smugglers). The collection of direct information seems to be the most problematic, and research projects often require a combination of sources, such as interviews and police and court files.

Researchers may face difficulties in interviewing smuggled migrants and persons directly involved in the smuggling process. According to Düvell, Triandafyllidou and Vollmer, migrants are reluctant to participate, as they fear retaliation from smugglers and are also afraid that the information provided might be used against them and lead to deportation. Collyer, however, insists on the difficulties of getting a representative sample and of carrying out a proper interview, given the interviewees’ living conditions. Owing to these constraints, the interview technique varies greatly: while some researchers carry out observation in police stations or shelters, others conduct interviews on the basis of a standard questionnaire. Some academics use a mix of interviews and observations.

According to Heckmann, smuggled persons tend to cooperate in interviews when basic conditions are met, such as respect for anonymity, or when the interviewer is a person who comes from the same community as the smuggled person. Smuggled migrants may want to speak out of frustration with the smugglers or, after having achieved safe status, for political reasons. According to Bilecen, command of the migrant’s native language seems to be an imperative asset, together with being from the same community. Given the reluctance of smuggled migrants and smugglers, some authors have used tricks such as enrolling as social workers at the reception centre of Sangatte (France) or pretending to be irregular migrants.

Pretending to be a social worker or a fellow illegal is actually an interesting tactic. True, it is deception. But the entire presence and transport of these smuggled illegal aliens is based on deception, so it can be viewed as fighting fire with fire.

Of course getting direct information can be tricky. The entire point of these smuggling operations is …. wait for it …. to smuggle people. Giving direct and honest information can lead to their deportation, and to possible criminal charges as well.

Sure, speaking the same language can go a long way. Anyone familiar with police interrogations will tell you that having a connection with a suspect will help you get information.

3.2.2 Interviews with smugglers
There is a lack of research focusing on the smugglers’ perspectives that would allow insight into the subjective dimension of the phenomenon. According to Neske, this gap is understandable since smugglers are not interested in exposing themselves to publicity or law enforcement.

Yes, this is pretty obvious.

Now, let’s address some estimates about the size and scale of human smuggling and trafficking across borders.

6. Scope Of Int’l Smuggling

4. The scope of smuggling of migrants
Bearing in mind the methodological limitations on estimating the movement of smuggled migrants in the broader context of irregular migration, this chapter will outline quantitative information about the extent of smuggling of migrants with a focus on sub-regions and key countries. This information is scattered and/or imprecise for two reasons. Firstly, reports often mix up statistics on and refer interchangeably to irregular migration, trafficking in persons and smuggling of migrants. Secondly, quantitative assessments are limited mainly to smuggling towards industrialized Western countries, while intraregional movements in the southern hemisphere are largely ignored.

This chapter then looks at the current state of knowledge regarding smuggling routes. The literature reviewed reveals a dual perspective. On the one hand, the “traditional” view holds that all smuggling trends are converging towards the industrialized Western States. This perspective is dominant in the literature published in the early 1990s. On the other hand, more recent research shows that smuggling routes are far more diverse and that Western-centric views may not accurately represent the complex dynamics of smuggling of migrants. In any case, the routes outlined below provide only an overview of smuggling routes as described in the literature. Further details about the organization of sea, air and land movements are provided in chapter 9.

The report says that “irregular migrants” (who are really illegal aliens) get mixed up with people who are smuggled and trafficked. It seems that the authors are the ones contributing to this problem. They repeatedly try to make a distinction where none exists.

Part of the assumption that illegals head to Western nations is the fact that they have the best social programs. They also have lawyers and others who work hard to circumvent national laws. Heading to the West offers the best rate of return in most cases.

It will be interesting to read onward and see where these additional routes are. True, there is the belief that smuggling and trafficking heads mostly here.

The report spends some time giving estimates of the number of illegals in various regions. However, it is clear that these are estimates (often conflicting estimates) and that they have few real answers.

7. Profile Of Smuggled Migrants

5.1 General profile of smuggled migrants
5.1.1 Social and educational background
According to figures in the IOM World Migration Report 2008, the vast majority of migrants around the world are young people, including a great proportion of underage persons. many developing countries have very young populations: in most African countries and many in Asia, about half of the population is under the age of 14. As stressed by Doomernik and Kyle, such countries encourage their young people to emigrate since they are facing severe underemployment and unemployment. Some authors have considered the role of State authorities—in particular in the Philippines and Spain—in migrant-exporting schemes. Although there are no consolidated global figures on the age pyramid of smuggled migrants, the figures shown by regional research tend to confirm that smuggled migrants are usually recruited from the young population.

There are diverging views about the social and educational backgrounds of smuggled migrants. According to authors such as Aronowitz, smuggled persons are usually the most disadvantaged in their own countries, with poor job skills or little chance of successful employment at home. They are often women and children, as shown by the smuggling and trafficking patterns in countries in eastern and Central Europe and West Africa. According to IOM, research on the profile of persons using the service of smugglers in Central Asia would present similar characteristics.

We are getting some honesty here, and it undermines a major narrative of the asylum pushers. A large amount of people claiming to be refugees fleeing persecution are actually economic migrants seeking a better life. While it is understandable that people want to make better lives for themselves, it does not translate into a “right” to migrate.

8. Profile Of Smugglers Themselves

6. Profiles of smugglers of migrants
The main objective of this chapter is to look at the social background of smugglers of migrants and their motivations. It will highlight the similarities and differences in the profiles of smugglers in different parts of the world. Because of the lack of information and the diversity of situations, the present review refrains from drawing general conclusions about the social and educational background of the persons involved in migrant-smuggling activities. Regional profiles of smugglers will be established according to analyses of law enforcement activities or information gathered directly from smugglers. Complementary information is provided in chapter 9.

6.3 Conclusions
There is a striking lack of information regarding the profile of smugglers. Scholars’ views can be divided into a criminological and a sociological perspective. The information about the smugglers is based mainly on police and court records and, to a lesser extent, on interviews with migrants. Some recent research includes a psychological perspective, including interviews with the smugglers about their motivations and background. Research based on interviews with smugglers should be further developed, as it provides subjective insight into the migrant-smuggling phenomenon

There are a lot of generalities in this. But a few conclusions from the chapter:

(a) Smugglers never give the full truth about their operations, as it would lead to the authorities easily disrupting them.
(b) Greatest trust happens when smuggler and their “migrants” come from the same communities and speak the same language.
(c) Some do it purely for money, and others are driven — at least partly — by altruistic reasons. It seems to act as a self-rationalization.

9. Organizational Details Of Smuggling

8. Organizational structures of smuggling networks
This chapter considers typologies of organizational structures and actors involved in
migrant-smuggling activities and highlight similarities and differences in the organizational
structures of smuggling networks in different parts of the world
. It then looks into details of how smugglers are organized in different parts of the world and reviews information about factors that influence the way smugglers are organized and elements that guide their evolution. Finally, it reviews information available to determine whether migrant-smuggling markets are increasingly dominated by transnational organizations.

8.1 General analysis of organizational structures of smuggling networks
8.1.1 Typology of structures
From a general standpoint, the literature has taken a great interest in the organizational structure of smuggling networks. Intergovernmental organizations and national administrations have published or sponsored research on this issue in order to increase the capacity to investigate and prosecute smuggling-related offences. The literature reviewed shows that smuggling of migrants can take many organizational forms, as indicated by the great diversity of concepts used to describe it. According to Heckmann, the methodology presented in the literature on smuggling of migrants is rather weak and often uses vague and ad hoc concepts, such as “the smuggling industry”, “migrant merchants”, “mom and pop smugglers” and “organized crime”.

8.3 Conclusions
Sources reviewed reveal a great disparity in the quantity and the quality of information about the organization of smuggling networks. Few regions have been researched, and there is often a critical lack of comprehensive and up-to-date research available. Specific research has not been carried out in North and West African countries; and investigative and judicial data from european sources have been used. Further research should be developed in order to get a more comprehensive understanding of the organization of smuggling networks around the world.

Some useful information is contained in the chapter.

While there are areas that are under researched, it may be that the methods used are similar to those that are more documented in other nations. After all, how many techniques can there be that are totally novel?

10. Human & Social Costs

10.1 Human costs
The literature reviewed is highly critical of the law enforcement strategy currently deployed at the maritime borders of EU, which is deemed to be both inefficient in preventing irregular migration and inhumane towards the migrants. According to Spijkerboer, increased border controls have led to the loss of more lives, and further tightening of external EU borders will intensify this trend. Heckmann stresses that improved border control measures have contributed to establishing a low-cost segment of the market, in which smugglers endanger the health and lives of the smuggled migrants. This opinion is shared by authors such as Carling, monzini, eylemer and Şemşit, to name but a few.

10.2 Social costs The literature reviewed provides little information on the social costs of smuggling of migrants, except in respect of Africa. The high failure rate of internal journeys in Africa seems to indicate that, in many situations, migration can drain local resources and leave the country of origin and the communities of co-nationals abroad even more impoverished than before. most migrants depart with the savings of their family and loans from friends, making their migration a long-term investment. If they find themselves in difficulty during the trip, they ask for more money and often have it transferred in order to pay for later stages of the journey. The sums, for the country of origin, are often very high and dry up the family economy for years. Therefore, according to Beneduce, in recent decades the geography of migration has changed, and the geography of humanitarian problems recently associated with irregular migration (poverty, exploitation, segregation and abuse) is changing as well. many of the migrants or asylum-seekers caught between the economic demands of the smugglers and a permanent fear of being arrested and deported by the authorities, are impoverished and become “stranded”.

This is one of the main arguments against immigration in general. What happens to those other nations when the wealthy and able people leave? What happens when their family wealth is drained?

As for the costs, one piece of the puzzle is left out: what about those 1st world nations who are now forced to cope with large numbers of “refugees” or “irregular migrants” who have been smuggled in? The nations never invited them, and the people never gave any democratic mandate.

11. Final Thoughts On Report

Let’s start with the obvious question: for all the research that has been done, why doesn’t the UN do more to prevent illegal crossings? Instead, they do all they can to facilitate mass, illegal invasions and force host nations to cope.

Another thing to address: prosecuting or punishing smugglers is to be expected, but why should these migrants get a pass? If they are willingly participating, then they are accomplices. It is selfish to effectively reward such a system.

Why does the UN keep repeating the “refugee” lie, when its own research concludes that it is mainly economic migrants looking for better opportunity? The UN appears to be willingly complicit in this industry.

How would agreements like the UN Global Migration Compact impact this issue? Is the UN oblivious, or this a deliberate attempt to make human smuggling easier? Remember what is in it:

(Objective 4) Ensure migrants have identity papers
(Objective 5) Enhance pathways for migration
(Objective 11) Manage borders in “integrated” manner
(Objective 13) Detention only as a last resort
(Objective 15) Provide basic services for all migrants
(Objective 17) Educating media, censorship
(Objective 20) Make remittances easier/cheaper to send
(Objective 22) Forced to pay out pensions, social benefits

This UN treaty only makes it easier to smuggle people into countries like Canada. After all, if we are required to provide social benefits, can’t lock them up, and can’t even criticize it, then what will discourage it?

TSCE #6: UN Blurs The Line Between Smuggling & “Irregular” Migrants

(UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

(There is a connection between smuggling and “irregular migration”)

(UN High Commission on Refugees)

(UN insists terrorists be allowed to return home)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for TSCE #1: suing for right to illegally enter U.S.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #2: fake refugees gaming the system.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #3: various topics on issue.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #4: Islamic violence of women, children.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #5: UNHCR is a party to Canada/U.S. S3CA.

CLICK HERE, for UNODC on smuggling migrants.
CLICK HERE, for a UN guide in circumventing the Canada/U.S. Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for UN guide: details on S3CA loopholes.
CLICK HERE, for UN insisting terrorists be repatriated.
CLICK HERE, for the UN supporting illegal mass invasion (caravans) into the U.S., despite knowing it is unwanted and illegal.

2. UN Review On Smuggling Migrants

(Page 11)
1. Introduction
The purpose of this thematic review is to survey existing sources and research papers on smuggling of migrants and to provide a gap analysis of existing knowledge from a global perspective. Indeed, despite the fact that smuggling of migrants has attracted great media and political attention over the last two decades, there has not been any comprehensive analysis of the state of expert knowledge. Great confusion still prevails about what smuggling of migrants is within the global context of irregular migration.

To be honest, I wonder that myself. “Irregular migrants”, which are really illegal aliens, are being who have entered a country illegally, or who entered legally, but remained when their status changed. This could simply be trying to make a distinction where none exists.

Article 6 of the Smuggling of migrants Protocol, requires States to criminalize both smuggling of migrants and enabling a person to remain in a country illegally in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit, as well as to establish as aggravating circumstances acts that endanger the lives or safety or entail inhuman or degrading treatment of migrants. By virtue of article 5, migrants are not liable to criminal prosecution for the fact of having been smuggled. It is therefore understood that the Protocol aims to target smugglers, not the people being smuggled

So, are we to give a pass to the people being smuggled and only focus on the smugglers? What happens if the people being smuggled are a willing part of it?

From a sociological perspective, smuggling of migrants may then include every act on a continuum between altruism and organized crime. Doomernik defines smuggling of migrants as “every act whereby an immigrant is assisted in crossing international borders whereby this crossing is not endorsed by the government of the receiving state, neither implicitly nor explicitly”.

(Page 12)
To the extent that the literature available allows a distinction to be made, the issues of irregular migration and trafficking in persons are deliberately not covered per se by this thematic review, despite the fact that these phenomena are closely connected with smuggling of migrants in practice.

They are not immigrants, but aliens.

Again, it seems to be searching for a difference where none exists. Illegal aliens (or “irregular migrants” in UN duck-speak) are people who enter other countries illegally. People who knowingly aid these illegal aliens are people smugglers. The UN engages in this mangling of the language in order to attempt to separate the two.

(Page 15)
2.1.1 Irregular migration
The relationship between irregular migration and smuggling of migrants has been discussed in the literature, with most authors acknowledging the crucial role of smuggling of migrants in facilitating irregular migration.

The legal definition of smuggling of migrants finds wide acceptance among the academic community, which usually refers to articles 3 and 6 of the Smuggling of migrants Protocol. Contrary to the concept of smuggling, the notion of irregular migration does not have a universally accepted definition; however, most academics and experts refer to the definition provided by IOM, which highlights that the most common forms of irregular migration are illegal entry, overstaying and unauthorized work.

In looking at the relationship between the two concepts, Friedrich Heckmann stresses that smuggling of migrants plays a crucial role in facilitating irregular migration, as smugglers may provide a wide range of services, from physical transportation and illegal crossing of a border to the procurement of false documents

Finally, we are getting some real honesty. Smuggling helps to facilitate so called “irregular migrants”, who are really illegal aliens. Smugglers transport these aliens, and often obtain false documents for them.

Why doesn’t irregular migration have a universally accepted definition? Is it done deliberately to obscure what is going on?

(Page 15)
2.1.2 Trafficking in persons
Smuggling of migrants must also be differentiated from the concept of trafficking in persons, defined under article 3 of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (Trafficking in Persons Protocol) as: The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs

This is actually true. There is a difference between voluntarily arranging to come to another nation illegally, and being forced or coerced into doing so. This is a valid distinction.

(Page 18)
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’

Salt and Stein suggested treating international migration as a global business that has both
legitimate and illegitimate sides
. The migration business is conceived as a system of institutionalized networks with complex profit and loss accounts, including a set of institutions, agents and individuals each of which stands to make a commercial gain.

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.

Aranowitz puts forward a similar view and claims that smuggling could not have grown to such proportions if it were not supported by powerful market forces. Furthermore, Aranowitz argues that smugglers exhibit entrepreneur-like behaviour and circumvent legal requirements through corruption, deceit and threats. They specialize either in smuggling or in trafficking services, and the profit generated varies accordingly.

This is surprisingly well written. Smuggling and trafficking are businesses, and the people are the commodity. That being said, if the people are consenting to being smuggled, they are accomplices and not victims.

(Page 21)
The network theory also departs from the migration business theory by looking at the migrant as an actor in the migration process and not merely as an object, as in the organized crime theory. Van liempt and Doomernik have questioned the assumption that smuggled migrants are recruited by criminals and have little to say within the migration process. In their view, the relationship between the smugglers and the smuggled is more complex.

Looking at migrants as actors in the migration process, de Haas also insists on the need to depart from prejudiced views against smuggled migrants. According to him, rather than a desperate response to destitution, migration is generally a conscious choice made by relatively well-off
individuals to enhance their livelihoods
. Detailed discussions of migrants’ profiles and relationships with their smugglers are in chapters 5 and 7.

2.3 Conclusions
Sources reviewed reveal a strong interest among the academic community in analysing the
phenomenon of smuggling of migrants from a conceptual perspective. In particular, experts have debated the link between smuggling of migrants and other forms of transnational movement of persons—in particular irregular migration and trafficking in persons. Recent literature has also attempted to improve concrete understanding of smuggling of migrants through the conceptualization of the phenomenon as a migration business, a security threat or a family (network) business.

Some useful points:

Smuggling is not usually that of desperate people, but rather well-off individuals looking for a better life. The refugee system is being gamed.

Also, there is a clear link between these illegals (no they are not “irregular”) and the smuggling that facilitates this. To suggest otherwise is to blur reality.

The book is some 148 pages, and is far too long to go through in a single article, but do have a read.

3. UN Hypocrisy On People Smuggling

This cannot be overstated. It is extremely hypocritical for the UN to condemn human smuggling, while promoting and excusing so-called “irregular migration”. It is well known that many of these illegals come to the West by means of smuggling.

If smuggling itself is to be rejected by society as a whole, then why is it okay for the accomplices of these smugglers to reap the rewards that come from it?

The UN also insists that nations have an obligation to allow terrorists to return home. Needless to say this endangers the public greatly. You can’t simultaneously expect this, and for nations to have safe borders.

This same behaviour also happens on the U.S./Mexico border. In 2018, the UN facilitated large “caravans” of economic migrants with the intention of bringing them up through Central America and overwhelming the U.S. border. How does this respect national sovereignty in any way at all?

4. Organizing “Irregulars” is Smuggling

As much as the UN would like to blur the line, arranging for migrants to enter other nations without permission is smuggling.

The UN insists that all migrants (even if in these countries illegally) are entitled to basic services. As such, the UN advocates for smuggling. The only reasonable conclusion is that having all these amenities will lead to more people trying to enter illegally.

As much as they try to engage in mental gymnastics, the UN is directly involved in people smuggling. They promote policies that only ensure the smuggling (and trafficking) will continue indefinitely.

The UN document claimed that migration is a huge industry. They were absolutely right about that.

TSCE #5: UNHCR Is Party To Canada/U.S. S3CA. Consultations Mandatory

(UNHCR: United Nations High Commission on Refugees, has released another guide in how to circumvent the Canada/U.S. border)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for TSCE #1: suing for right to illegally enter U.S.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #2: fake refugees gaming the system.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #3: various topics on issue.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #4: Islamic violence, exploitation of women, children.

CLICK HERE, for the link from the UNHCR.
CLICK HERE, for other UN guidelines on how to exploit loophole in S3CA.

CLICK HERE, for review of abuse in Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for review of World Border Congress.
CLICK HERE, for review, suing for right to enter US illegally.
CLICK HERE, for review on “sanctuary” cities.
CLICK HERE, for true scale of illegals in U.S.: 22M?
CLICK HERE, for start up of amnesty program in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for challenge dismissed in closing loophole in S3CA.

CLICK HERE, for the UN supporting illegal entry into the US.
CLICK HERE, for link to the Canada/U.S. Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for Government of Canada info on S3CA.

2. The Loophole Written Into S3CA

EMPHASIZING that the United States and Canada offer generous systems of refugee protection, recalling both countries’ traditions of assistance to refugees and displaced persons abroad, consistent with the principles of international solidarity that underpin the international refugee protection system, and committed to the notion that cooperation and burden-sharing with respect to refugee status claimants can be enhanced;

ARTICLE 1
In this Agreement,
“Country of Last Presence” means that country, being either Canada or the United States, in which the refugee claimant was physically present immediately prior to making a refugee status claim at a land border port of entry.

ARTICLE 4
Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, the Party of the country of last presence shall examine, in accordance with its refugee status determination system, the refugee status claim of any person who arrives at a land border port of entry on or after the effective date of this Agreement and makes a refugee status claim.

The “land border port of entry” is clear. However, in practice it is becoming such that if you simply bypass the official border ports, you can actually take advantage of it. Poor wording, but it has become a real headache.

From the Government of Canada website, we find the following.

Where the Agreement is in effect
The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:
-at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
-by train or
-at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S.

This clearly was not meant to reward people for illegally crossing the border, provided they do so anywhere other than a port of entry.

3. More Loopholes In S3CA

Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they have a family member who:
-is a Canadian citizen
-is a permanent resident of Canada
-is a protected person under Canadian immigration legislation
-has made a claim for refugee status in Canada that has been accepted by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB)
-has had his or her removal order stayed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds
-holds a valid Canadian work permit
-holds a valid Canadian study permit, or
-is over 18 years old and has a claim for refugee protection that has been referred to the IRB for determination. (This claim must not have been withdrawn by the family member, declared abandoned or rejected by the IRB or found ineligible for referral to the IRB.) citizens, permanent residents, or various other statuses, you qualify for an exception to the rule. The “family members” list include: the spouse, sons, daughters, parents, legal guardians, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews.

Unaccompanied minors exception
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they are minors (under the age of 18) who:
-are not accompanied by their mother, father or legal guardian
-have neither a spouse nor a common-law partner, and
-do not have a mother, a father or a legal guardian in Canada or the United States.

Document holder exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they:
-hold a valid Canadian visa (other than a transit visa)
-hold a valid work permit
-hold a valid study permit
-hold a travel document (for permanent residents or refugees) or other valid admission document issued by Canada, or
-are not required (exempt) to get a temporary resident visa to enter Canada but require a U.S.–issued visa to enter the U.S.

Public interest exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if:
they have been charged with or convicted of an offence that could subject them to the death penalty in the U.S. or in a third country. However, a refugee claimant is ineligible if he or she has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, or if the Minister finds the person to be a danger to the public.

Source is here. Okay. Are there is any cases that DON’T meet any of these exceptions?

4. UNHCR Is 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.

Source is here. Serious question: why have Canada and the United States signed an agreement that quite clearly gives the UN a seat at the table?

5. UN Supports Caravans Into U.S.

For a walk down memory lane, let’s review what the U.N. was up to in the Fall of 2018.

“IOM maintains its position that the human rights and basic needs of all migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status,” said Christopher Gascon, UN Migration’s Chief of Mission in Mexico.

In coordination with UN refugee agency UNHCR, he said “we will continue to monitor the situation of the caravan counting on field staff, the Mexican Office of Assistance for Migrants and Refugees, and partner NGOs, providing information regarding alternatives for regular and safe migration, as well as options for voluntary returns,” he added.

Counting on its Mesoamerica Program – funded by the US State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration – IOM is now also able to provide voluntary return assistance to migrants.

“The caravan phenomenon in Central America is another expression of a migration process that the region has been facing for quite some time,” Marcelo Pisani, IOM Regional Director for Central America, North America and the Caribbean explained, saying the “mixed migration flow” was driven by economic factors, family reunification, violence and the search for international protection.

“Nevertheless,” he added, “we are concerned about the stress and demands that caravans place on the humanitarian community and the asylum systems of receiving countries, which ultimately have limited resources to face this challenge or to properly care for and protect migrants.”

According to local authorities, on Monday the Mexican government admitted a second caravan of approximately 1,800 Central Americans who initially started the regularization process, but later opted to continue the trek north without seeking asylum; a third caravan of around 500 Salvadorians crossed in on Tuesday, where most requested asylum; and a fourth group of some 1,700 individuals spent Thursday night in the Guatemalan town of Tecún Umán, on the border with Mexico.

This has been covered in previous articles. The U.N. thinks nothing of coordinating and facilitating massive “caravans” of migrants to dump into the United States, and completely overwhelm their social services and border guards.

The U.N. does not respect the sovereignty of the U.S.’s Southern border. With the above published manual, it becomes clear they don’t support the Northern border either.

6. Border Security Is A Joke

Our agreement with the United States comes with so many exceptions that it is pretty much useless. And if someone doesn’t meet one of the exceptions, they can just fly to New York, and take a cab to Roxham Road. The RCMP will dutifully greet them like bellhops.

Despite the UNCHR deliberately acting to destroy Western borders, the Safe 3rd Country Agreement was drafted in such a way that they are guaranteed a seat at any reviews and modifications that come up.

Not only does the U.N. work to undermine sovereign nations, but they are sure to publish guidebooks to make it easy.

Of course, the illegal aliens entering Canada through underhanded means is nothing compared to the vast LEGAL immigration which is effectively population replacement.

Previously a Federal Court Prothonotary ruled that a citizen has no public or private standing to demand the Court take action against the government. That is being appealed.

The Western World is facing some serious challenges, to put it very mildly. Our politicians, media, and courts are stacked against us.

Joel Wood And The Carbon Tax “Options” (Climate Change Scam #12)

(For an audio of the talk)

(Joel Wood is a member of the Koch funded Fraser Institute)

(He is also a professor at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC)

(At the library talk)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Joel Wood’s announcement in May 2019.
CLICK HERE, for Joel Wood’s Fraser Institute profile.
CLICK HERE, for Joel Wood’s TRU profile.
CLICK HERE, for Joel Wood’s website.
CLICK HERE, for a paper Wood co-authored on co-fluctuation patterns.
CLICK HERE, for paper on raising the gas taxes.
CLICK HERE, for a paper on indoctrinating university students..

Previous Articles On Scam
CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.
CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework.
CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff.
CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97.
CLICK HERE, for Part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai explains the climate change scam.
CLICK HERE, for UN global taxation efforts.

2. Publications Listed On TRU Biography

McKitrick,R. & Wood, J. (in press). An examination of the relationship between air quality and income in Canada. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics.

Tsigaris, P. & Wood, J. (2016). A Simple Climate-Solow Model for Introducing the Economics of Climate Change to Undergraduate Students. International Review of Economics Education, 23: 65-81.

Wood, J. (2015). Is it time to raise the gas tax? Optimal gasoline taxes for Ontario and Toronto. Canadian Public Policy, 43(3): 179-190.

Wood, J. (2015). When a ban is not a ban: The case of British Columbia’s log export restrictions. Economics Bulletin 35(2): 1071-1075.

Mckitrick, R.& Wood, J. (2013). Co-fluctuation patterns of per capita carbon dioxide emissions: The role of energy markets. Energy Economics, 39: 1-12.

Wood, J. (2013). The effects of bailouts and soft-budget constraints on the environment. Environmental & Resource Economics, 54(1): 127-137.

Recent Newspaper Commentaries:

Wood,J. (2016, Mar 2). Keep the carbon tax, but make sure it is revenue neutral. Vancouver Sun.

Wood,J. (2015, Sep 21). Raise the Gas Tax. National Post.

Wood,J. (2014, Jun 24). BC would gain from streamlined log export policies. Vancouver Sun.

3. Bogus “Science” At Core Of Scam

6CO2 + 6H2O + light ==> C6H12O6 + 6O2 (Photosynthesis)

C6H12O6 + 6O2 ==> 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy (Respiration)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a necessary part in both photosynthesis and respiration. The idea that we must remove it from the atmosphere is moronic. Without an abundant supply of CO2, plants will die off.

Since “success” will mean the death of us all, it seems that “failure” will result in ever growing carbon taxes to combat this so-called existential threat to humanity.

Let’s take a look at some of the other publications that Joel Wood has released in recent years. What else has he been up to?

4. Paper On Co-Fluctuation Patterns On CO2

Our hypothesis is that energy prices transmit information across borders in such a way as to increase coordination of emission fluctuations. This is tested by examining the effect of energy prices on the index of homogeneity. We find evidence in support of the hypothesis; however, the pattern of emission fluctuations differs between developing and developed countries until the most recent time period (1984-2000). We then examine the effects of openness to trade and government intervention, and find that neither of these factors have an identifiable coordinating effect on emission fluctuations between countries. Overall the evidence suggests that emissions are strongly linked between countries, and we discuss what this may imply about future emission growth and global agreements to address climate change.

By finding out how pricing impacts energy usage, we will be able to manipulate and control behaviour to suit our agenda. After all, people can’t “pollute” if they can’t afford to do it. Never mind the bogus science behind all of this.

In the subsequent section we empirically investigate the co-fluctuation patterns of per capita CO2 emissions across countries, in particular looking at world energy prices as a coordinating mechanism for emission changes across countries. We then add in other indicators of openness to markets to examine the effect they play in coordinating emission variations.

When all of the wordiness is stripped down, it is one simple idea: manipulating energy prices in order to reduce “emissions” which means reduce usage of vehicles and equipment. In short, this is research into deliberately pricing machinery out of the reach of most people.

Source is here.

5. Paper On Raising Gas Taxes

This paper uses a representative agent model and Canadian data to calculate the
optimal gasoline taxes for Ontario and the Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area (GTHA) in
a second-best setting with pre-existing distortionary income taxes. The results suggest
a second-best optimal gasoline tax of 40.57 cents per litre in 2006 Canadian dollars
for the GTHA that is much higher than the current tax rate of 24.7 cents per litre,
and also higher than recently proposed increases
. The resulting value is insensitive to
whether the additional revenue is used to reduce taxes on income or to incrementally
fund increased public transit infrastructure
(The Big Move plan). However, in the
absence of a regional tax, the second-best optimal gasoline tax for Ontario as a whole
of 28.51 cents per litre in 2006 Canadian dollars is slightly higher than the current tax
rate and in-line with proposed increases.

Gasoline taxes to be jacked up, and one option is to use to fund more public transit. In short, make driving more and more unaffordable, so you have no choice but to take transit. Source is here.

6. Paper On Brainwashing University Students

In this paper we develop the simplest integrated assessment model in order to illustrate to
undergraduate students the economic issues associated with climate change. The growth model
developed in this paper is an extension of the Solow model and includes a simple climate model.
Even though the model is very simple it is very powerful in its predictions
. Students explore
various scenarios illustrating how economic activity today will inflict damages on future
generations. But students also observe that future generations will be richer than today’s
generation due to productivity growth and population stabilization. Hence, the richer future
generations will not be as rich as they would be without climate change
. Since the cost of action
is absorbed by the current generation and the benefits of action accrue to future generations
students can conduct a cost-benefit analysis and explore the importance of the discount rate.

Due to the persistence of GHGs in the atmosphere, the climate change problem is
characterized by the issue of inter-generational equity
: The current generation is imposing
external costs on future generations and would have to forego some economic growth to limit
those costs. But at the same time, it is also characterized by issues of intra-generational equity, for example, rich nations which are relatively GHG intensive are located in temperate climates
and have the funds and strong institutions to more easily adapt to climate change
; whereas,
poorer nations, say in sub-Saharan Africa, are expected to be hit relatively harder by the negative
impacts of higher temperatures.

Source is here.

As was shown in the Paris Accord (read Article 9 in particular), this climate change scam is all about a massive wealth redistribution. It was little, if anything to do with protecting the environment, and is just a way to levy global taxes.

7. Thoughts On The Kamloops Presentation

While a number of different “solutions” were proposed, they all came down to the same thing: paying huge sums of money to the government (and by extension the U.N.) for something that won’t make air quality better.

Interesting, Joel never once discussed the science behind the climate change agenda, only different patterns to implement tariffs and taxes. But then, that’s what it was always about.

Arguments To Appeal Dismissal in S3CA Challenge (Unedited Version)

1. Quotes From Prothonotary’s Dismissal

2. Previous Links

CLICK HERE, for abuse of Safe Third Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for Prothonotary strikes out Statement of Claim.
CLICK HERE, for Uppity Peasants on the moral arguments.

NOTE: This is an unedited version of the written submission.
There is further editing and changes being made.

PART I. ISSUES

(1) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make overriding palpable error saying the Plaintiff’s claim was based on personal opinions, without material facts?

(2) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law in finding there is no public or private standing in the matter?

(3) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law by not taking facts alleged as proven, at least in the preliminary stages?

(4) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law by overreaching, and striking out a Statement of Claim in a matter that is complex and involves in depth analysis of law? Prothonotaries are not Judges or Justices.

(5) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law by not allowing for amendments?

(6) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law by not considering arguments of: unjust enrichment, unconscionability, negligence, or constitutional issues prior to striking?

(7) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law by allowing procedural rules to unjustly hinder a self represented litigant?

Standard For Review

(8) Housen v. Nikolaisen (2002) is the accepted standard for review. It outlines the standard for both factual errors, errors of law, and mixed law and fact errors. Hospira Healthcare Corp v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology (2017) clarified that Prothonotary orders being reviewed should subjected to the same standard, as they are basically the same thing.

(9) The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. A palpable error is one that is plainly seen. …. The standard of review on pure questions of law is one of correctness, and an appellate court is thus free to replace the opinion of the trial judge with its own. Appellate courts require a broad scope of review with respect to matters of law because their primary role is to delineate and refine legal rules and ensure their universal application…. Questions of mixed fact and law involve the application of a legal standard to a set of facts.

PART II. FACTS

(10) In December 2002, Canada and the United States signed the “Safe Third Country Agreement” (the S3CA). This was in effect an agreement to prevent “asylum shopping” by forcing alleging to be refugees to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive in.

(11) In December 2004, the Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) legally took effect between Canada and the United States. This is not disputed by the other side.

(12) However, due to a “loophole” in the agreement, the rules apparently do not apply if a “refugee” simply bypasses official border ports of entry. In other words, enter Canada from the U.S. at any place other than an official port, then different rules apply. The result has been fake refugees entering from the U.S. and attempting to claim asylum.

(13) Instead of turning people away attempting to enter Canada from the United States, this loophole has made it easier for people to enter the country and submit asylum applications here. This completely defeats the purpose of having the agreement in the first place.

(14) The United States considers many thousands of asylum applications every year (see Exhibit A). It is because of this, and because of how legitimate asylees are treated, Canada as made this Safe Third Country Agreement in the first place.

(15) The claim that the Plaintiff’s assertions are just personal opinions is false. The ruling by Prothonotary Milczynski of that is complete nonsense. Here are some examples.

(16) The CBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, has reported (see Exhibit B) that at least 50,000 people have entered Canada in just the last 2 years, coming from all countries.
Close to 50,000 have come into Canada in just two years at Roxham Road, stepping across the border at the unauthorized crossing.

But the majority of those who come here to Plattsburgh, N.Y., by bus, train or plane have spent little time in the U.S., arriving on tourist visas with the intent of treading the footpath to Canada.

When CBC News visited the crossing recently, in one day we met families and single travellers from Pakistan, Turkey, Yemen, Lebanon, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Eritrea, as well as a Palestinian family from the occupied territories. Some arrived with what appeared to be fresh baggage tags from overseas flights into New York. Others had made their way north from Mexico, South and Central America.

They often prearrange taxis in Plattsburgh for the half-hour ride to the border. Since 2017, the route has become so normalized that taxi companies are branding themselves as border shuttles. A sign on one taxi van brazenly reads “Refugee Border.” Another reads “Roxham Border – LaColle Border” and advertises a group rate, with each ride costing between $60 and $80 US, a lucrative and steady business.

(17) But perhaps CBC is just faking the article. Perhaps all of this really the Plaintiff’s opinion (sarcasm). But moving on, the United Nations has published freely available articles on Roxham Road in Quebec. One such article (see Exhibit C) reads that at least 20,000 people have entered Canada illegally just in the Summer of 2017:

The 48-year old man, who used to work for Oxfam Quebec in Haiti, is one of the estimated five thousand Haitians who, in the hot summer days of 2017, walked into Canada via Roxham Road at the U.S.-Canada border. Together with these Haitians, some 20,000 people crossed into Canada via Roxham Road that summer, making it the main entry point into Canada for asylum seekers crossing the border irregularly.

(18) The United Nations, in this article, estimates that at least 20,000 people crossed into Canada illegally in just the Summer of 2017 at Roxham Road in Quebec. This is the United Nations’ own estimate. Not my imagination or opinion, as Prothonotary Milczynski has stated. Moving on, the Toronto Star has also written about the problem (Exhibit D) and writes that people are entering from Roxham Road every day in Canada.

Seven days a week, 24 hours a day, migrants who came to the U.S. from across the globe — Syria, Congo, Haiti, elsewhere — arrive here where Roxham Rd. dead-ends so they can walk into Canada, hoping its policies will give them the security they believe the political climate in the United States does not.

“In Trump’s country, they want to put us back to our country,” said Lena Gunja, a 10-year-old from Congo, who until this week had been living in Portland, Maine. She was travelling with her mother, father and younger sister. “So we don’t want that to happen to us, so we want a good life for us. My mother, she wants a good life for us.”

(19) The Toronto Star not only details the illegals (fake refugees) crossing into Canada from the US, but documents a family who was coming to Canada simply because they feared deportation because they were living in the U.S. illegally.

(20) Next, Global News covered Toronto Mayor John Tory on the topic of border jumpers, (see Exhibit E). He has said that homeless shelter beds are being filled up with illegals, and it has cost at least $64.5 million:

“But that goal is simply not achievable if the other governments, especially the federal government, don’t step up and take much greater responsibility to help us in an area of their jurisdiction. The status quo is simply not acceptable.”

City officials say the number of refugee claimants in Toronto’s shelter system has increased from 459 (11.2 per cent of the total system) in 2016 to 2,351 (37.6 per cent of the total system) in April 2018.
Tory said that if the level of refugees arriving in Toronto continues to rise, the city projects it will incur $64.5 million in direct costs related to providing shelter and housing.

(21) CTV news has also written about the cost of these fake refugees. Here (Exhibit F) is one of their submissions:

OTTAWA — The federal government has spent over $270 million on irregular border crossers over the last year and a half, according to government figures submitted to the parliamentary budget office.
The figures were requested by parliamentary budget officer Jean-Denis Frechette in early July and were recently released to members of the immigration committee.

All four agencies involved in dealing with irregular migration submitted amounts they have spent every month since early 2017 when the influx of asylum seekers began to ramp up. The total adds up to more than $270 million up to the end of June.

(22) Both the Conservative Party of Canada and the People’s Party of Canada have made pledges to close the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement (Exhibits G and H). This is to prevent more illegal crossings. But perhaps it is their opinions as well that this is happening.

(23) Prothonotary Milczynski’s ruled that the Plaintiff is stating personal opinions and personal beliefs. For this conclusion to be true, all of the following entities would have to be lying:
(a) The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)
(b) Global News
(c) CTV News
(d) Toronto Star
(e) City of Toronto
(f) Toronto Mayor John Tory
(g) Conservative Party of Canada, and its members
(h) People’s Party of Canada, and its members

(24) Of course, this is only a small sample of the media, print, photographic and video evidence available about the illegal border crossings going on, particularly at Roxham Road, QC. Even the simplest of online searches would have found a wealth of information corroborating what the Plaintiff alleges.

(25) Also, part of Prothonotary Milczynski’s ruling is confusing. She states (accurately) that I have concerns about illegal immigration and fake refugees gaming the system. That part is true. But then she goes on to state that these are bare assertions. Does she think the Plaintiff is making up the entire thing?

PART III. LAWS ON THE SUBJECT

Standard For Review

(26) Housen v. Nikolaisen (2002) is the accepted standard for review. It outlines the standard for both factual errors, errors of law, and mixed law and fact errors. Hospira Healthcare Corp v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology (2017) clarified that Prothonotary orders being reviewed should subjected to the same standard, as they are basically the same thing.

Housen v. Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 SCR 235, 2002 SCC 33 (CanLII)

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html
(27) The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. A palpable error is one that is plainly seen. …. The standard of review on pure questions of law is one of correctness, and an appellate court is thus free to replace the opinion of the trial judge with its own. Appellate courts require a broad scope of review with respect to matters of law because their primary role is to delineate and refine legal rules and ensure their universal application…. Questions of mixed fact and law involve the application of a legal standard to a set of facts.

(28) Hospira Healthcare Corporation v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, [2017] 1 FCR 331, 2016 FCA 215 (CanLII)

[66] In Housen, the Supreme Court enunciated the standard of review applicable to decisions of trial judges. More particularly, it concluded that with respect to factual conclusions reached by a trial judge, the applicable standard was that of palpable and overriding error. It also stated that with respect to questions of law and questions of mixed fact and law, where there was an extricable legal principle at issue, the applicable standard was that of correctness (paragraphs 19 to 37 of Housen).

[69] I am therefore of the view that there is no reason why we should not apply to discretionary orders of prothonotaries the standard applicable to similar orders by motions judges. I am supported in this view by our decision in Imperial Manufacturing, where we applied the Housen standard in reviewing the discretionary decision of a motions judge, namely her determination of a motion for particulars regarding certain allegations made in the Plaintiff’s statement of claim.

(29) In this case, Prothnotary Milczynski made both errors of fact, and errors of law.

(30) First, the errors of fact. The biggest one is the stating that the Plaintiff is making bald assertions, is being argumentative, and is stating personal opinions. This is completely wrong.

(31) People are coming into Canada illegally, that has been thoroughly documented. The fact that it happens, and estimates about the scale and costs are all public knowledge. Yet Prothonotary shrugs this off as “opinion”.

(32) The Statement of Claim (as I understand it) is not supposed to include evidence. That is to come later. Moreover, when responding to the motion to strike (via Rule 221) evidence is not supposed to be submitted, so that was not an option. How is a Plaintiff supposed to prove these facts when the Statement is struck out prior to it being allowed in? It was offered to do, if the Claim were allowed to be amended, but that didn’t happen.

(33) Prothnotary Milczynski’s ruling that facts were just “personal opinions” was a palpable error. It was an overriding one, causing the case to be thrown out prematurely.

Personal Standing

(34) The Government of Canada cited (Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United v. Attorney General of Canada, 2010), arguing that a personal, private stake in the matter must be shown. Okay.

(35) From a purely financial point of view, the Plaintiff does not want to see her tax dollars being spent on people who have no right to be in the country in the first place. This includes people circumventing the law by going around official border crossings. While this seems superficial and cold, it is an improper use of taxpayer money. It was shown in earlier exhibits that social services “are” being accessed.

(36) Moving beyond that, letting people into the country who are unscreened is a danger to the Plaintiff’s well being. True, not everyone is violent, however the Plaintiff has an expectation that the Government will take reasonable steps to ensure the identities and security risks of people entering the country. Simply entering the country from the “warzone” of the United States claiming to be a refugee does not ensure her safety. Moreover, it is unclear what, if any, medical screening these people have undergone prior to coming to Canada. Again, they just show up and claim to be fleeing persecution.

(37) Also, allowing fake refugees to enter from the United States cheapens the Plaintiff’s citizenship. Being Canadian is supposed to come with privileges and rights that are unique to Canadians. Simply allowing anyone into Canada from the U.S. who “identifies” as a refugee undermines the process, and weakens what it means to be Canadian.

(38) Previous Counsel, Aman Owais, made the extremely false and disingenuous argument that because the Plaintiff is not a refugee she has no right to intervene, as her rights are not at stake. This was an intentional straw-man argument. It was never about getting the Plaintiff into Canada as a refugee, but about protecting her (and Canada as a whole) from abuse of the refugee process.

(39) Regarding a public standing (Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United v. Attorney General of Canada, 2010), has issued a 3 point test to determine standing:
(a) the existence of a serious justiciable issue;
(b) whether the Plaintiff has a real or genuine interest in the matter;
(c) whether the proceeding is an effective means of bringing it to the court

(40) First point, yes there is a serious, justiciable issue. Maintaining an actual border with the power to exclude people is important. Prothonotary Milczynski has stated that it is not a sufficient issue to bring to court. Wrong. As stated in the earlier submissions, we have borders for a reason, and it is to protect the citizens from outsiders. This is not xenophobic, but simple reality. How can the Government offer its citizens any level of safety and security if it cannot control who comes into the country? Only the most obtuse or contrarian person would argue that there is not serious issue about having borders that exclude people without a right to be in the country.

(41) Far from being the work of a “busybody”, asking the Court to enforce existing laws is vital to the well being of the nation. Indeed, being able to secure its perimeter is arguably the most important function a Government should have. Instead, it is fighting efforts to compel it to do so.

(42) Second point, yes, the Plaintiff has a genuine interest in the matter. She is concerned over the problem of illegal immigration into Canada, which is largely at — but not exclusive to — Roxham Road. She in concerned about the money being spent on this (both her and others), the security risk that large numbers of illegals pose, and the cheapening of the Canadian citizenship. It is nonsense to suggest that bringing this matter to the court — at her own time and expense — isn’t a real interest. Protecting your nation’s borders isn’t “busybody” work, it’s what any true patriot should see as important.

(43) Third point, is this an effective means of bringing it to the Court? Yes. What is being asked of the Court is to order the Government of Canada to enforce existing laws and to stop illegal immigration into this country. This case only covers ILLEGAL immigration, which as should be obvious, is illegal. Courts get asked to enforce laws, or order enforcement every day. The only difference here is the scale of the enforcement that is being asked of it. And if not the Court, then who exactly is to remedy a problem when the Government itself won’t act?

(44) Rules 17 and 25 of the Federal Courts Act give the Plaintiff the ability to file here. The Federal Court does have jurisdiction

17 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act or any other Act of Parliament, the Federal Court has concurrent original jurisdiction in all cases in which relief is claimed against the Crown.
Extraprovincial jurisdiction

25 The Federal Court has original jurisdiction, between subject and subject as well as otherwise, in any case in which a claim for relief is made or a remedy is sought under or by virtue of the laws of Canada if no other court constituted, established or continued under any of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 has jurisdiction in respect of that claim or remedy.

(45) Think about how ridiculous this matter is: the Government of Canada has to be taken to court to enforce its own laws regarding border security. The Court is being asked to force the Government to enforce its own laws. The Judiciary has long been recognized as a “check and balance” against the Legislative and Executive Branches of Government.

(46) Prothonotary Milczynski made an error of law when ruling that the Plaintiff had no standing, wither publicly or in private to bring the case. She seems to view it as an opinion that nations need borders.
Unjust Enrichment, Unconscionability

(47) The Plaintiff also raised the issue of unjust enrichment. If you accept the fact that fake refugees are coming into Canada and receiving social benefits (as was demonstrated in the “facts” section), then how is this not unjust enrichment? How is taking something that one is not entitled to anything but unjust? Courts have the power to prevent this sort of thing from happening, and typically they do.

(48) Beyond unjust enrichment, consider the doctrine on unconscionability. If the Safe Third Country Agreement is to be worded — as the Government suggested before — that putting this loophole was intentional, does that not violate good public policy? Should agreements that act against public interest not be amended or voided as appropriate. If that was the case (and it appears to be just another excuse) then the agreement was invalid to begin with.

(49) Prothonotary Milczynski made an error of law when not appropriately considering the argument of unjust enrichment, or unconscionability

(50) Prothonotary Milczynski also erred in law when striking out a matter that is not simple, or established law. It is well established that this is not appropriate

(51) In Hanson v. Bank of Nova Scotia, the Ontario Court of Appeals reversed an order to strike out a Statement of Claim, stating that:

In my opinion, none of the above conclusions should be made at this stage of the proceedings. The threshold for sustaining a pleading under rule 21.01(1)(b) is not a high one. Much of the argument before us was directed to the lack of a factual underpinning for the causes of action alleged, particularly as to the damages issue. This is a matter to be resolved on the evidence called at the trial: see Temilini v. Ontario Provincial Police (Commissioner) (1990), 1990 CanLII 7000 (ON CA), 73 O.R. (2d) 664, 38 O.A.C. 270 (C.A.). It is also accepted that the fact that a cause of action could be a novel one is not a bar to its proceeding to trial: see Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959, 74 D.L.R. (4th) 321. The categories of relationships giving rise to fiduciary duties are not closed nor are the categories of negligence in which a duty of care is owed: see Guerin v. R., 1984 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335 at p. 383, 13 D.L.R. (4th) 321 at p. 341; International Corona Resources Ltd. v. LAC Minerals Ltd., 1989 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574 at pp. 596-97, 61 D.L.R. (4th) 14 at p. 61, and 34 Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th ed. (1980), para. 5 at p. 8

(52) Although this case was an Ontario one, the same principle can be applied to Federal cases as well. Even if there are deficiencies in the Statement of Claim, they can usually be cured by filing an “amended” Statement of Claim. That must always be considered when asked to strike out. This is settled by a great many cases.

(53) In the COMER case, it was argued, that:

[30] The Plaintiffs remind the Court of the general principles to be applied on a motion to strike. The facts pleaded by the Plaintiffs must be taken as proven: Canada (Attorney General) v Inuit Tapirasat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] 2 SCR 735; Nelles v Ontario (1989), DLR (4th) 609 (SCC) [Nelles]; Operation Dismantle Inc., above; Hunt, above; Dumont v Canada (Attorney General), 1990 CanLII 131 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 279 [Dumont]; Trendsetter Developments Ltd v Ottawa Financial Corp. (1989), 32 OAC 327 (CA) [Trendsetter]; Nash v Ontario (1995), 1995 CanLII 2934 (ON CA), 27 OR (3d) 1 (Ont CA) [Nash]; Canada v Arsenault, 2009 FCA 242 (CanLII) [Arsenault]. A claim should be struck “only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading is bad beyond argument” (Nelles, above, at 627), or where it is “‘plain and obvious’ or ‘beyond doubt’” that the claim will not succeed (Dumont, above, at 280; Trendsetter, above). It is inappropriate to strike a claim simply because it raises an “arguable, difficult or important point of law” (Hunt, above, at 990-91), or because it is a novel claim: Nash, above; Hanson v Bank of Nova Scotia (1994), 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA), 19 OR (3d) 142 (CA); Adams-Smith v Christian Horizons (1997), 14 CPC (4th) 78 (Ont Gen Div); Miller (Litigation Guardian of) v Wiwchairyk (1997), 1997 CanLII 12256 (ON SC), 34 OR (3d) 640 (Ont Gen Div). Indeed, in the law of torts in particular, this may make it critical that the claim proceed so that the law can evolve in response to modern needs (Hunt, above, at 991-92). Matters not fully settled by the jurisprudence should not be decided on a motion to strike: R.D. Belanger & Associates Ltd v Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd (1991), 1991 CanLII 2731 (ON CA), 5 OR (3d) 778 (CA). The Plaintiffs say that, in order to succeed, the Defendants must produce a “decided case directly on point from the same jurisdiction demonstrating that the very same issue has been squarely dealt with and rejected”: Dalex Co v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman (1994), 1994 CanLII 7290 (ON SC), 19 OR (3d) 463 (Gen Div). Furthermore, the Court should be generous with respect to the drafting of the pleadings, permitting amendments before striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA); Toronto-Dominion Bank v Deloite Hoskins & Sells (1991), 1991 CanLII 7366 (ON SC), 5 OR (3d) 417 (Gen Div). Finally, the Claim has to be taken as pleaded by the Plaintiffs, not as reconfigured by the Defendants: Arsenault, above.

[31] The Plaintiffs say that the Prothonotary correctly stated the test on a motion to strike, but wholly misapplied it by determining substantive matters that should have been left for the trial judge, striking the Claim despite acknowledging that it was a “novel” and “complex” one, and making an erroneous ruling on the application of the Charter.

(56) This reasoning absolutely applies here.
(a) No previous ruling, on point, was ever argued by the Defense. They never attempted to claim that this has been settled.
(b) To reiterate, claims made by a Plaintiff must be taken as proven, at least initially.
(c) New cases do result in laws changing over time, and the Courts accept that principle.
(d) Claims cannot be struck simply because they are difficult to prove.
(e) Claims cannot be struck simply because they are novel.

(57) The Federal Court has the powers (under 47(1) and 53(1) and (2) of Federal Courts Rules), to ask with a wide degree of discretion and to make orders it views as just. If there were errors or confusion in the original Statement of Claim, it would have been better corrected by allowing an Amended Statement of Claim. Prothonotary Milczynski erred in not at least allowing the option. Certainly whether the Federal Government can be ordered to enforce its own laws regarding border security is an issue worthy of the Court’s attention.

(58) Striking out a claim in such an important and complex matter should be above the ability of a Prothonotary, and it is.

Negligence

(59) Also worth noting is that failing to secure the border could be viewed as negligence by the Court. Negligence, broadly speaking, is a 3 part test:
(a) A duty of care is owed
(b) That duty of care is breached
(c) Harm results from breaching the duty of care

(60) I would argue that the Government does owe a duty of care to the Canadian public. Securing the Federal borders and excluding people not legally allowed to enter is the essence of that duty. By allowing illegals into the country, the Government is breaching that duty of care. Yes, harm is resulting. This comes from taxes being used to support illegals, reduced security of the people, and the general cheapening of the Canadian citizenship.

Peace, Order, Good Government (POGG, Section 91)

(61) The Plaintiff submits that allowing people to enter Canada illegally, and at taxpayer expense, violates the POGG Doctrine. Morally, the citizens of Canada have as much of a right to safety as does any genuine refugee, and that letting in large numbers of “undocumented migrants” puts their safety at risk. Also, if the intent is to provide safety for those fleeing persecution, making it easy for individuals who may be after them (gang members, abusive husbands, w/e) to follow them into our country is doing no one any favours. We can’t provide safety to people fleeing persecution if anyone can enter as well

(62) We have no business in taking in so many people when we already have a housing shortage on our hands. crowding our homeless citizens out of the shelters by filling them with border crossers is morally reprehensible, particularly in light of our harsh winter climate. to do so is to argue that any one “refugee” from the other side of the planet is more worthy of shelter than a given, homeless Canadian; and given the disproportionately high rates of indigenous men and women among the homeless population, this ought not to be a perception for the government to continue to reinforce

(63) Yes, there are some generalizations in the above paragraphs, but we have obligations: both to Canadians, and to legitimate refugees. Simply letting people bypass border controls is not a good way to govern a country.

Self Represented Litigants/Accused People

(64) Since the Supreme Court ruling of Pintea v. Johns, (which endorsed the statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) (online) established by the Canadian Judicial Council), it has been practice for courts to go the extra mile to ensure that procedurals rules are not used to unjustly hinder. The ruling also allows for Court officials to explain rules and options to self-represented persons.

(65) Opportunities to amend a claim, or make changes as the Court requires, are granted all the time to lawyers. A self-rep should be given no less consideration. If anything, Courts should be inclined to cut them a break.

(66) This is not an attempt to have the Court “make my case”. Rather, it is to ensure the issues originally raised (illegal immigration) actually have their day in Court. Since our Federal Government seems to have little interest in enforcing our borders, it’s time for another opinion.

Summary Of Errors

(67) Prothonotary Milczynski made overriding, palpable error in ruling the facts alleged by the Plaintiff were bare assertions, and personal opinions. No opportunity to introduce evidence had been available up to that point.

(68) Prothonotary Milczynski further made several errors of law including:
(a) wrongly applying the standard of public and private standing. It assumes that there is no public or private interest by the Plaintiff in stopping illegal immigration, and hence ruled on the entire case. An overreach.
(b) Striking out the Statement of Claim when facts alleged by the Plaintiff were supposed to be taken as proven, at least in preliminary stages. This is well settled case law.
(c) Striking out the Statement of Claim in a matter that is complex and complicated. That is a serious overreach for a Prothonotary. They are not judges, and not supposed to behave as such. Again, settled case law.
(d) Not allowing the Plaintiff an attempt to prove the facts alleged in the Statement of Claim, or allowing an amended Statement to be filed. Again, facts alleged are supposed to be taken as true in early stages.
(e) Not at least considering the claims of: unjust enrichment, unconscionability, negligence or any constitutional question. However, she ruled everything to be opinion anyway.
(f) Not giving any consideration to a self-represented litigant, consistent with the Pintea v. Johns principles.

PART IV: AUTHORITIES

[1] Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform v. Canada, 2014 FC 380 (CanLII)
[2] Hanson v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA)
[3] Hospira Healthcare Corporation v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, [2017] 1 FCR 331, 2016 FCA 215 (CanLII)
[4] Housen v. Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 SCR 235, 2002 SCC 33 (CanLII)
[5] Pintea v. Johns, [2017] 1 SCR 470, 2017 SCC 23 (CanLII)