The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.
Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear Bela Kosoian, a woman detained in Laval, Quebec, for refusing to hold a hand rail.
(1) Backstory of the Case
This is a a bizarre story, starting in 2009, of a woman in a Laval, QC, subway station, refused instructions from transit officers to hold a handrail while on an escalator.
When transit officers attempted to write her a ticket for the refusal to obey, she refused to identify herself. Identity is rather important in enforcing tickets. This led to her being detained for about a half hour, after which point she did reveal her name.
Kosoian was issued 2 tickets from that incident, one for $100, and one for $320. She contested both, and they were eventually thrown out.
Since then, she has taken legal action against the city, the STM, and a staff member. After a series of legal twists, it will now be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.
(2) Quebec Court of Justice — Trial Court
Kosoian took legal action against: (a) the City of Laval; (b) Fabio Camacho — one of the officers; and (c) the Transportation Company of Montreal — aka the STM. She sought $24,000 for moral damages, pain, suffering, inconvenience and exemplary damages, and another $45,000 for moral and punitive damages for the fault committed by its agent.
Kosoian submitted a VERY LENGTHY list and description of physical and psychological trauma suffered as a resukt of being detained for about half an hour. On the surface, it seems like malingering.
49. Any unlawful interference with any right or freedom recognized by this Charter entitles the victim to obtain the cessation of such interference and compensation for the moral or material prejudice resulting therefrom.
In case of unlawful and intentional interference, the tribunal may, in addition, condemn the person guilty of it to punitive damages.
For it’s part, the STM Referenced By-Law R-036
” BY-LAW R-036
“REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE SAFETY AND BEHAVIOR STANDARDS OF PERSONS IN ROAD EQUIPMENT AND BUILDINGS OPERATED BY OR FOR THE MONTREAL TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION”
SECTION III – GENERAL PROVISIONS
3. Subject to the law and regulations, any person has the right to use the public transportation system of the Company in comfort and safety.
Subsection I – Citizenship
4. In or on a building or rolling stock, no person shall
(a) impede or hinder the free movement of persons, including standing still, lurking, strolling, laying down or carrying a bag, container or other object;
(b) endanger the safety of persons or rolling stock, in particular by depositing or carrying a bag, container or other object;
e) to disobey a directive or pictogram posted by the Society;
h) to delay or interfere with the work of a servant of the Corporation; “
But according to the STM staff, it is not the potential safety infraction that led to Bela Kosoian being arrested. Rather, it was her refusal to identity herself when being written a ticket.
In August 2015, a Quebec Court rejected the claim. It stated that the officers acted reasonably, and that the situation was largely self-inflicted
(3) Motion for Leave, Quebec Court of Appeal
Kosoian sought leave to go to the Quebec Court of Appeal.
On December 2015, in an extremely brief ruling, the Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to proceed, dismissing a motion from the Respondents.
(4) Appeal, Quebec Court of Appeal
In a 2-1 split decision, Kosoian lost her appeal at the Quebec Court of Appeals. 2 Justices ruled that the STM and its staff had acted reasonably. In dissent, the other Justice says he would have set aside the Trial ruling, and ordered $15,000 in damages.
[ 1 ] The appellant appeals against a judgment rendered on August 11, 2015, by the Court of Quebec, District of Laval (the Honorable Denis Le Reste), dismissing the appellant’s motion to institute damages for damages .
[ 2 ] For the reasons of Dutil and Vauclair JJ., THE COURT :
[ 3 ] REJECTS the appeal with court costs.
[ 4 ] For other reasons, Schrager JA would have allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment at trial, granted the motion to institute proceedings, ordered the respondents, jointly and severally, to pay the appellant the sum of 15,000 $ with interest and the additional indemnity since the summons at first instance, as well as legal costs at first instance and on appeal, and stated that between the respondents, the Montreal Transit Corporation will have to assume the entire conviction.
(5) Supreme Court of Canada
This leads things to where they are today. Once again, the Supreme Court granting leave to appeal just now.
The motion for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal to the judgment of theCourt of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500-09-025644-154, 2017 QCCA 1919 (CanLII) , date December 5, 2017, is awarded with costs in the case. The schedule for serving and filing materials will be set by the Registrar .
An interesting split so far in the courts. In Kosoian’s favour:
-Supreme Court of Canada, leave to appeal
-Quebec Court of appeal, dissenting opinion
-Quebec Court of Appeal, motion for leave
And against Kosoian:
-Quebec Court of Appeal, majority opinion
-Quebec Trial Court
-Laval ruling which dismissed the original tickets.
Personally, I see blame on both sides here. While ticketing her for refusing to hold a handrail does seem excessive, the escalation of the problems resulted from Kosoian herself. She did refuse to identify herself when being ticketed, which for the STM was a legitimate demand. Also, her claims of emotional and psychological damages seem grossly exaggerated, and manipulated to seek a huge damages amount.
The Supreme Court Appeal Panel will now decide the case.
Yes, this is rather late to the punch, but here are some highlights of the CPC, as of August 2018, when the Halifax Policy Convention was held. Quotes are from CPC website.
1. Conservatives Endorse CANZUK
(At party convention in Halifax, in August 2018, CPC endorsed Canzuk)
This organization, seen here, is pushing for open borders between Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. Under the pretext of: “free trade, and free movement of people”, it is pushing for the elimination of barriers.
Unfortunately, there is scant information available on this organization, but here from the FAQ:
Is CANZUK International a charity? Is my donation tax-deductible?
CANZUK International is a nonprofit advocacy organization headquartered in Vancouver, Canada. Under Canadian law, charities are restricted to spending 10% or less of their budget on political advocacy. CANZUK International’s campaign is highly effective because so much of our work involves advocating for policy change. We just couldn’t do the work we do as a charity under the current rules. Your donation is a very powerful contribution to helping achieve free movement, trade and foreign policy cooperation between the CANZUK countries, but unfortunately, it’s not tax-deductible at this time.
Are you affiliated with any political parties?
We are strictly a non-partisan organization, but we support individuals who align with our campaign, no matter who they may be affiliated with themselves. We frequently speak with political leaders and their staff to raise awareness of our campaign and seek their support for our proposals. This, in turn, helps develop change in each of the four respective parliaments.
How does CANZUK International spend public donations?
100% of CANZUK International’s contributions come from individual donors like you. Our monthly donors, giving an average of $10 a month, form the backbone of our support and help us campaign for freer movement, trade and foreign policy between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
In 2017, 80% of our donations went to campaigning — this means the resources we need to run highly effective campaigns, publications, meetings, advertisements and action tools for our supporters. The other 20% went to operation and administrative costs, such as website maintenance and domain renewal.
On the surface, it seems harmless enough, but there are many questions that should be asked, including where specifically their funding comes from.
Interesting, all of these non-profits working to boost immigration and eliminate borders. Almost would think this was a conspiracy.
2. Conservatives Support Birth Tourism
The August 2018 Halifax Convention was reported to have passed a resolution to ban “birth tourism”. This is a the practice woman having a child in a foreign country for the sole purpose of it granted automatic citizenship. The child, now a legal citizen, can then sponsor its parents for citizenship. Indeed, that is what was reported by the media.
But the fact is the CPC didn’t do any such thing. Rather, they passed a non-binding resolution aimed at “ending abuse”, which is something entirely different.
“Our Shadow Minister for Immigration Michelle Rempel will soon begin her Pathways to Canada tour, during which she and other Conservative MPs will meet with stakeholders and policymakers to provide input on new Conservative immigration policy.
While the policy passed did not clearly focus on ending the practice of birth tourism, ending birth tourism will be among the objectives of our policy.
Conservatives recognize there are many Canadians who have been born in Canada by parents who have come here to stay and have contributed greatly to our country. I will not end the core policy that facilitates this. Unlike Justin Trudeau, I will safeguard it against abuse.”
To make this very clear, the CPC has not actually rejected, or promised to reject or repeal the practice. Rather they will “safeguard it from abuse”. What is abuse? No one is saying, and the http://conservative.ca website does not list policy on it.
3. Conservatives Support Citizenship For Fake Refugees
“Specifically, we are looking for the best ways to integrate newcomers into Canada’s economic and social fabric, address labor needs, and ensure provincial support is adequately budgeted for.
We are committed to doing whatever we can to restore Canadians’ confidence in their immigration and refugee system.”
At no point does the CPC say they will “deport” those jumping the border and flaunting the immigration rules. Rather, they will “integrate” people better, and come come up with a “better plan” than the Liberals would. Of course, no actual details or plan are listed.
4. Conservatives Embrace Islam
Nothing says “I am Canadian”, quite like the pandering seen here.
“Tonight, Muslims in Canada and across the world will celebrate Eid al-Adha, also known as the ‘Festival of Sacrifice’ that commemorates the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son.
“Eid al-Adha marks the end of the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca that is one of the five pillars of Islam. Undertaken by Muslims at least once in their lifetime, it is estimated that over two million Muslim pilgrims travel to Mecca for the Hajj each year.
“In addition to the religious importance of this holiday, Eid al-Adha is a time for many Muslims to give back to their respective communities and to help the less fortunate. It is also a period where families and friends come together and exchange gifts, share meals, donate to charities, and join one another in prayer.
Never mind how completely incompatible Islam is with Western society. Never mind the barbaric culture: (a) FGM; (b) Honour killings; (c) Skinning animals alive; (d) Death to infidels/kafirs; (e) Burka/Niqab; (f) Inequality for women; (g) Killing gays; (h) Killing Jews; etc….
Diversity is our strength! Right …. ?
5. Conservatives and UN Global Migration Compact
That was covered in this previous article. While they claim to be “studying” the issue, fact is the CPC is not putting up any public resistance to it. Nor do they intend to.
So called “Shadow Minister” Michelle Rempel talks in circles on the issue (starting at about 4:50 in the video), but never gives a clear answer on it.
Note: this article was published on November 16, 2018. 4 days later, the CPC flipflopped and now claimed to opposed the UN Global Migration Compact. Might have something to do with THIS BOMBSHELL being spread around.
6. Other Globalist Agreements
Agenda 21, signed by Brian Mulroney in June 1992
Agenda 2030, signed by Stephen Harper in September 2015
Paris Accord, supported by Andrew Scheer, despite mandated Carbon tax, June 2017
United Nations selecting refugees for Canada
These Are “Conservatives”?
To recap, this party supports:
(a) Canzuk — free movement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK
(b) Birth Tourism
(c) Citizenship for border jumping illegal immigrants
(d) Pandering to Islam
(e) UN Global Migration Compact
(f) Agenda 21, signed June 1992
(g) Agenda 2030, signed September 2015
(h) Paris Accord, voted in June 2017
(i) UN making decisions on refugee choices
This will seem rather cynical, but how exactly are these people “Conservative”? What does this party actually conserve? This is not conserving a society. This is open borders globalism.
(Andrew Scheer, in what has become a euphemism for sucking dairy cartel privates)
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.
Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
Parliament in Ottawa is about to become a lot more inclusive and tolerant with some recent changes. Deputy Prime Minister Andrew Scheer formally made the announcement today.
That was the word in Post-National Canada, (or NPC in French), and it generated excitement.
He made this announcement while his boss, Justin Trudeau, was in Venezuela for the monthly climate change convention. 2,500,000 delegates flew in from around the world to discuss reducing carbon emissions.
While this was the old floor plan, the new one will look different. Previously, the seats were sectioned off along party lines, but the NewLibCons have decided to put aside their differences and work together. Seating will be modified so that all seats point towards Mecca.
The female MPs will of course have to sit in the Jinnah Gallery, and new screens are being installed. Furthermore, the dress code has been updated to be more “modest”.
Scheer noted, that while international borders have been declared “offensive, hateful and divisive” under Bill C-1984, religious freedom would still be respected.
The day will be broken up to allow for prayers 5 times a day. While of course, this is “optional”, MPs have been instructed that inclusion and diversity are what make Canada strong.
Deputy PM Scheer also brought up the contributions from HarperCollins, the publishing company. It was replacing those outdated “Parliament Conduct Guide” books with updated information: 1) the Qu’ran; and 2) the Orwell book, 1984. Those books would be free upon request.
The number of votes in the House of Commons will be reduced from 338 to 288.5. How can there be half votes? Well, to be more inclusive of Islam, female MP’s votes will be worth half that of a man. Currently, there are 243 men, 91 women, and 4 vacanies. Of course, as the makeup of Parliament changes, there will theoretically be between 169 votes and 338 votes.
Committees will operate along the same lines, with female MPs behind a screen, and their votes counting for half as much. Canada will go the extra mile in being accepting of other faiths.
While Iqra Khalid’s motion, did become law, some changes have been made. Blasphemy will no longer be a death penalty offence, at least not for new offenders. Instead, the penalties will follow this guideline:
“Progressive” Scale of Discipline
1st time: warning
2nd time: $100 fine
3rd time: $2,500 fine
4th time: 100 lashes
5th time: 30 days in jail
6th time: 10 years in jail
7th time: death, which may be commuted to life in prison
Deputy PM Scheer also commented on new findings from Statistics Canada. After monitoring everyone’s emails and text messages for “statistical purposes”, StatsCan discovered that white Christians were leaving Canada en masse.
“Good riddance to those racists”, Scheer stated. “We don’t need that type of division here in Canada. Diversity is a product of our strength.”
(CNN announces legal action, after correspondent Jim Acosta banned)
CNN’s White House Correspondent, Jim Acosta had his press access to the White House revoked on November 8th. Now his network, CNN, is suing President Donald Trump and several aides.
However, Acosta is arguably not a journalist, but an activist. People are supposed to be there to cover the news and the White House, not to be antagonistic and grandstand. Here are some examples:
(Jim Acosta compilation)
(Acosta, on August 2, 2017)
(Acosta, July 1, 2018)
(Acosta, on October 29, 2018)
(November 6, 2018, which was Acosta’s last day)
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.
Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
The lawsuit claims that by revoking Acosta’s media access, his 1st and 5th Amendments (freedom of the press, and due process), were violated.
Here is the 1st Amendment:
Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Here is the 5th Amendment:
Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property
No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
CNN released the full text of the lawsuit, shown here. But let’s go through some of the more interesting sections. (Quotes in bold, comments in italics)
2. But on November 7, 2018, Defendants revoked Acosta’s White House credentials because, in the President’s own words, Acosta failed to “treat the White House with respect” at a White House press briefing.
Except if you watch that November 6 video, he wasn’t being respectful. He was being antagonistic.
4. And the revocation of Acosta’s credentials is only the beginning; as the President explained, there “could be others also” who get their credentials revoked.
The slippery-slope argument except it is unwarranted here. There aren’t other journalists in the press core who act the way Acosta does. Blatant fearmongering.
5. The Framers of our Constitution embraced a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” N.Y. Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). The President lacks the authority to quash “[t]he sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment”— debate that is “bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office.” Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 51 (1988). That is why the D.C. Circuit has been clear that “the protection afforded newsgathering under the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the press requires that . . . access [to White House press facilities] not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.” Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124, 129 (D.C. Cir. 1977). And “notice . . . of the factual bases for denial [of access to White House press facilities] with an opportunity to rebut is a minimum prerequisite for ensuring that the denial is . . . [not] based onarbitrary or less than compelling reasons.” Id. at 131.
This conflates a number of things: First, the press is there to cover the White House, not to DEBATE. Second, the 1st Amendment is to enshrine public talks and even unpleasant sharp attacks, but it doesn’t say that public figures MUST engage with you. Third, given Acosta’s frequent behaviour, it would be easy to rebut ”arbitrary or less than compelling reasons quite easily. Fourth, the 1st Amendment doesn’t guarantee access to the White House.
Jim Acosta seems to want a blank cheque to confront and badger White House staff at will.
27. The President dislikes CNN’s and Acosta’s coverage of him and his administration, and has made that clear since before he took office. At a news conference on January 11, 2017, for example, then-President-elect Trump told Acosta, “your organization is terrible.” Acosta responded: “You’re attacking us. Can you give us a question?” The President replied: “Don’t be rude. No, I’m not going to give you a question . . . . You are fake news.”
While these claims are true, Acosta’s frequent behaviour does make it clear he is there to agitate, rather than report on the news. But since CNN raised the issue of the 1st Amendment, would this not be going against TRUMP’S right to free speech?
33. Speaking through a hand-held microphone, as did all the White House journalists who asked questions, Acosta asked a question about one of President Trump’s statements during the midterm campaign—namely, whether a caravan making its way to the United States from Central America constitutes “an invasion” of the country, a significant feature of the President’s messaging during the just-ended campaign. The President declined to respond, instead remarking: “You know what? I think you should . . . I think you should let me run the country. You run CNN. And if you did it well, your ratings would be much better.”
34. When Acosta attempted to ask a follow-up question, President Trump refused to take it. A White House staffer then approached Acosta and attempted to grab the microphone. The staffer reached all the way across Acosta’s body, successfully latched onto the microphone, and physically attempted to remove it from Acosta’s right hand. Acosta held onto the microphone, stated “Pardon me, ma’am,” and continued to ask his question.
This is a distortion of the truth. Acosta attempted to ask several questions, and was argumentative the entire time. Footage available refutes these assertions.
39. Hours after the press conference concluded, Press Secretary Sanders issued an official statement announcing that “the White House is suspending the hard pass of [Acosta] until further notice.” The Press Secretary accused Acosta of “placing his hands” on the White House staffer who attempted to take the microphone from Acosta during the press conference. The Press Secretary added that the alleged conduct “is absolutely unacceptable” and stated “[w]e will not tolerate this inappropriate behavior.” The White House’s statement indicated that this alleged “incident” was the basis of its decision to revoke Acosta’s credentials.
Whether this was deliberate or not is up for debate in the video. However, it was clear that Acosta was making a nuisance of himself.
FIRST AMENDMENT ARGUMENT
57. Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs of their right to access the White House grounds by revoking Acosta’s White House credentials. Without those credentials, Acosta cannot access the White House and cannot effectively serve as a White House correspondent, thus depriving Plaintiff CNN of its chief White House correspondent.
CNN is not prohibited from covering White House press briefings, only Acosta is. Do they not have anyone else on staff who could do it?
59. Defendants’ justifications for impeding Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights are hollow and hardly sufficiently compelling to justify the indefinite revocation of Acosta’s White House credentials. Consequently, the only reasonable inference from Defendants’ conduct is that they have revoked Acosta’s credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for Plaintiffs’ exercise of protected First Amendment activity.
Except Acosta wasn’t banned for his views. He was banned for regularly disturbing press conferences.
FIFTH AMENDMENT ARGUMENT
65. Acosta received no direct notice from the White House that his credentials had been revoked, let alone any notice prior to the revocation. Instead, the White House announced the revocation itself via Twitter after Defendants already decided to effectively ban Acosta from the White House grounds.
66. Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs a written explanation, nor any explanation at all, before revoking Acosta’s press credentials. The only written explanation was a short statement posted on Twitter that Acosta was suspended because he “plac[ed] his hands” on a White House staffer. Even if this tweet were accurate—and it is not, as the reportedly doctored video Defendant Sanders posted would later show—it would not suffice to demonstrate prior notice of the revocation.
Okay, giving him notice would have been courteous, but is not grounds for suing. Nor is oral notification over written notification
While many media heads are supporting Acosta’s reinstatement, I believe this claim to be completely bogus.
(1) Acosta has been repeatedly rude and antagonistic to the White House staff. He is clearly being an activist, not a journalist. This is seen again and again on tape. No one else behaves this way, and it is surprising that his behaviour has been tolerated for so long.
(2) Acosta is not banned or restricted from exercising free speech at home or in public. He is just not allowed into White House briefings
(3) CNN is not banned from covering the White House. They just need a new correspondent.
(4) Not being given notice is rude, but not a constitutional violation.
The judgement is expected any day, and a followup will be provided.
Update to the Story
On Friday, November 16, a DC Judge ordered the press credentials to be temporarily returned to Jim Acosta while the matter is formally resolved. Personally, this was a surprise.
Trump said the same thing during a Q&A with reporters in the Oval Office.
“People have to behave,” he said, when asked about the administration’s defeat in court.
“If they,” meaning reporters like Acosta, “don’t listen to the rules and regulations, we’ll end up back in court and we’ll win. But more importantly, we’ll just leave,” meaning, stop taking questions from the press. “And then you won’t be very happy. Because we do get good ratings.”
While Acosta seems to be allowed back in, there is nothing to stop the White House from: (a) simply refusing to call on Acosta; (b) cancelling press conferences; or (c) throwing Acosta out for the day.
(A fine review of Rempel by CanandaPoli. Watch his channel.)
Who says democracy doesn’t always work? (Rhetorical question). After repeated attempts to contact Conservative MPs, and getting not a single response, it seemed better to try at home. To be fair, the MP didn’t know I had any party loyalty.
I sat down with my Member of Parliament, Cathy McLeod, on Tuesday, November 13. While mainly wanting information on the U.N. Global Migration Compact, I actually got a lot of information on other topics. In 45 minutes we covered a lot. And to be frank, her honesty was quite refreshing. That will be listed below.
First though, please sign Maxime Bernier’s ”populist” petition to reject the UN Migration Compact and to keep control of Canadian borders.
SEE POINT #1 FOR UN COMPACT
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.
Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
Futile Attempt To Get CPC MPs to Email on UN Compact
(Sent in several emails): all CPC MPs were contacted to get information on the global migration compact. When this failed, I went to my local MP in Kamloops-Thompson.
Media Inquiry on UN Global Migration Compact (to all CPC members)
Sat 10/11/2018 01:55
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, Arnold.Viersen@parl.gc.ca, Cathay.Wagantall@parl.gc.ca, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Kevin.Waugh@parl.gc.ca
Cc: Len.Webber@parl.gc.ca, email@example.com, David.Yurdiga@parl.gc.ca, Bob.Zimmer@parl.gc.ca
I work for a small independent website out of BC, covering law and legal topics.
This inquiry has to do with the UN Global Migration Compact, which Trudeau is expected to sign in December.
Most Canadians would be shocked at the proposal of giving the UN control over our immigration laws. However, I have not been able to find any definitive information from your party. Moreover, I don’t see any indication that the CPC is even concerned about this.
This shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Canadians need to know who sides with Canadians, and who sides with globalists.
And your immigration ”Shadow Minister”, Michelle Rempel seems determined to avoid the topic altogether. I have attempted several times unsuccessfully to get an answer.
(1) Do you support or oppose the UN global migration compact?
(2) Do you support or oppose Petition E-1906 (from Max Bernier) to reject the compact?
Please sign this petition
PETITION E-1906 (IMMIGRATION), to reject the ”Global Migration Compact”
Keep Canada’s borders intact CLICK HERE
To date, no one has answered the email.
When emailing didn’t work, I took a visit to the local MP. Here is a summary:
(1) U.N. Global Migration Compact
This was the topic that was hardest to get any information out of Ms. McLeod. After asking several times about the Migration Compact, she did eventually admit that the CPC does not oppose it. Rather they will ”study” the issue, and likely get experts to appear.
Regarding Petition E-1906 (yes, this petition sponsored by Maxime Bernier), she dismissed it as a populous move, and trying to attract attention.
Ms. McLeod said that since it was non-binding, there was little to worry about. There was no risk of people flooding in, that this was nothing like the situation in Central America. She also seemed uninterested when it was pointed out that the UN doesn’t respect nations’ borders.
The United Nations Migration Agency, IOM, is providing support and assistance to migrants crossing Central America in several self-styled caravans, while expressing concern over “the stress and demands” they are placing on host countries.
All migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status – IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico
All things said, it was strange how indifferent Ms. McLeod seemed about the entire Compact. She claimed that there would be no giving up on Canada’s sovereignty and borders. There was no reason to be alarmed and that other scandals going on merited far more outrage.
Personally, I think the CPC fully supports this UN deal, but doesn’t want to talk about it since it would be political suicide. Better to stay quiet.
(2) Disdain for Maxime Bernier
Ms. McLeod didn’t hide her disdain for Maxime Bernier. It was really the same old talking points about how he is selfish, and is more concerned with his ego. Interestingly, she never said ”how” his policies were bad, or how CPC policies were better. And that leads to the next topic….
(3) No Platform on Website
Those looking to run for office often put their platform online so anyone can take a look. However, the CPC has decided not to. Ms. McLeod explained that posting a platform was unnecessary, since an election would not be for a year. It would be rolled out bit by bit.
When I explained that other ”right leaning” parties, such as People’s Party (Bernier); the Libertarian Party (Moen); and the Nationalist Party (Patron), all did. The response was that (to paraphrase), unless there is actually an election, there is no need to post what you stand for.
Bernier claims that the CPC governs by polls, and their beliefs change along with the polls. It seems he has a point. People’s Party has a detailed agenda up, while Conservatives just post stories bashing Trudeau.
(4) Fake Refugees Coming Into Canada
The Conservative Party is willing to declare the entire US/Canada border a ”POINT OF ENTRY”, at which a potential refugee would have to cross and apply for asylum.
However, there is no real will for removing some 30,000-40,000 people who have illegally crossed from the United States. Declaring the whole border a ”POINT OF ENTRY” does nothing to the people already here. Further, Ms. McLeod gave the impression that the CPC wasn’t willing to take harsh measures to prevent what were obviously fraudulent claims. New York is not a war zone.
And while not willing to immediately deport people sneaking across the border, CPC would shorten the refugee hearings. A start, I suppose.
(5) Corporate Welfare
From the talk today, I have to wonder if the CPC even supports free trade at all. On the topics of ”bailouts” and of ”subsidies”, I was told that yes, this is how things are done in the real world. Apparently (my paraphrasing) major businesses can only succeed if they get large amounts of taxpayer money.
Note: One could argue that nationalising might be a better option. Although taxpayers are still on the hook, at least they would be part owners.
(6) Supply Management
Yes, the Conservative Party supports farmers, and Bernier keeps bringing it up for political points. That was pretty much the response.
(7) Equalization Payments
As far as attracting votes, I got the impression it would be political suicide to attempt any real reform.
(8) Terri McClintic and Gladue/Ipeelee
To the Conservative’s credit, they were quite thorough in bringing this up, and in seeing a child killer put back in prison.
However, there seems to be no will to address the underlying issue: the racist laws in Canada, which permitted this abomination to happen. Different sentencing guidelines base on race or ethnicity have no place in an equal society.
While living conditions and history were cited by the MP as justifications, it was refuted easily. Even if harsh 3rd world conditions result in higher crime, then lessening the punishments won’t erase the 3rd world conditions. Removing the effect won’t stop the cause.
(9) Statistics Canada
Originally, I thought this was a hoax story. It was actually quite nice to see the CPC fighting against this Orwellian scheme to raid the banking information of 500,000 Canadians (per year). See here, and see here.
Global News first exposed this story, and it became a national outrage. It was stunning to see this attempt at prying such personal data for ”research purposes”. Due to public backlash, formal complaints and legal challenges, the program is on hold indefinitely.
(10) Back Door Gun Registry
This was mainly in reference to bill C-71, and Ms. McLeod admitted that it was a ”backdoor gun registry”, and that CPC will oppose it. That was nice to hear.
(11) Carbon Tax, Paris Accord
The CPC opposes the carbon tax, which does nothing to reduce pollution. But to be fair, why vote for the Paris Accord at all, which specifically “endorses” a carbon tax? It does so in several passages.
However, the CPC still supports the Paris Accord, and in our talk, Ms. McLeod conflated carbon dioxide (which is plant food used in photosynthesis), with actual carbon products to be eliminated. They oppose the tax, but still support the Accord, as they don’t want to be seen as anti-environmental.
(12) Civility in the House of Commons
This touched a nerve, mentioning the childish behaviour, grandstanding, and being evasive that goes on in the house. It didn’t matter who sat in power, the antics were an embarrassment to watch. Here is one of a great many examples.
The response to my comments were that things still get done at times.
(13) M-103 — anti blasphemy motion
Ms. McLeod said that it was non-binding, but shurgged off my comments that it would (if it became law), prohibit truthful speech, and that it gives preferential treatment.
Are Conservatives an Alternative to the Liberals?
Not really. With all of the hype notwithstanding, there appear to be few differences:
(1) Conservatives oppose the carbon tax, while supporting Paris Accord
(2) Conservatives actually support legal gun owners
That is about it. Even the identity politics and pandering they are starting to embrace even more. Legitimate questions about multiculturalism and Canadian values is off limits. CPC does go out its way to avoid saying anything meaningful on the subject, or its challenges. Bernier found that out the hard way. Liberal issues like corporate welfare; trade barriers; and equalization are embraced.
Someone like Michelle Rempel is actually quite dangerous. Rather than opposing the disaster of a government, she creates the illusion of opposing. The so-called ”opposition MPs” focus on the small details, it makes one wonder how sincere they are.
To be fair, the CPC does play the outrage card quite well when scandals break: (a) Ethics breaches; (b) Terri McClintic; (c) StatsCan; (d) Illegal immigration in Canada. However, ”any” party could do this, and it serves as a distraction for the lack of real differention between LPC and CPC. One can legitimately ask: what is conservative about this party, other than the name?
Regarding the UN Global Migration Compact: the CPC is not opposing it, but will go through the motions of ”studying” it. See Point #1.
It seems that walking away from traditional parties was the right one. If all the CPC has to say is ”we’re not Trudeau”, while acting Liberal-lite, then I want nothing to do with them. While getting some honest information from my MP was nice, it actually did confirm everything Max Bernier said when he left the party.
It could be very messy for ”Conservatives” in October 2019.
Update to the Posting
There have been a few questions as to the authenticity of the article.
After pondering it, I’ve decided to post it. The voices are a bit wonky, haven’t been able to fix it yet,
Again, CPC doesn’t actually “oppose” UN global migration compact.
Further Update to the Posting
The CPC has now said that they oppose the UN Compact. More on that in another video
(The Eiffel Tower, as France submits to various masters)
How would these 2 stack up if they lived at the same time? Let’s take a look
but first, prevent more Hitlers and Macrons from gaining power. See below:
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.
Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
Hitler: Alpha male
Macron: Beta male
Hitler: Fantasized about conquering and dominating France
Macron: Fantasized about being conquered and dominated by Germany
Hitler: Wants to take over Europe
Macron: Wants others to take over Europe for him
Hitler: Wanted a European army dominated by Berlin
Macron: Wanted a European army dominated by Berlin
Hitler: Will imprison or kill people for wrong-think
Macron: Will dox people for wrong-think
Hitler: Wrecked Europe using huge German armies
Macron: Wrecked Europe using huge foreign armies
Hitler: Bullied Eastern Europe into doing his bidding
Macron: “Trying to” bully Eastern Europe into doing his bidding
Hitler: Angered that the Americans defeated Germany in 1918
Macron: Angered that the Americans liberated France in 1918
Hitler: Raised the swastika flag over fallen nations
Macron: Raised the European Union flag over fallen nations
Hitler: Believed legality of secondary importance
Macron: Believed consent of secondary importance
Hitler: Wanted “lebensraum” in Europe for German people to live
Macron: Wanted “lebensraum” in Europe for African and Middle Eastern people to live
Hitler: Thinks that strong national identity is necessary for a nation
Macron: Thinks that national identity shouldn’t exist
Hitler: Wanted a society of a pure Aryan race
Macron: Wanted a society of a pure mixed race
Hitler: Believed that the German people were superior to all
Macron: Believed that the French people were superior to none
Hitler: Blames Jews for Germany’s many problems
Macron: Blames whites for France’s many problems
Hitler: Hates diversity of thought, and diversity of race
Macron: Hates diversity of thought only
Hitler: Had a beta sidekick named Mussolini
Macron: Had a beta sidekick named Trudeau
Hitler: Replacing other populations using force–
Macron: Replacing local populations by:
(a) abortion on demand;
(b) LGBTQ agenda;
(c) encouraging career over family;
(d) making a family unaffordable;
(e) “White Guilt” to discourage breeding;
(f) mass immigration of very different groups;
(g) forced multi-culturalism;
(h) balkanization and white flight;
(i) celebrating other cultures;
(j) tax incentives for foreigners to start families
However, Antifa (short for “Anti-Fascist”, or “Anti-First-Amendment” as detractors claim), have decided that stalking his family is way to get him to shut up. See the video at the top.
Antifa is a left leaning quasi-Communist group that claims to “oppose Fascism”. They claim that “limited violence” is necessary to prevent the rise of right wing extremism, and to prevent the eradication of certain marginalized groups.
But in practice, they commit acts of violence against people they disagree with: (1) white nationalists, even non-violent ones; (2) right wing public figures; and (3) moderates whom they disagree with. It also doesn’t stop them from assaulting innocent bystanders and at times journalists. A quick YouTube search will find countless examples of Antifa violence.
However, there are idiots, even in the media, such as CNN’s Chris Cuomo, who defend Antifa as “fighting hate”, and not the same “morally” as right wing bigots.
This is appalling, and cowardly. Threatening and harassing a person to silence their views, in particular a journalist is chilling. Worse still, is using their family as collateral damage. Here are a few items worth mentioning:
1st Amendment of U.S. Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How the F.B.I. Defines Domestic Terrorism. Domestic terrorism: Perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with primarily U.S.-based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.
–for example, the June 8, 2014 Las Vegas shooting, during which two police officers inside a restaurant were killed in an ambush-style attack, which was committed by a married couple who held anti-government views and who intended to use the shooting to start a revolution.
Efforts have been made to formally classify Antifa as a terrorist organization. While there are ongoing challenges, Antifa currently is designated as one.
But these fundamental rights are also enshrined elsewhere:
Section 2 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
How the Canadian Criminal Code Defines Terrorism In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code defines terrorism as an act committed “in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause” with the intention of intimidating the public “…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act.” Activities recognized as criminal within this context include death and bodily harm with the use of violence; endangering a person’s life; risks posed to the health and safety of the public; significant property damage;
There are similar guarantees and rules in nations throughout the Western world.
Although with the expansion of “hate speech” regulations, free speech rights are being curtailed. But that is an article for another day.
As for the Tucker Carlson story, it sends chills at least in part because he is a fairly moderate voice in American television. While right leaning, he openly rejects racism, and arguments twisted as racism. He calls out guests for strawman arguments, and guests who do espouse openly racist views.
Tucker is both loved on the right, and despised on the left. This is for the same reason: he calls out divisive identity politics, and hypocrisy which comes from the SJW/NPC crowd.
Sadly, this obnoxious ”journalist” got far more attention than Tucker Carlson. Domestic terrorism is a much more serious matter.
Hopefully the masked cowards who stalked Carlson’s family are identified and arrested. Silencing media opinions they don’t agree with is ”fascism”, but the irony seems lost on Antifa.
CBC, a.k.a The “Communist Broadbasting Corporation”, or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”, is a government funded “news” organization. It receives about $1.5 billion annually to spew out anti-Canadian stories. Taxpayers don’t get a say in the matter.
CLICK HERE, to reach the CBC Propaganda Masterlist. It is far from complete, but being added to regularly.
(A 9:37 long interview aired on the CBC)
On October 12, CBC aired this piece, promoting the boosting of Canada’s population to 100 million by the year 2100.
In fairness to CBC, it looks like they are just airing the opinion piece, rather than simply endorsing it. However, it appears that no scrutiny or fact checking has actually been done.
From the audio, it is clear what questions are NOT asked. Nothing about:
(a) Integration issues form vastly different cultures and backgrounds
(b) Proper identification and screening
(c) Any potential health issues, along with transmissible diseases
(d) Requirements to speak or learn the language
(e) No addressing the work shortages current Canadians face.
From the CBC Article
If Canada sticks with current practices, our population will grow to between 51 to 53 million by the end of the century.
A non-profit group called The Century Initiative advocates doubling that, to 100 million. That’s about triple our current population.
“We recognize that it may be counterintuitive,” Shari Austin, CEO of the Century Initiative, told The Sunday Edition’s guest host Peter Armstrong.
It’s the only way, she argued, that Canada can face the economic challenges ahead and strengthen its international influence.
Currently, Canada accepts 310,000 immigrants per year. The Century Initiative suggests that number should be closer to 450,000.
“It’s a big, audacious goal,” she conceded. But it has been done before. Since 1945 to the present day, Canada’s population has tripled.
Long term view and short term pain
According to Austin, if this goal isn’t met, Canada will struggle financially and governments won’t have enough to pay for the services we have come to expect in this country.
“We need to be prepared to put more money into certain things that will make sure our growth is successful,” she warned.
She also sees this as a way to create “a more diverse, more interesting, dynamic population.”
“It’s an exciting opportunity to be proactive about what we want to look like in fifty years, in a hundred years. It’s also an opportunity to leave a better world for our kids and our grandkids.”
Century Initiative’s site is here, and it’s “team” is here. Here are a few quotes off of its website, which are chilling in how blunt they are.
WE BELIEVE A BIGGER CANADA BENEFITS US ALL
Our Purpose Ensure an influential and prosperous future for Canada
Our Vision A competitive global nation of 100 Million Canadians unified by diversity and prosperity
Our Mission Build a prosperous, bold, and dynamic future for Canada by driving national discourse on strategic population growth and stimulating change through coordinated action and thought leadership
Our Values Ambition, Pluralism, Prosperity
A brief history of the Century Initiative
The Century Initiative was started by a group of prominent Canadians concerned about the Canada we will leave to the next generation. After extensive issue mapping and discussion of the potential for positive impact, it was decided that the Century Initiative will focus on responsibly growing the population of Canada to 100 million by 2100. This will significantly impact our economic strength at home and our influence abroad.
The country we will leave to the next generation risks becoming far less prosperous and far less relevant on the world stage. Canada is on track for a 53% decline in annual real GDP growth. Canada’s population base is currently forecast to be 53 million in the year 2100. This places Canada outside of the top 45 countries, behind Madagascar and Burkina Faso. Interested in prosperity, growth and pluralism, and motivated to reverse these trends, the group established the Century Initiative.
The Century Initiative is focused on responsibly and thoughtfully growing the population of Canada to 100 million by 2100. Success for this project will be measured by Canadians in the year 2100 saying that the project has helped define the country and has had a transformational impact on Canada in the 21st Century.
With your input, we aspire to define a vision for Canada in 2100 and offer insights on best practices, possible actions, and avenues for impact.
We will collaborate with members of the private and public sectors and consult with the public at large. We aspire to shine a light on challenges and opportunities, share best practices, motivate corporate employers to act, and convene conversations among interested parties. We will collect data, seek out the advice of experts, assess Canada’s position, set goals, and build a business case and strategy to achieve the goals for each pillar.
We seek to develop an inaugural initiative that builds upon this work. It will focus at least in part on unlocking Canada’s potential through bringing the best of what a new immigrant population can provide: above average engagement, health outcomes and new entrepreneurial activity.
There you have it: CBC published an article by this “Century Initiative”, which is calling for the boosting of Canada’s population to 100 million by the end of the century. Apparently the 51-53 million it is already projected to be isn’t enough.
Of course, each person is allowed to have their own opinion. However, it seems unsettling that CBC, which is funded by our taxes, would air such a piece. If it were just this website on its own, it would be just another globalist, open borders shill. But again, we are forced to fund coverage of this.
Century Initiative’s site is surprisingly limited when it comes to details. Here is an email I sent to them:
I came across your site and am rather troubled by what I see. You advocate for boosting Canada’s population to 100 million, but many details are lacking:
(1) Who funds you exactly, and what is their political ideology?
(2) Does CBC endorse the article you did?
(3) Why should Canada be concerned with tripling its population?
(4) What would you say to critics who would argue that this is unnecessary, and just globalist propaganda?
(5) With this focus on mass immigration, why don’t you mention the many challenges that it has had, such as: (a) incompatible cultures; (b) language barriers; (c) difficulties doing proper screening — ISIS; (d) high unemployment, (e) stresses on the host nation; (f) medical and health issues and so on?
(6) Why focus on immigration when their are so many Canadian youth struggling to get meaningful work?
(7) Why focus on immigration to boost population when there are so many Canadians who would like to have more kids?
(8) Is your goal to change the nature and culture of Canada through mass immigration?
(9) Is your goal to dismantle or take away any of Canada’s sovereignty?
(10) Is your goal economic migration or “humanitarian” migration? And considering how many “refugees” become public charges, would that not be a drain on the public funds?
(11) Do you believe in open borders or globalism?
These questions have been sent via their contact page, and as of the writing of this article, unanswered. However, should a response come forward, it will be posted in full.
This is definitely worth looking into. CBC is allowing this sort of thing on tax-payer funded news without any question. Who are these people at Century Initiative?
(The issue of bank data being seized is raised in Parliament)
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.
Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
This article was released by Global News on October 26, 2018, and CanuckLaw covered it here on October 28. In short, Statistics Canada wants to seize the banking information of 500,000 Canadians (each year), and do it without the knowledge or consent of Canadians.
(at 1:40 in the video) Statistics Canada representative James Tabreke in a very blunt way claims that this is a ”new way of getting economic data to make government decisions”. He also claims that StatsCan is being open with the public, and that the Canadian Banks were aware of this.
(at 2:32 in the video) Claim that the Privacy Commissioner has okayed the project.
Prime Minister Trudeau, in his typically partisan manner, defended the data seizure. Of course blamed Stephen Harper for eliminating the long form census in 2010. He claimed StatsCan was working closely with the Privacy Commissioner.
Now the lies get exposed:
First, Trudeau is distorting the truth with reference to Harper gutting the long-form census. In the original video, Statistics Canada claimed bank seizure was a move done to replace the long form census. So Harper cancelling the LFC in 2010 was actually irrelevant, as StatsCan was going to pull this stunt anyway.
Second, StatsCan claims that they have been open with what they are doing. Yet, these talks have been going on for a year now without the public’s knowledge.
Third, the C.B.A. (Canadian Bankers Association) has publicly objected, claiming they thought StatsCan was just in an exploratory stage. C.B.A. says they didn’t know StatsCan was going ahead with this, and says they will oppose the measure. Here is their statement:
Statement from the Canadian Bankers Association
Protecting the information privacy of their valued customers is a top priority for banks in Canada. Banks believed this proposed data acquisition project was still in the exploratory stages and were not aware that Statistics Canada was moving to compel disclosure of this information. No customer transaction data or other personal information has been transferred to Statistics Canada under this request. The CBA is working with members to understand the nature of this request and next steps.
Fourth, the Privacy Commissioner, seen here appearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, refutes the claim that he ”okayed the move”. Instead, he stated that he does not have the authority to approve such a thing, and is only able to provide general advice on privacy laws.
Fifth, the Privacy Commissioner claims he was unaware until very recently that Statistics Canada that they wanted to do this to 500,000 Canadians. He says numbers were not discussed. In the hearing he states, ”Proportionality is very important.”
Sixth, the Privacy Commissioner states he was unaware or just how much information would be seized by such a move.
Seventh, the Privacy Commissioner admits that StatsCan was not nearly as transparent as it could have been.
Eighth, and this is a glaring omission: StatsCan doesn’t say how this massive intrusion would actually help. There are just vague references to ”economic information”.
Certainly, that 15 years of credit card data had recently been seized also doesn’t sit well with many Canadians.
Now that formal complaints against this measure have been filed with the Privacy Commissioner, there is no longer the option of just giving general legal information. At this point, an investigation is mandated by law.
The proposal appears to be dead in the water, as public outrage and the threats of legal action are forcing StatsCan to back off. But it will be interesting to see if the Federal Liberals continue to support this Orwellian measure.
Statistics Canada, Equifax, Transunion, the C.B.A., and the major banks have all been contacted by CanuckLaw for comment. Any responses will be posted here as updates.
Canadian Banker’s Association rep Aaron Boles Thanks, Alex.
The most important take-away from yesterday is that StatsCan is suspending any movement on its proposed project until the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has completed its report, which we understand will be January at the earliest. We were firm in our appearance before the Senate Committee that all options are on the table in terms of defending the privacy and security of bank customers’ personal information and transaction records. Until the OPC report is tabled and StatsCan responds about what it proposes to do thereafter, there’s little point in speculating on how information on spending habits would be collected, if at all.
Hi Alex – please refer to the CBA for comment on this.
AJ Goodman I Director, External Communications, Personal & Commercial Banking I
From TD Canada
We refer your inquiry to the CBA, however can tell you that TD takes the trust our customers place in us extremely seriously and has not agreed to share customer data.
From Statistics Canada Hello,
“I can assure you that we will not proceed with this project until we have addressed the privacy concerns expressed by Canadians by working cooperatively with the Privacy Commissioner and with financial institutions.”
Anil Arora, Chief Statistician of Canada (Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, November 8, 2018)
Manager (Acting), Media Relations, Communications
Statistics Canada, Government of Canada
In our database, Equifax Canada has information on ~27M Canadian consumers, which we maintain as a registered Canadian credit bureau in accordance with applicable credit reporting and privacy laws. Statistics Canada has never directed Equifax Canada to provide them with, and subsequently, Equifax Canada has not provided to Statistics Canada all of its data pursuant to its enabling legislation.
In any instance where a regulated body relying on legislative authority requests information from Equifax, our standard process is to conduct a review against our internal data governance and security processes, as well as to consider applicable law prior to disclosure.
We don’t have any information on the rumour you mentioned about credit data from 15 years ago.
Media Relations | Equifax Canada Co.
5700 Yonge St., Suite 1700, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2M 4K2
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.
Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
Need some extra cash? Don’t feel like working hard? Well, here at CanuckLaw, we have the solution for you.
Simply make some vague claim about: (a) being offended; (b) having hurt feelings; (c) loss of self confidence, and you will be well on your way to making your next year’s salary virtually overnight.
Need that new sports car? Or have a girlfriend with really expensive taste? Now you don’t have to feel like a cheapskate. Just file a human rights complaint, and that cash is as good as yours. Just appear before the tribunal and cry up a storm.
In court, you will be forced to ”prove damages” and likely ”hire a lawyer”. Not the case here. Just say you are offended, and the Province will pick up your tab. The slimy accused will still have to pay his bill though.
And if you want to come to Canada, but don’t qualify, then just claim to be oppressed and fearful of persecution. And since it’s all in your head, no proof necessary.
All joking aside, the Provincial Human Rights Tribunals are in fact a very lucrative way to cash in. We will explain here.
One interesting case, is Sanford v. Koop, 2005 HRTO 53 (CanLII) at paras. 34-38. CLICK HERE for a link to it. It sets out a disturbingly vague, yet extensive list which people can get extra money under. Although this is Ontario, other provinces have very similar guidelines. From paragraph 35:
 The Commission provided a number of cases which set out the criteria to be used in assessing the appropriate quantum of general damages. These factors include:
• Humiliation experienced by the complainant
• Hurt feelings experienced by the complainant
• A complainant’s loss of self-respect
• A complainant’s loss of dignity
• A complainant’s loss of self-esteem
• A complainant’s loss of confidence
• The experience of victimization
• Vulnerability of the complainant
• The seriousness, frequency and duration of the offensive treatment
See: Baylis-Flannery v. DeWilde (No.2) (2003), 48 C.H.R.R. D/197 (total general damages of $35,000); Arias v. Desai, (No.2) (2003) 45 C.H.H.R. D/308 (HRTO) (total general damages of $25,000); Curling v. Torimiro (No.4) (2000), 38 C.H.R.R. D/216 (Ont. Bd. Inq.) (total general damages of $21,000); Ketola v. Value Propane Inc. (No. 2), (2002), 44 C.H.H.R.R. D/37 (Ont. Bd. Inq.) (total award of $20,000 for general damages and mental anguish); deSouza v. Gauthier (2002), 43 C.H.R.R. D/128 (Ont. Bd. Inq.) (total award of $25,000 for general damages and mental anguish)
 The Tribunal accepts the submissions of the Commission. Considering the evidence in this matter, and the similarity of the facts in this case with the facts in the cases cited by the Commission, the Tribunal awards $25,000 in general damages.
Damages for Mental Anguish for the Reckless and Wilful Infringement of the Complainant’s Rights
 Pursuant to Section 41(1)(b) of the Code the Tribunal may award damages of up to $10,000 for mental anguish, injury to dignity, feelings and pride, where such infringement has been engaged in wilfully or recklessly.
 The Commission identified the factors used to assess mental anguish damages pursuant to Section 41(1)(b):
Yes, you are reading that correctly: having hurt feelings can get you lots of money, according to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. In fact, they even give a price range.
Prospective Canadians: now, if waiting years, spending money, and doing paperwork are not your thing, don’t worry. Just hop a place to the U.S. with a tourist visa,seen here, walk across the Canadian border, and get yourself detained. Free housing, food and medical care while you wait for your claim.
Immigration and Refugee Boards (IRB) and Human Rights Tribunals (HRT) are clogged with bogus cases. In fact, a quick search reveals thousands, and those are just the ones that are published. Here are some cases pulled at random.
(1) CLICK HERE for an attempt to silence speech critical of Islam.
(2) CLICK HERE for getting a job in a restaurant, then refusing to do it later based on religious grounds.
(3) CLICK HERE for a funny one, taking action against each other for discrimination.
(4) CLICK HERE for a member of the Islamic Salvation Front wanting refugee status.
(5) CLICK HERE for a claim that asking a prospective tenant for a 12 month lease is discrimination.
(6) CLICK HERE for a member of Hamas (a terrorist group), wanting to be declared a refugee.
(7) CLICK HERE for an unsubstantiated claim of fear of safety.
(8) CLICK HERE for a member of the Students Islamic Movement of India, with at least 6 arrests, wanting asylum based on persecution.
(9) CLICK HERE for a woman seeking asylum due to an interfaith marriage gone wrong (Islam and Hindu)
(10) CLICK HERE for a blind man being denied to bring his guide dog due to cab driver’s religion.
(11) CLICK HERE for a judicial review (and a well cited case) of an asylum decision.
(12) CLICK HERE for taking Rebel Media to he cleaners for offering commentary deemed offensive.
(13) CLICK HERE for a claim about saying mean words to someone.
http://canlii.org is a free site, available to anyone. You can do actual legal research from here, and research decisions from all over the country. Thing is, no lawyer is necessary.