The lawsuit filed by Babylon Bee launched against fellow satire site Babylon Beaver has been delayed once again. After another hearing, the matter has been further postponed. The Bee had sued the Beaver for copyright infringement, for using the term “Babylon” without permission.
The Bee also took issue with the Beaver referring to their site as “fake news you can trust”. The Bee’s lawyers explained that they had ripped it off from CNN, and that it belonged to them now.
Babylon Beaver explained that due to Canada’s open borders policy, everyone coming into the country spoke a different language. This made any sort of communication very difficult. Babylon Bee, a Christian website, wasn’t content to “turn the other cheek”, and opted to take an eye for an eye.
There were immediately issues in court, as the presiding Judge wasn’t sure if the lawsuit was legitimate, or if he was being punked.
It didn’t help matters when lawyers for the Bee asked if satire and parody counted as telling the truth. It seemed there were issues over swearing out affidavits, and what counted as “the whole truth”. Court officials repeatedly explained that such documents had to be truthful, and that “being really funny” wasn’t an acceptable excuse for lying under oath.
Little progress was made with the Babylon Beaver representatives as well. “Comedy is subjective” was raised as a defense for virtually every question raised.
Public opinion has been divided on the subject. Many believe that “Babylon” should be protected in the context of satire, while others see nothing wrong with others using it.
CBC, CTV, and Global News have asked for intervenor status. They are concerned if Babylon Beaver is viewed as a legitimate source of news, it will cut into their subsidies. The Beaver’s reporting (while satire), has proven to be far more accurate than any of theirs.
After serious consideration, staff at the Babylon Beaver have decided to support Eric O’Toolie for Prime Minister in the next Federal election.
Anti-free speech elements in the CPC have tried to get this parody account banned from Twitter, claiming it is misrepresentation and impersonation. The producers here at the Beaver do not support censorship or deplatforming of anyone, especially political candidates.
Parody accounts in particular need the most protection, as the truth is too painful for most people to grasp.
Eric (with the goatee), never worked as a Facebook lobbyist, or for Heenan Blaikie, or supported FIPA or CANZUK, or sold Canadians out to foreigners. Eric has also never celebrated walking around in red high heel shoes. That makes him a far more attractive choice then Erin (without the look).
Sure, there are concerns that Eric is just an internet meme, and not a real person. However, the Babylon Beaver recognizes that no one is perfect, and is willing to work with Eric.
And yes, it’s true that Eric has no platform, stands for nothing, and speaks in empty and vacuous platitudes. However, that just shows that he has the experience for the job.
Some background information on how this process works (in theory at least). See here and here. Does it matter that many countries are unable to repay their loans? To the creditors, not really, as there is always another way.
These “swaps” involve selling a country’s debt (at a discount) to a 3rd party, but one who has its own agenda.
1. More On The International Banking Cartel
For more on the banking cartel, check this page. The Canadian Government, like so many others, has sold out the independence and sovereignty of its monetary system to foreign interests. BIS, like its central banks, exceed their agenda and try to influence other social agendas. See who is really controlling things, and the common lies that politicians and media figures tell. And check out the climate change hoax as well, as the 2 now seem intertwined.
This cannot be emphasized enough. Countries take foreign loans in times when they are desperate, and often are unable to meet the terms to pay them back. This is a form of predatory lending. What may end up happening is that those debts are sold to people and organizations who have their own agenda.
And where do these loans originate in the first place? Many are (debt financed) by countries like Canada, the U.S., and in Europe. Western nations — who use private parties to borrow money from — borrow money which is then handed over as loans to the 3rd World. Those loans are distributed to countries who can’t pay them back. They are then forced into options like debt-for-nature.
4. World Economic Forum & Climate Swaps
Debt swaps can be one solution to tackle both challenges at once. Traditionally, these instruments represent an exchange of the existing debt contract with a new one, where the previous contract is normally “written down”, or discounted. Usually, this action is associated with specific conditions for investments, agreed both by the creditor and the debtor. In the past, such instruments have also been used to achieve climate-related objectives.
The idea of a “debt-for-climate” swap was first conceived during the 1980s by the then Deputy Vice President of the World Wildlife Fund, Thomas Lovejoy, in the wake of the Latin American debt crisis. The idea was simple: an NGO would act as a donor, purchasing debt from commercial banks at its face value on the secondary market, hence providing a level of relief on the debt’s value. The title of the debt would then be transferred to the debtor country in exchange for a specific commitment to environmental or conservation goals, performed through a national environmental fund.
In 2018, the Seychelles government worked with The Nature Conservancy, Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to develop a debt-for-nature swap for $27 million of official debt, to set up vast areas of protected marine parks for climate resilience, fishery management, biodiversity conservation and ecotourism.
This came out just the other day. The World Economic Forum, which pushed for a declaration of a pandemic also goes on about how this can be used to advance the green agenda. But don’t worry, it’s not preplanned or anything.
5. UNDP Explains Risks And Consequences
-DNS have only resulted in relatively small amounts of debt relief, limiting their impact in reducing developing countries’ debt burden;
–Transaction costs might be high compared to other financing instruments; negotiations can be time-consuming, spanning several years and might result in limited debt reduction or discount rates. The length of the design and negotiation phase of a DNS can span one to three years, mostly depending on the willingness of the parties and the complexity of the deal.
-Lengthy negotiations. Disagreement between the creditor and debtor country on conservation goals or other details of the agreement can increase the costs of the operation.
–Currency exchange risks, the impact of which (and the response strategy) is dependent on the financial structure of the DNS. The currency risk can be mitigated, for example, by making payments in local currency at the spot rate on the day payments are due. In the latter case the risk is lower for the entity managing the DNS cash flow.
–Inflation risks, the value of future payments in local currencies might be highly by inflation. Mitigation strategies to inflation risks are similar to the ones for currency exchange risks.
-The DNS might prevent the possibility of negotiating a more comprehensive and favourable debt treatment (debt relief and restructuring).
-The debtor-country might not be able or willing to respect its commitments. Fiscal and liquidity crises can undermine the capacity of the debtor-government to meet its obligations.
-Management risks related to the capacity of the fund selected to administer grants from the DNS proceeds, including mismanagement, corruption and failures in the identification of good projects to be financed.
-While rarely reported, it is possible that the projects financed might create discontent in local communities (e.g. removal of access to resources by local communities).
-ODA substitution (no additionality). While a DNS is an option for increasing ODA, it might just substitute for other committed flows.
-The debtor-country may lose sovereignty in deciding about the spending of public resources. Grants may be disbursed according to donors’ preferences, which in turn might or might not better mirror local conservation needs. In most DNS the debtor-government decides in agreement with the creditor(s) about the modalities of funds’ disbursements, both participating in the boards of the trust fund responsible for grant-making.
-Debt swaps may be tied to the purchase of goods or services for the creditor(s).
There are an awful lot of drawbacks to getting involved with this sort of loan. Specifically, countries cede their sovereignty, are forced into conditions they don’t like, and it may not even result in much of a debt reduction.
6. World Bank 1990 Working Paper On Swaps
The first debt-for-nature agreement (Bolivia) was the only one in which land was set aside, and development restrictions adopted, as a result of the agreement. This deal was extremely controversial at first, as many Bolivians thought that the country had relinquished sovereignty to the international environmental group. There is, however, no transfer of land ownership, and development decisions are not based on agreements between the local environmental groups, the government, and the regional population. The Bolivian government has been slow in dispersing the local currency funds, and controversies have arisen over the development use of the buffer areas.
Finally, prior to the debt-for-nature concept, environmental groups had little or no direct contact with either commercial banks or debt countries’ finance ministers. Debt-for-nature swaps, however, have entailed intense negotiations between all three groups, leading to a network of relationships that may prove valuable to international environmental groups beyond simply debt-for-nature agreements.
Much of the interest in using official debt for debt-for-development swaps first began as a result of the 1988 Toronto Economic Summit, in which the G-7 countries established guidelines that allowed Paris Club Creditors to forgive debt to the poorest of the Sub-Saharan countries. One of three options given to Paris Club creditors was to forgive up to one-third of the debt of the developing country (with the other two being extended maturities and lower interest rates). France has generally chosen the first option, while the United States (until July 1989) has been reluctant to forgive debt.
This scheme has been going back many decades. The basic principle is that countries are loaned money they cannot realistically afford to pay back. Loans are then forgiven — or reduced — but with strings attached. One such arrangement is the debt-for nature swaps.
Although the land isn’t officially ceded, for all practical purposes it is.
7. Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, Seychelles
In 2017, the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation helped finance a debt-for-nature swap with the Republic of Seychelles to set aside some 400,000 square kilometers of water for conservation.
8. World Wildlife Fund Conservation Finance
Debt-for-Nature Swaps WWF has worked with the U.S., French, German, Dutch, and other creditor countries to structure foreign debt-for-nature swaps, including the first one in Ecuador in 1987. Since 2001, WWF has helped design several debt-for-nature swap agreements under the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (and previously under the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative). Both mechanisms were formed to relieve the debt burden of developing countries owed to the U.S. government, while generating funds in local currency to support tropical forest conservation activities. Capital raised through debt-for-nature swaps can be applied through trust funds or foundations specifically set up to channel funding to local biodiversity conservation.
WWF believes that carbon finance, if used appropriately, will play a critical role in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to biodiversity conservation, and promoting a range of local economic and social values. WWF is developing pilot carbon projects in Peru, Brazil, Central Africa, Indonesia and Nepal to capitalize on the rapidly growing potential for carbon finance. We contribute to these efforts by securing private and public financing for carbon projects and providing technical support to implement carbon finance mechanisms.
The World Wildlife Fund is quite involved in financing the nature-for-debt swaps. Should make Canadians wonder what is the real reason Trudeau and Butts present themselves as eco-warriors.
9. Gerald Butts, Megan Leslie Head(s) of WWF
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Gerald Butts was once the President and CEO of World Wildlife Fund Canada. This conflict of interest isn’t limited to the Liberals though.
Megan Leslie used to be the Deputy NDP Leader, and was Deputy Opposition Leader for a time. Now, this Trudeau Foundation Director is also the head of the World Wildlife Fund.
It’s also worth a mention that Elizabeth May, the former Green Party Leader is also with the Trudeau Foundation. She was, at a time, Head of Sierra Club Canada. At least 3 of the major Federal parties are compromised, and in bed with the eco-lobby.
10. Mockingbird Foundation Of Canada
To see a little deeper just how many tentacles the Trudeau Foundation has, see these connections between the House of Commons, the Senate, the Courts and the media. Truly disgusting.
11. Usury Disguised As Humanitarianism
Despite what is said publicly, there is nothing compassionate about what is happening. Countries are taking loans they can’t pay back, and are forced to cede sovereignty in order to “service the debt”. Not at all what we are led to believe.
In 2005, almost the entire Conservative Party Caucus, and over 1/4 of the Liberal Party Caucus voted to conserve marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. Taking such a stand would be completely unthinkable in today’s climate.
1. Understanding Our Real History
CLICK HERE, for #1: UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. CLICK HERE, for #2: Indian Act of Canada, wards of the Crown. CLICK HERE, for #3: UNESCO’s land grabs as “heritage sites”.
2. Why Cover This Particular Topic?
If anything, this marks a point where the globohomo movement really took off in Canada. Instead of being a small group out on its own, this was the beginning of lawfare in order to force itself on the public at large. Certainly there had been lobbying and court challenges before, but this seems to be a turning point.
The court challenges started in 2003, and it ended with Bill C-38 in 2005. For the full text of Bill C-38.
To accept this (and other “changes”) as part of our heritage to rewrite history. These changes — always done incrementally — are done to subvert and undermine what the country is.
There is more to the story than just Bill C-38. Starting in 2003, there were a series of Provincial Court challenges (each successful). In some sense, this made the Federal Bill a mere formality.
4. Harper Made No Real Effort To Reverse
After winning power in 2006, the Harper Government made a very half hearted attempt to pass a motion to reopen the debate on marriage. But it was obvious that it was just going through the motions to appease supporters.
5. Modern Conservatism In Canada
There is a vast difference between accepting a group, and openly promoting their agenda. Difficult to imagine these cucks standing up to “conserve” anything now. At this point, modern conservative parties need to be allowed to die so new options can come forward.
If a bill was introduced to restore the traditional definition of marriage, there is not a liberal politician in Canada who would support it. Very few conservatives would, and they would receive backlash for doing so.
P.S. It’s not just “conservatives” in Canada who pander to the gay mafia. It’s happening elsewhere as well.
Canada’s Immigration Minister has publicly asked for people of European descent to stop having children for the foreseeable future, in order to stop the spread of Covid-19.
Not only is speaking English risky, (as outlined by Yahoo and Forbes), but certain ethnic groups were prone to spreading it a lot faster.
According to new computer modelling by Professor Neilio Fergusonino, Europeans have a 50% greater likelihood of spreading the virus than do other groups. Since Covid is here to stay, it’s only suitable that those at the greatest risk.
Details of this modelling were not released. However, the science is settled, and there is no debate on the issue. After all, the anti-pluggers and anti-crawlers were outraged initially, but eventually went along with science.
Sacrifices had to be made now, to ensure what happened in March in Kelowna would not become a regular occurrence.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford is riding high in the polls after publicly announcing he was infected. People temporarily forgot about the economic collapse he caused.
However, some admitted, this presents a great opportunity to further diversify Canada by replacing the old-stock Canadians with a more diverse forms of culture and heritage. Officials admitted that without the pandemic, it would be hard to get people on board with this.
Canada was going further into a multicultural mode. Sure, politicians would be resentful because of their leading role. But without that leading role, Canada would not survive.
In pluralistic societies like Canada, we do not derive our identity from our racial, religious or ethnic origin — unlike most countries in the world. We derive our identity from shared values.
. Diversity is important. There’s no doubt about that.
We need to challenge one another with new ideas, innovative thinking and differing perspectives in order to grow and thrive, as well as to solve the problems of our day. Societies that are too conformist or homogeneous are not only boring and banal places to live, they’re also destined to fail.
Look at North Korea — the most homogeneous country in the world; closed to immigration and most trade — where everyone is equal in their misery and nothing meaningful has changed in decades.
Or Japan, which allows little diversity in ethnic makeup or societal norms, and, in turn, the population is aging, the economy is stagnant, and debt is ever-growing. In other words, the society is dying.
. Diversity is necessary. But diversity, in and of itself, is not necessarily a feature. The most diverse empires and countries in the world have fractured, imploded or dissolved, be it the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire or the former Yugoslavia. Diversity alone wasn’t the problem, but diversity without a common commitment, in other words, without unity, led to collapse.
We need shared laws, shared values, shared traditions, and a shared identity to thrive and succeed. We need pluralism and nationhood.
It’s unity that makes us love our country and fosters patriotism. It’s unity — imbedded within diversity — that is our true strength.
Racist Alt-Righters immediately accused the Government of trying to replace them. They allege that stopping white births, combined with importing more people was a plan to breed out whites.
Officials denied that there was any effort to replace them. Bringing more people to Canada was necessary to make up for a work shortfall caused by certain groups not having more children.
In 5 to 10 years, we should have this pandemic under control, the Minister said. At that point, if whites are properly vaccinated, and have been wearing masks, we will certainly invite them to have children again.
However, he added, by that point, Canada will be so radically transformed that the majority may decide that white supremacy is no longer welcome.
Another report found that tall people were more likely to catch the coronavirus. Officials are speculating about ways to navigate that problem.
Modern conservative politicians make it clear that they will take money and votes from social conservatives, but will never advance their interests in any real way. Abortion is a major issue, but not the only one. They act as a form of controlled opposition.
1. Other Articles For Abortion/Infanticide
While abortion is trumpeted as a “human right” in Western societies, questions have to be asked: Why is it a human right? Who are these groups benefiting financially, and why are so they so fiercely against free speech? Do these groups also support the open borders industry, or organ trafficking? Not nearly enough people are making these connections.
The CPC explicitly states in their policy declaration to support no legislation to regulate abortion. However, MPs support Private Member’s Bill C-233, to ban the practice of sex-selective abortion (which would target female babies). But that contradiction is not the only problem.
Today’s “conservatives” have no issue with killing babies itself. However, they are adamantly opposed to letting them be killed simply for being female. The obvious answer is that Conservative politicians don’t actually care about the lives of the unborn, but just virtue signal to show how feminist they are.
Side note: it seems the CPC’s stance on euthanasia is to do nothing. They won’t expand access for assisted suicide, but they won’t do anything to restrict or roll it back either.
3. Conservatives: Only Fund Local Genocide
From the Canadian Press. Trudeau announces that Canada should be fund abortions globally. Conservatives object to the “globally” part, not the “abortion” part of it.
A slim majority of Conservative convention delegates voted Saturday against a resolution backed by anti-abortion campaigners while at the same time affirming the party’s opposition to using Canadian foreign aid to fund abortion services abroad — a mixed bag result for social conservatives.
Other controversial resolutions, including a push to limit citizenship rights for those born in this country to non-Canadian parents and an endorsement of moving Canada’s embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, received overwhelming support.
The abortion resolution, No. 65, would have struck from the party’s policy book a pledge that a Conservative government would not support any legislation to regulate abortion, something added under former prime minister Stephen Harper to reassure some Canadians that the Conservative Party did not have a “hidden agenda” to legislate an abortion ban.
More gaps in logic. Many conservatives don’t have a problem with using taxpayer money to kill CANADIAN children, but they oppose using public funds to exterminate FOREIGN children. So it’s not about principles, but simply how tax dollars are used.
The article refers to the August 2018 CPC Policy Convention. Of course, it wouldn’t be a conservative gathering without some pandering to Israel. In this case, the moving of an embassy.
4. Summer Jobs Grant Attestation
Ineligible projects and job activities:
Projects consisting of activities that take place outside of Canada;
Activities that contribute to the provision of a personal service to the employer;
Partisan political activities;
Fundraising activities to cover salary costs for the youth participant; or
Projects or job activities that:
restrict access to programs, services, or employment, or otherwise discriminate, contrary to applicable laws, on the basis of prohibited grounds, including sex, genetic characteristics, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression;
advocate intolerance, discrimination and/or prejudice; or
actively work to undermine or restrict a woman’s access to sexual and reproductive health services.
Please note the following definitions:
As per section 2.1 of the Canada Summer Jobs Articles of Agreement, “project” means the hiring, administration of, job activities, and organization’s activities as described in the Application Agreement.
To “advocate” means to promote, foster, or actively support intolerance, discrimination, and/or prejudice.
To “undermine or restrict” means to weaken or limit a woman’s ability to access sexual and reproductive health services. The Government of Canada defines sexual and reproductive health services as including comprehensive sexuality education, family planning, prevention and response to sexual and gender-based violence, safe and legal abortion, and post-abortion care.
Conservatives claimed to oppose the move to make the attestation mandatory for groups where their social beliefs conflicted with official government policy. To be clear though, this was framed as a free speech issue, not because the beliefs they held may be valid. See this piece for more information on the topic.
5. “Social Conservative” Leslyn Lewis
This weekend, Ontario-based political activist Tanya Granic Allen distributed an email making the case that social conservatives should not support me in the upcoming CPC Leadership election because of my past involvement with the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF).
They knew I held strong pro-life beliefs, and I hoped to be a balancing influence on the Board. After a few months of earnestly trying to make a difference, it was clear that it wasn’t the best fit all around, and we wished each other well, and I chose to conclude my term early with the Board.
I have chosen to be upfront with my pro-life views, and the fact that I will personally advocate for a law that fights the misogynistic practice of sex-selective abortion.
In the recent CPC leadership race, Leslyn Lewis promoted herself as a social conservative. She (sort of) defended her previous membership with Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF). Problem is, LEAF is far more extreme than she is letting on, so the membership makes no sense. One would have to wonder why she became a director without doing any research on the firm — or why they would pick her.
Interestingly, Lewis condemns the practice of sex-selective abortion as “misogynistic” for targeting girls, but she doesn’t condemn the practice of abortion overall.
A much more likely explanation is that Lewis ideologically agrees with the pro-death LEAF, but simply reinvented herself for perceived political gain.
Lewis also claims to oppose funding foreign abortions, but stays quiet on the topic of financing domestic ones.
6. What Conservative Inc. Really Stands For
To sum up, these are the official party positions of mainstream “conservatives” in Canada. Try to wrap your heads around them.
 We have no issue with the principle of abortion, and will pass no legislation against it, as long as children aren’t killed specifically for their gender.
 We don’t have a problem with paying to abort Canadian children, but we believe that killing children abroad is a waste of taxpayer money.
 We don’t agree with the principles that many religious groups stand for. We oppose the summer grants attestation requirement purely on free speech grounds.
 Yes, abortion leads to an overall lower birth rate, but we can just continue to import a replacement population to fill in the gaps.