CBC Propaganda #10: Promoting World Hijab Day

(Windsor Hospital promoting “World Hijab Day”)

This is the 10th piece in the open-ended series “CBC Propaganda”. For those who don’t know, CBC (a.k.a. the “Communist Broadcasting Corporation” or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”) is a state funded media outlet, which taxpayers are forced to pay. This costs in excess of $1 billion annually.

CLICK HERE, for the CBC article itself.
THE PROPAGANDA MASTERLIST is available here.

“Windsor Regional Hospital is celebrating World Hijab Day, a day marked since 2013 to encourage women of all backgrounds to try on a hijab.
.
The hospital’s diversity committee will have booths set up at the Met and Ouellette campuses, explaining why the hijab is worn and visitors will be invited to try one on.
.
Lina Chaker, who volunteers with the Windsor Islamic Association, sees the day as an invitation for people to see how wearing the hijab influences their daily life.
.
“[The hijab] means something different for every single person,” said Chaker.
For her? It’s a way to strengthen her relationship to God.
.
People who are unfamiliar with the hijab or have questions are more than welcome to ask questions, according to Chaker.
.
Ruaa Farhat, a 4th year social work student at University of Windsor, echoes that sentiment.
“It’s understandable, because some people just don’t know,” said Farhat.
.
Commonly asked questions include: do you sleep with it on? To which the answer would be no, she doesn’t.
.
Any misconceptions?
.
Farhat and Chaker both started wearing the hijab at around 6th grade.
.
“A lot of times we think about people being pressured to wear the hijab. But I think over here in Canada, the trend is actually people tell you not to wear it,” said Chaker.
.
Hijab hacks: Two Windsor women share advice on World Hijab Day
.
VideoHow to: Lessons in hijab wrapping for non-Muslims
.
She remembers her family telling her that she was still young, that she didn’t need to wear it. And her mother was worried about her being bullied in school if she wore one.
.
Farhat said she’s had to explain that it’s so liberal in Canada and that there’s no pressure.
.
“So the fact that I am wearing it, shows that I’m doing it out of my own will,” she said. She feels wearing one is a representation of her true self.
.
Farhat and Chaker say there are many styles to the hijab and people wear it in many ways.
.
“Some people like certain colours more than others,” said Chaker. She personally prefers not to use pins and to have fewer layers.
.
To learn more about the hijab, people are invited to stop by the Met Campus Friday from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., and the Ouellette Campus Friday from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.”

One thing to note: CBC has disabled the comments on this article.

Okay, what could be wrong with this? What is wrong with promoting it? Anyway, this group seems nice enough.

One “very small” detail gets omitted here:

In parts of the world, where Muslims are a majority, wearing the hijab is MANDATORY. It isn’t OPTIONAL for those women. If CBC were actually an objective media outlet, it would mention that

(Source is here.)

(Source is here.)

(Source is here.)

These are just a few examples of media coverage of punishment for women removing these headscarves. Any quick internet search will reveal thousands of such articles.

Of course, these strict dress codes only apply to women, not to men. Yet, Western feminists are deafeningly silent on this double standard. Perhaps by comparison, Western women have nothing to gripe about.

Rather than go into detail, I will leave it to the reader to do their own research. Why “promote” the hijab in the west, while it is clearly “oppression” under Islamic rule?

CBC, which again, gets over a billion dollars of Canadian taxpayer money every year “should” be broadcasting a far more balanced view on the subject. But objectivity seems non-existent.

Final note: CBC seems to have ignored a story it posted a year and a half ago, because it obviously doesn’t fit the narrative.

Loophole in Canada/US Safe 3rd Country: Motion to Extend Time for Judicial Review Application

(Screenshots from the Federal Court website)

****************************************************************************
(1) The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is HERE.
(2) The full text for Canada/US Safe 3rd Country is HERE, and see HERE.
(3) The proposed UN Parliament/World Government is HERE.
(4) The full text of the Paris Accord is HERE.
(5) The Multiculturalism Act is HERE.
(6) The Canadian Citizenship Act (birth tourism) is HERE.
(7) Bill C-6 (citizenship for terrorists) is HERE.
(8) M-103 (Iqra Khalid’s Blasphemy Motion) is HERE.
(9) Fed’s $595M bribery of journalists is outlined HERE.
(10) Agenda 21 (signed in June 1992) is HERE
(11) Agenda 2030 (signed in September 2015) is HERE.
Items in the above list are addressed HERE

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
****************************************************************************

CLICK HERE, for general information on application for judicial review.
CLICK HERE, for the Federal Court forms
CLICK HERE, for the Federal Court Rules, (see Part V, sections 300-319)
CLICK HERE, for the Federal Courts Act (see Section 18)

IMPORTANT NOTE:
(A) If it has been “less than” 30 days since the order/decision you want reviewed, you simply file an application for a judicial review.
(B) If it has been “more than” 30 days since the decision being reviewed, you first need to file a motion for an extension of time. If granted, then you file an application as in (A).

This article will focus on (B) and assume that more than 30 days has lapsed since the decision you are trying to have reviewed.

Jurisdiction of Federal Court (continued)
Marginal note:
Extraordinary remedies, federal tribunals
18 (1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction
(a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
(b) to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.

Application for judicial review
18.1 (1) An application for judicial review may be made by the Attorney General of Canada or by anyone directly affected by the matter in respect of which relief is sought.

Powers of Federal Court
(3) On an application for judicial review, the Federal Court may
(a) order a federal board, commission or other tribunal to do any act or thing it has unlawfully failed or refused to do or has unreasonably delayed in doing; or
(b) declare invalid or unlawful, or quash, set aside or set aside and refer back for determination in accordance with such directions as it considers to be appropriate, prohibit or restrain, a decision, order, act or proceeding of a federal board, commission or other tribunal.

Grounds of review
(4) The Federal Court may grant relief under subsection (3) if it is satisfied that the federal board, commission or other tribunal
(a) acted without jurisdiction, acted beyond its jurisdiction or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
(b) failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required by law to observe;
(c) erred in law in making a decision or an order, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record;
(d) based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it;
(e) acted, or failed to act, by reason of fraud or perjured evidence; or
(f) acted in any other way that was contrary to law.

Interim orders
18.2 On an application for judicial review, the Federal Court may make any interim orders that it considers appropriate pending the final disposition of the application.

Hearings in summary way
18.4 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an application or reference to the Federal Court under any of sections 18.1 to 18.3 shall be heard and determined without delay and in a summary way.

Exception
(2) The Federal Court may, if it considers it appropriate, direct that an application for judicial review be treated and proceeded with as an action.

Content of the Motion Record
A/ Cover Page (Use form 66 for general heading)
B/ Table of Contents
C/ Notion of Motion (Form 359)
D/ Affidavit if swearing evidence (Form 80A)
E/ Any evidence attached to affidavit (a, b, c….)
F/ Written submissions/arguments

A Skeleton Motion Record
****************************************************************************

APPLICATION

(Court File No.)

FEDERAL COURT

BETWEEN:

Name
(Applicant)

and

Attorney General of Canada
(Respondent)

APPLICATION UNDER 18.1(2) of Federal Court Act (Extension of Time to File Application for Judicial Review)

_____________________________________________________________________________
(Motion Record)

_____________________________________________________________________________
(Your Information)

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1/ Table of Contents (Page A)

2/ Notion of Motion (Form 359) (Page 1-3)

3/ Affidavit swearing evidence (Form 80A) (Page 4-5)
-Exhibit A: Canada/US Safe 3rd country agreement (Page 5-9)
-Exhibit B: Exerps From Gov’t site on agreement (Page 10-12)
-Exhibit C: Article on Roxham Rd. Crossings (Page 13-14)
-Exhibit D: Gov’t announcing funding (Page 15-16)

E/ Written submissions/arguments (Pages 17-22)

****************************************************************************
(General Heading — Use Form 66)

NOTICE OF MOTION

(Motion in writing)

TAKE NOTICE THAT (my name) will make a motion to the Court in writing under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules.

THE MOTION IS FOR:
-To gain an extension of time to file an application for judicial review (Rule 18.1(2) Federal Courts Act.

-The issue is to amend the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement to make the entire Canada/US border classified as a “port of entry”. This would effectively close the “loophole” in the existing agreement.

THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE:

-Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that in the event of a Charter breach, a litigant may seek relief in a court of competent jurisdiction

-Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that people have the right to be secure in their persons. Allowing large numbers of unscreened illegal immigrants in jeopardises that protection.

-Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that equality is a right. However, this loophole allows illegal border jumpers to “go to the front of the line”

-Section 91/92 of the Constitution separate Federal/Provincial Powers. These illegal border crossers are now being given housing, health care, education, etc…. paid for by the Provinces, except these issues are PROVINCIAL jurisdiction.

-Section 18(1) of Federal Courts Act states that the Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction to handle such matters. This is consistent with Rule 300 of the Federal Court Rules.

-Section 18.1(2) of Federal Courts Act allows for the Federal Court to grant such an extension of time as sought.

-Section 18.1(3) and 18.1(4) of Federal Courts Act lists both powers and grounds for review which the Court has, and will ultimately be referenced, should the application to extend time be granted.

-Rule 303(2) in Federal Court Rules states that in an application for judicial review (which an extension of time is sought here), where no person can be named, the Attorney General of Canada shall be named as a Respondent.

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE will be used at the hearing of the motion:
Affidavit swearing evidence (Form 80A)
-Exhibit A: Canada/US Safe 3rd country agreement
-Exhibit B: Exerps From Gov’t site on agreement
-Exhibit C: Article on Roxham Rd. Crossings
-Exhibit D: Gov’t announcing funding

(February 2, 2019)
______________________________
(Signature of solicitor or party)
(Name, address, telephone and fax number of solicitor or party)

TO: (Name and address of responding party’s solicitor or responding party)

SOR/2004-283, s. 35

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

FORM 80A – Rule 80

AFFIDAVIT

(General Heading — Use Form 66)

AFFIDAVIT OF (Name)

I, (full name and occupation of deponent), of the (City, Town, etc.) of (name) in the (County, Regional Municipality, etc.) of (name), SWEAR (or AFFIRM) THAT:

1. (Set out the statements of fact in consecutively numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph being confined as far as possible to a particular statement of fact.)

Sworn (or Affirmed) before me at the (City, Town, etc.) of (name) in the (County, Regional Municipality, etc.) of (name) on (date).

______________________________________
Commissioner for Taking Affidavits
(or as the case may be)

_____________________________
(Signature of Deponent)

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

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF APPLICANT

Part I: Jurisdiction
Part II: Issues
Part III: Facts
Part IV: Law
Part V: Cases Cited
Part VI: Order Sought

Part I: Jurisdiction
-Under Section 18 of the Federal Courts Act, and Section 300/301 of Federal Court Rules, the Federal Court of Canada has jurisdiction to hear such an application.
-Federal Court also has jurisdiction to grant a time extension to file application

Part II: Issues
-Can the Federal Court grant an extension of time (18.1(2) FCR) to file an application?
-Does the Court see the matter of public interest to see through?

Part III: Facts
-The Safe Third Country Agreement is between Canada and the United States.
-The S3CA was signed on December 5, 2002, and took effect December 29, 2004
-The obvious intent of the agreement is to recognize that both nations are safe, and to prevent abuse of refugee claims by people travelling between the 2 nations.
-Since 2015, however, more than 40,000 illegal immigrants have entered Canada illegally, primarily through Roxham Road in Quebec.
-Many illegals travelled to New York State on tourist visas, then travelled north.
-These illegals are now languishing in hotels at great public expense.
-Had these 40,000+ illegals gone to official border crossings, they would have been immediately sent back. However, going “around” ports of entry effectively allows illegal entry, and circumvents the agreement.

Part IV: Law
-The Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement is an international agreement signed in good faith. However, it was not drafted with this loophole in mind.

Part V: Cases Cited

Part VI: Order Sought
-A time extension to file an application for judicial review
****************************************************************************

Loophole in Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement

CLICK HERE, for full text for the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement.

THE UNDERSTANDING

From the opening of the agreement


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;

NOTING that refugee status claimants may arrive at the Canadian or United States land border directly from the other Party, territory where they could have found effective protection;

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;

AWARE that such sharing of responsibility must ensure in practice that persons in need of international protection are identified and that the possibility of indirect breaches of the fundamental principle of non-refoulement are avoided, and therefore determined to safeguard for each refugee status claimant eligible to pursue a refugee status claim who comes within their jurisdiction, access to a full and fair refugee status determination procedure as a means to guarantee that the protections of the Convention, the Protocol, and the Torture Convention are effectively afforded;

The wording is pretty clear here. Canada and the United States view each other as safe countries. If you land in one country, you “should” not be able to hop to the other and claim refugee status.

It is of interest to read in particular, articles 4, 5, 6

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.
Responsibility for determining the refugee status claim of any person referred to in paragraph 1 shall rest with the Party of the receiving country, and not the Party of the country of last presence, where the receiving Party determines that the person:
-Has in the territory of the receiving Party at least one family member who has had a refugee status claim granted or has been granted lawful status, other than as a visitor, in the receiving Party’s territory; or
-Has in the territory of the receiving Party at least one family member who is at least 18 years of age and is not ineligible to pursue a refugee status claim in the receiving Party’s refugee status determination system and has such a claim pending; or
-Is an unaccompanied minor; or
-Arrived in the territory of the receiving Party:
With a validly issued visa or other valid admission document, other than for transit, issued by the receiving Party; or
Not being required to obtain a visa by only the receiving Party.
The Party of the country of last presence shall not be required to accept the return of a refugee status claimant until a final determination with respect to this Agreement is made by the receiving Party.
Neither Party shall reconsider any decision that an individual qualifies for an exception under Articles 4 and 6 of this Agreement.

Makes clear about a formal point of entry. However, those who value sovereignty will note with concern there are many exceptions to keep alleged “refugees” in Canada far longer.

ARTICLE 5
In cases involving the removal of a person by one Party in transit through the territory of the other Party, the Parties agree as follows:
Any person being removed from Canada in transit through the United States, who makes a refugee status claim in the United States, shall be returned to Canada to have the refugee status claim examined by and in accordance with the refugee status determination system of Canada.
Any person being removed from the United States in transit through Canada, who makes a refugee status claim in Canada, and:
whose refugee status claim has been rejected by the United States, shall be permitted onward movement to the country to which the person is being removed; or
who has not had a refugee status claim determined by the United States, shall be returned to the United States to have the refugee status claim examined by and in accordance with the refugee status determination system of the United States.

It appears clear cut. You cannot country shop from one to another, and there is a specific agreement to remove those people who try.

ARTICLE 6
Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement, either Party may at its own discretion examine any refugee status claim made to that Party where it determines that it is in its public interest to do so.

So, either Canada or the United States could remove anyone at any time if deemed in national interest.

HERE is the problem:

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.

As if plain and obvious, this only applies to border crossings entries. This means that fake refugees can bypass the agreement simply by entering anyplace other than an official border crossing.

That has been happening, by the thousands. See HERE, see HERE, and HERE.

One obvious solution would be to declare the “ENTIRE BORDER” a point of entry. However, there seems to be little willpower in Ottawa to do that.

In fact, Prime Minister Trudeau has no issues with calling a racist anyone who questions the open border.

Democracy Without Borders: A Call For A Globalist Gov’t

(Open call for 1-world government)


(1) The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is HERE.
(2) The full text for Canada/US Safe 3rd Country is HERE, and see HERE.
(3) The proposed UN Parliament/World Government is HERE.
(4) The full text of the Paris Accord is HERE.
(5) The Multiculturalism Act is HERE.
(6) The Canadian Citizenship Act (birth tourism) is HERE.
(7) Bill C-6 (citizenship for terrorists) is HERE.
(8) M-103 (Iqra Khalid’s Blasphemy Motion) is HERE.
(9) Fed’s $595M bribery of journalists is outlined HERE.
(10) Agenda 21 (signed in June 1992) is HERE
(11) Agenda 2030 (signed in September 2015) is HERE.
Items in the above list are addressed HERE

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG


“We strive for a democratic world order in which citizens participate beyond national boundaries.”

At least they are being upfront about it.

CLICK HERE, for the main site

Let read some more about what this organization wants to do


We, the Peoples
The UN believes that democracy belongs to its universal and indivisible core values and principles. The UN Charter begins on the promising opening words: “We the peoples.” However, one will seek in vain for a means by which ordinary people can play a role in the world organization. It is high time that the UN allows citizen-elected representatives to participate in its deliberations.

An Incremental Approach
Initially, states could choose whether their UNPA members would come from national (or regional) parliaments or whether they would be directly elected. Starting as a largely consultative body, the rights and powers of the UNPA could be expanded over time as its democratic character increases. In the long run, the assembly could develop into a real world parliament.

A Global Campaign
Democracy Without Borders coordinates the global Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly that was launched in 2007. The campaign is supported by various civil society organizations as well as by individuals from 150 countries, among them nearly 1,500 current and former members of parliament and numerous distinguished personalities from all walks of life.

The UN believes that democracy belongs to universal values & principles

CLICK HERE, for a review of “The New Nationalism”, by Steve Turley. He makes a very compelling argument for what really binds societies together.

ETHNO-NATIONALIST: The people are what matters, be it: heritage, culture, common language, traditions, way of life, and often ancestry, are the necessary elements for a cohesive society. EN is commonly thought to be a racial supremacist ideology, but that just isn’t the case.

CIVIC-NATIONALIST: The multicultural way of life. The cohesive unity that ethno-nationalists stress is not nearly as important as more abstract beliefs such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and acceptance rather than assimilation of newcomers.

Civic nationalists claim (rightly), that their society promotes tolerance and diversity. Ethno nationalists claim (rightly), that there is nothing that holds them together, and that people will just form groups which do reflect their identities. These 2 ideologies are in fact arguing different things.

It becomes clear that this group promotes the idea of “values” rather than “identity”. But what values exactly? And if a “culture” or “religion” has values which are completely incompatible, do we just accept it as “diversity?

It is time the UN allows citizen-elected representatives to take part in the deliberations? Why is that? What is wrong with keeping democratic voices within the nations themselves? Of course, if 51% of nations decide to impose rules that the other 49% vehemently oppose, that would technically be “democratic”.

This was launched in 2007, more than a decade ago? Then why has there been no public debate on the issue?

“As humanity struggles with mass violence, mass migrations and the widening effect of climate change, the international system inaugurated nearly 75 years ago to manage such global problems seems to be crumbling. The United States has turned its back on the United Nations Human Rights Council and the Paris climate accord. It openly attacked the International Criminal Court. During the UN General Assembly, Donald Trump publicly stated that “nations must defend against threats to sovereignty … from global governance.”

The UN Human Rights Council, as of the time of this publishing, includes:
1/ Afghanistan;
2/ Bahrain;
3/ Bangladesh;
4/ China;
5/ Cuba;
6/ Democratic Republic of the Congo;
7/ India;
8/ Iraq;
9/ Nigeria;
10/ Pakistan;
11/ Qatar;
12/ Rwanda;
13/ Saudi Arabia;
14/ Somalia;
15/ Tunisia

So why exactly should the US take this “Human Rights Council” seriously?

The “climate change scam” does nothing to prevent climate change. It is just a giant wealth transfer scheme. No wonder Trump left.

As for the UN Global Migration Compact, it is a globalist agreement to normalize mass migration. In fact, the UN cites 258 million migrants. Not refugees. Migrants.

“Fortunately, efforts by others to reinvigorate the multilateral system are underway. Last November, President Emmanuel Macron convened the inaugural Paris Peace Forum, to “offer the opportunity to reflect on world governance while we commemorate the end of World War I and recognize our collective responsibility.”

Poor example to cite Macron. Efforts may be underway, but there is at least as much pushback. Nationalists won’t tolerate the one-world vision Macron promotes. Nor is the European Army idea going over too well.

“Call for a global leaders summit in 2020
Among the initiatives gathered in Paris was Just Security 2020, which builds on the Albright-Gambari Commission on Global Security, Justice and Governance and calls for a global leaders summit in September 2020, the 75th anniversary of the UN’s founding.

The suggested summit offers a chance to contemplate the international system as a whole and its anchor, the UN. This gathering could adopt innovations to make the UN better prepared for current and future global challenges and more resilient amid America’s withdrawal from global leadership.”

Cute to use the 75th anniversary of UN founding. But that is the least of it.

Logistical question: given the money that the United States has been pumping in for the last 75 years, approximately 25% of all payments globally that leaves a major gap. Furthermore, you seem to assume that no other nations will leave. Very unwise.

“For the summit to achieve meaningful changes, a new coalition of smart like-minded civil society groups and states is urgently needed. The UN 2020 Initiative has built a broad effort advocating for such a leaders summit. Through consultations, policy research and engaging government delegations, the coalition represents what is needed to ensure that UN reforms meet 21st-century challenges.”

Like minded in what way? You need to specify. Will leader with nationalist views be shunned?

Despite the initiative’s growing influence, in September last year, Russia and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) succeeded in removing from a new UN General Assembly Resolution, A/RES/72/313, language seeking preparations for the 75th anniversary with an eye to “further strengthen the Organization and improve its work.” Russia and NAM countries, such as Algeria, appear already concerned about a summit agenda that could run counter to their national interests.”

Now we get to some good stuff, though it seems shrugged off. Several other nations are worried about a summit that runs counter to their national interests. The US may be the least of your worries.

“Rebuilding multilateralism
Rather than resign themselves to these near-term diplomatic setbacks, concerned civic groups and governments should be inspired by President Macron’s recent call, in his address to the General Assembly, to “rebuild multilateralism,” which he sees as a “challenge . . . for our generation.” In addition, German foreign minister Heiko Maas proclaimed that the United Nations thrives on the pledge of “Together First”, a slogan which is now the name of a civil society campaign launched at the Paris Peace Forum.

Further, the Spanish foreign minister Josep Borrell stated in an op-ed that the 75th anniversary of the United Nations in 2020 “may be a good moment to analyse at a summit some institutional changes necessary to increase its legitimacy and effectiveness, such as the reform of the Security Council to make it more representative and limit the use of the vetoes of the great powers, or the establishment of a parliamentary assembly, thus strengthening the role of civil society and the democratic dimension of the multilateral system.”

What Are the Goals for 2020?
To reverse the recent inroads made by populist and authoritarian forces worldwide, it is time for governments, scholars, activists and others to reiterate the need for multilateralism and to recognize the pursuit of justice and security as critical for achieving peace and prosperity. This approach is spelled out in our new book, Just Security in an Undergoverned World.”

This is Orwellian style double speak. Populists who listen to their people have made inroads, and this is a bad thing? What happened to being accountable to your citizens?

The pursuit of justice and security as critical? Sounds like a totalitarian state. Or rather, post-national state.

And to be clear: are populists and authoritarians 2 different things? Or do you conflate them?

“In examining threats and opportunities at the intersection of security and justice through the prism of “just security,” we developed these proposals:

I’m almost afraid to read further.

“Make key changes in UN Security Council membership and engagement. The UN’s approaching anniversary should encourage give and take, which could break the political logjam that has long hampered efforts to make the Council more effective and representative. For example, a small amendment to the UN Charter’s Article 23 could allow nonpermanent members (e.g., Germany and India) to be re-elected for consecutive terms. And the Council’s permanent-five members (Britain, China, France, Russia and the US) should again be encouraged to restrain — or at least to publicly justify — their use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities against civilians.”

Break the political logjam? Okay, this seems more like tweaking a system.

Britain, France, China, US & Russia should be encouraged to refrain (or at least justify) using their veto in cases of mass civilian atrocities? With this statement, you have basically justified “scrapping” the entire UN Security Council.

“Create a “G20+” as part of a new framework for global economic cooperation. Every two years at UN headquarters, the G20 forum should engage the other 173 member countries of the world body to ensure greater institutionalized coordination — with the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization and others — and more prioritizing on crucial issues for the world economy. This new G20+ configuration could also strive to prevent the spread of cross-border financial shocks, promote the reduction of economic inequality and foster the inclusive growth that is necessary for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.”

Integrating nations with globalist organizations? Integrating nations into one umbrella organization? How is that working out for the European Union?

“Establish a UN parliamentary network as an advisory body under UN Charter Article 22. The network would engage parliamentarians from their own legislatures to advise the General Assembly on UN governance, from reducing extreme poverty to nuclear nonproliferation. It would also complement other work to develop a transnational democratic culture, including the European Parliament’s recent recommendation to establish a UN parliamentary assembly.”

The European Union supports a proposed UN Parliament? That I believe. And yes, efforts are underway to launch such a project. Although, with the vast amount of difficulty the EU is having, why would a UN Parliament fare any better? European nations at least have similar cultures and heritages, something that obviously wouldn’t hold for a “global” parliament.

A New ‘Smart’ Coalition
At the start of his tenure, in January 2017, UN Secretary-General António Guterres launched internal reviews on peace and security, development and management sectors, and in late July he appointed Jens Wandel, a veteran UN administrator, to carry out the reforms. While the reviews recommended long-overdue changes to the UN system, they are only the first wave of transformations to come.

A new kind of smart coalition that taps the ideas, networks and abilities of diverse players must step up, alongside Guterres, to ensure that the UN’s 75th anniversary commemoration in two years becomes a turning point and not an anticlimax. Constructive criticisms of the UN from the right and the left should be heeded to weigh and adopt bold structural reform ideas. All this can help enable a modernized system of governance to better grapple with the crises now facing humankind.

This piece was originally published at Passblue under a CC BY-ND 4.0 license. This version includes a few updates made by the authors.”

So, is this the group behind the United Nations Parliament? They certainly support it.
Groups like this need to be exposed, if nations are to be kept intact.

Nationalists: Put “their” nation’s well being first
Globalists: Sacrifice their nation for some “greater good”

Seems simple enough, but this group will never entertain, let alone accept the nation-state.

CBC Propaganda #9: Conspiring With A Free Speech Advocate

(Not entirely sure why this is controversial)

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.

Spoiler alert: This article starts off by talking about University of Toronto Professor Jordan Peterson, and then meanders to entirely different topics. Seems that CBC couldn’t be bothered to ensure that there actually was a point to it. Even high school editors would perform better. Anyway….

“Ontario Premier Doug Ford held a one-on-one meeting with Jordan Peterson a week after the controversial university professor publicly urged Ford to abolish the province’s human rights commission, CBC News has learned. “

This actually is true. Peterson is a vocal advocate against Bill C-16, which not only added “gender identity or expression” to the Canadian Criminal Code and Human Rights Codes, but also resulted in “compelled speech”. However, not sure why this is controversial.

“The meeting was revealed in Ford’s appointment calendar for October and November, obtained through a freedom of information request. CBC News made the request because Ford is not providing the media with his daily public itinerary, breaking from the practice of previous premiers.”

Premier Ford doesn’t think too highly of the media, a trait shared by US President Donald Trump. Given this attitude, by Unifor, the union that represents media workers, who can blame Ford?

“CBC News cannot find any record of Ford or Peterson publicly mentioning that their Oct. 18 meeting took place.
.
Ford tweeted about several of his other private meetings around that date: with Dianne Martin, CEO of the Registered Practical Nurses Association, with Susan Le Jeune the British high commissioner to Canada, and with Tim Hudak, the former PC leader who is now CEO of the Ontario Real Estate Association.
.
Ford met with Peterson “to discuss free speech on Ontario’s university and college campuses,” the premier’s press secretary said Friday in an email to CBC News.
.
The meeting followed this Oct. 10 tweet by Peterson, calling for the Human Rights Commission to be abolished.”

Yes, Peterson has called for the Human Rights Commissions to be abolished. However, there is a valid reason for this: namely that these Tribunals do not uphold any human rights. They are a means to grandstand and impose absurd rulings and consequences. See this, an earlier article on the Human Rights Tribunals.

Still am not clear why it would be so controversial to at least have a meeting with a well known advocate for open inquiry and free speech.

“Peterson has garnered international attention for his critique of what he calls “politically correct” limits to free speech. The Ford government ordered Ontario’s universities and colleges last summer to put in place policies by the end of 2018 guaranteeing free speech, or they would face funding cuts.”

True, but so what? Universities are supposed to hold open inquiry dear. Sadly, a move like this was long overdue.

“”I know something about the way that totalitarian and authoritarian political states develop and I can’t help but think that I’m seeing a fair bit of that right now,” Peterson said in a lecture posted to his YouTube channel, which has 1.8 million subscribers.
.
Ford’s calendar for October and November shows no one-on-one meetings with any other Ontario university professors. Peterson and his publicity firm did not respond to a request for an interview or to emailed questions about the meeting.”

Seeing the language policing that goes on in schools, these comments are fitting.

The remaining 60% of the article has nothing to do with Peterson, nor is it tied back in any way. Seems that CBC never bothered to do any proofreading prior to publication.

CBC Propaganda #8: Border Walls Are Useless. People Will Go Around

(Walls are pointless. Don’t even bother)

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 lot to go through on this on.
CLICK HERE, for the article.
CLICK HERE, for the full transcript.

Quotes From The Transcript

AMT: Last week President Trump tweeted some statistics that he claims bolster his case. He wrote – and I’m quoting here – “There are now 77 major or significant was built around the world with 45 countries planning or building walls”. And then he continued: “The 800 miles of wars that have gone up in Europe since 2015 have been almost 100 percent successful.” Well as is usually the case for Donald Trump’s tweets some people took issue with those facts. What is true is that the United States is not the only country building walls and fences to protect its border.

Okay, are Trump’s facts wrong? Are border walls not going up across the globe?

SOUNDCLIP
[Music]
NEWSCASTER1: The race is on to get Hungary’s border fence ready by the end of month. It’s being built by prison inmates.
NEWSCASTER1: You’re still on Norwegian soil. Just over there. And you are in Russia. And while this fence is just a few hundred meters long, campaigners for refugees say it’s become something of a symbol of Norway’s changing attitudes.
NEWSCASTER2: The IDF is constantly improving its defensive capabilities. One of those being a wall being built between Lebanon and the 20 some Israeli communities adjacent to the border.
NEWSCASTER3: The King and county town of [unintelligible] clan elders say the border barrier has helped. This is what is meant to keep out Al Shabab fighters based in Somalia, part of a larger government project to protect the porous border

None of the examples cited here seem at all unreasonable. All are meant to reduce the flow of illegal immigration. “Illegal” immigration is something which globalists openly call for, since they don’t believe in sovereign nations.

“AMT: Well my next guest is someone who has studied many of the wars going up around the world right now. And Elisabeth Vallet fundamentally disagrees with Donald Trump. She says more walls are being built not because they work but in spite of the fact that they do not. Elisabeth Vallet is an adjunct professor and scientific director in geopolitics at the Raoul-Dandurand Chair at the University of Quebec at Montreal are and she joins us from Montreal. Hello.
.
AMT: What was your reaction when you saw Donald Trump tweeting those statistics about walls?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: I had seen statistics quoted by extreme right groups before and marginal blogs. I thought I would leave them alone since they didn’t need more exposure. But when the president did so, and argued that they were working, the fact that he was distorting my research really bothered me. And I thought that I had – not as an activist which I am not, but as a researcher – I had to set the record straight.”

Wanting to defend you borders and nation from massive amounts of illegal immigration is “far-right”? An issue that seems to be conflated here: Do you see border walls as 1/ immoral, or 2/ impractical? These are two very different arguments. And not an activist? Good to hear, but we will see.

“AMT: So can you break it down for me? How much of what Mr. Trump had to say was correct?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: So first of all he used the uproar that of our research. There are 77 walls that have been announced, are built so far credibly announced. And 70 of them have been built so far. And [unintelligible] countries have indeed built 70 border walls in the world. So that part was straight. The part about the 100 percent efficiency is that adequate, even in Europe. Because all those walls, some of them, are designed to prevent migration in Hungary are in Norway, but some of them are also designed to keep Russia at bay. This is in the Baltic states are Ukraine. So you’ve got different walls, different functions and in all cases what a wall does? Is a wall will redefine the geo-politics of the area and the geo-politics of the flows? So far while it may look like it is working, but actually it will just reroute and redefine the flows. Sometimes those flows that were taking place in the open will just be more underground, so more dangerous for the people that are trying to cross the border. But in the end they are not working. And this is why usually when you have a wall then you will have military deployed around the wall and technology and robots, drones and sensors. Because a wall per se doesn’t achieve anything apart from scarifying at the borderlands and ruining the local economies.”

We have different walls, different functions, and in all cases, what a wall does? Granted geo-politics differs form region to region. However, the function is the same: to prevent people from illegally crossing.

People will just go underground and it’s more dangerous? So what? You act as if illegal crossings and immigration are human rights.

Walls don’t achieve anything other scarifying at the borderlands and ruining local economies? Considering the amount of benefits that get paid out CLICK HERE, for one example, it could be argued that illegal immigration “strains” local economies.

And what about the rights of citizens to have an independent state and to not be forced to put up with illegal immigration? Do those voices not matter? Or are they all “far-right”?

“AMT: So can you give us an overview of some of the more significant walls that exist and are being built around the world?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: Well we could speak about countries that are literally fencing themselves and India is one of them. India has a huge fence with Pakistan, but of course with Bangladesh. They are actually fencing Bangladesh out of the peninsula. Of course you have the U.S. Mexican border which is fenced, walled on a third of the border. The one between Israel and the West Bank is also an interesting one. Israel was among those countries that is trying to fence itself, fortify itself literally. And then you will find other walls. You spoke about the one between Kenya Somalia. There is one between Botswana and Zimbabwe. Those in the Fergana Valley in Central Asia between China and North Korea. So you have those border walls across the world. A lot of them, the majority of them, has been built after 9/11 and a lot of them has been built after the Arab Spring.
.
AMT: So what do you see is driving the construction of those what?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: There are three reasons why you Bill borrow walls. Few of them now are being built for peace keeping, border enforcing reasons. It’s a way to end a conflict that has no end; between the two Koreas, between the Turkish and Greek part of Cyprus, in a way between India and Pakistan, Ukraine and Russia. Even between Israel and the West Bank it is a way to define a border that if we had a two state solution picking up that would be the final border. And then you have two reasons that dominates the discourse. One of them is smuggling and terrorism and the other one is migration. But those reasons sometimes alternate or overlap. So it’s pretty hard to distinguish them. So two third of them are built for that purpose. “

Walls are being built for peace keeping and border enforcement? Are those people far-right racists as well?

Smuggling and terrorism are 2 valid concerns? Agreed.

Sometimes for migration? Illegal immigration “is” a serious problem in the west. And if you make it a human right, then anyone can migrate. In fact, you acknowledge here that there is overlap between immigration, smuggling and terrorism.

You seem unaware that you are actually debunking your own arguments against walls.

“AMT: We all remember the Berlin Wall coming down. In fact it was 30 years ago this year. I’ve got a clip here that I’d like you to hear. These are two Germans talking about what it felt like to stand on top of the Berlin Wall after the crowds started streaming across the border.
.
AMT: Elisabeth Vallet, how did the fall of that iconic wall affect our ideas around the usefulness or function of walls?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: Well actually if you remember in 1989 it opened a almost a hippie era of international relations, where we believed that it was the end of borders me. Maybe even the end of state sovereignty or even the fading sovereignty of the state. We believed that peace would be dominating and that conflicts would be solved by the international community. It actually showed the good the positive aspects of globalization. And we overlooked the negative aspects of globalization. And when 9/11 arrived, it’s as if that negative aspect of globalization showed its face. And that’s when the only solution to that, governments came up with the one only solution which was building border fences, because there is no way to retain globalization, to contain globalization.”

This quote is so disingenuous that it needs to be called out all on its own. The Berlin Wall was put up in the 1960s by the Soviet Union to keep people in Berlin from leaving. To keep them prisoners. It was not about preventing illegal immigration “into” East Germany.

You thought that breaking down a wall imprisoning people would lead to the end of state sovereignty? You are delusional. Again, you conflate 2 completely different purposes.

Building border fences is the only way to contain globalism? You make that sound as if it’s a bad thing. It would only be bad if you believe nations shouldn’t have sovereignty.

“AMT: Donald Trump has talked about how he wants the border to be impenetrable. What do you think would happen if we had more rigid borders like that?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: Basically nothing because there is always a way to go around. You will see those pictures of ramps where you can drive cars to go over the U.S. Mexican wall which is huge. You will see drones going above. You will see even there is that one catapult that was actually fixed on the border wall to send drugs on the other side. They found a tunnel last week and through the city of Nogales. So there are always ways to go around. And one thing is, the wall doesn’t change a thing in the U.S. case since most of the trucks are coming into the U.S. through their regular ports of entry. So the world doesn’t help anything, doesn’t change anything. A border cannot be impenetrable. I would even say that a border is not meant to be that way.”

First, assuming everything she says is true, should a nation not “try” to defend its borders and independence just because people will try to sneak in? Border defence is difficult, so to heck with it, I suppose.

Second, she is not making a “moral” argument against border walls, but rather a “impracticality” argument. As outlined in earlier comments, she cites: 1/ open conflict; 2/ smuggling; 3/ terrorism, not to mention 4/ mass migration. All of the above are certainly valid reasons to invest heavily in border security.

There is another interview with a historian, David Frye, but compared to the first interview, there is little to criticise.

Overall though, it is interesting how often CBC has open-borders and illegal immigration supporters doing interviews. The globalist slant is very obvious here. Perhaps some balance, or at least provide tougher questions next time.

Predatory Publications by TRU Professor Pyne (Part 2: Meeting The Man)

(Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC)

See the previous article on the infamous paper by Thompson Rivers University Economic Professor, Derek Pyne.

For a simplified version of the story, Professor Pyne published a paper in April 2017 titled “Predatory publications”. It was a look into the academic publishing, and how fake journals were popping up. Given university professors’ duty to “publish or perish”, these seemed to be a way out.

This is a topic that has been reluctantly addressed by universities before. However, this paper took more of an economic view of the subject — rewards and benefits from publishing in such journals.

The paper has not been well received by Thompson Rivers University, especially since it seemed to implicate members of the faculty. Relations between Professor Pyne and the school have gone downhill.

In September 2018, almost a year and a half later, Professor Pyne was suspended from TRU. He is now back at work. He claims that the paper was one reason, but not the only, for the suspension.

Currently, a complaint has been filed under Section 13 of the Labour Relations Code, claiming the Union violated Section 12. Here is the actual text from the Labour Relations Code (of BC)

Duty of fair representation
12 (1)
A trade union or council of trade unions must not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith
(a) in representing any of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit, or
(b) in the referral of persons to employment whether or not the employees or persons are members of the trade union or a constituent union of the council of trade unions.
.
(2) It is not a violation of subsection (1) for a trade union to enter into an agreement under which
(a) an employer is permitted to hire by name certain trade union members,
(b) a hiring preference is provided to trade union members resident in a particular geographic area, or
(c) an employer is permitted to hire by name persons to be engaged to perform supervisory duties.
.
(3) An employers’ organization must not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in representing any of the employers in the group appropriate for collective bargaining.
.
Procedure for fair representation complaint
13 (1) If a written complaint is made to the board that a trade union, council of trade unions or employers’ organization has contravened section 12, the following procedure must be followed:
(a) a panel of the board must determine whether or not it considers that the complaint discloses a case that the contravention has apparently occurred;
(b) if the panel considers that the complaint discloses sufficient evidence that the contravention has apparently occurred, it must
(i) serve a notice of the complaint on the trade union, council of trade unions or employers’ organization against which the complaint is made and invite a reply to the complaint from the trade union, council of trade unions or employers’ organization, and
(ii) dismiss the complaint or refer it to the board for a hearing.
(2) If the board is satisfied that the trade union, council of trade unions or employers’ organization contravened section 12, the board may make an order or direction referred to in section 14 (4) (a), (b) or (d).

Canuck Law meeting Professor Pyne

The actual interview occurred on Thursday, January 24 at the University in Kamloops, BC. Note: Questions were prepared, but the replies shown are summaries of what was said.

1/ What did you think would happen publishing this?
-It was a new angle on the publishing industry
-This hadn’t been done before
-Expected a higher amount of support for academic freedom and inquiry

2/ Any support from colleagues?
-Some privately do offer support
-No one wants to be public about it
-This is considered an attack on academic freedom

3/ What actually triggered the suspension?
-Collective agreement allows for feedback for candidates
-I exercised that right. University called it defamatory and accusatory

4/ Why the 16 month delay in the suspension? (April 2017-Sept 2018)
-It took time for the backlash to happen
-Reporting by the New York Times really hurt
-American media interviews were given
-Comments made in online forums
-Research comments

5/ Why isn’t the TRU faculty union helping?
-164 page complaint was filed
-Academic unions don’t work the same way private sector unions do
-Lack of understanding by the union in matters like this

6/ What do you see Labour Relations doing?
-Little. They have a very low success rate
-Since 2016 (records shown), 0 or 1 cases successful each year
-Most “successes” come from informal negotiation between parties

7/ What would you like Labour Relations to do?
-Order the union to file a grievance

8/ How can universities screen for “predatory journals”? What are the warning signs?
-Mailbox addresses (suites) given in address
-Journal no one has heard of before
-Very quick turnaround times
-Questionable, if any, peer review
-Questionable “Impact Factors Analysis”
-Real journal will provide abstract, fake will make you buy entire article, paywall
-There are 10,800 right now identified, another 955 suspected (all fields)

9/ Has this led to policy changes at TRU?
-Might have tipped people off as to what is happening?

10/ Was it difficult to get data for research?
-Time consuming
-Manually searching profiles
-Research Ethics not needed (since no face-to-face interviews)
-Google Scholar quick source (academic publications)
-Checking academic profiles also an option

11/ Does this hurt academia?
-It can lower the trust people have in experts and authority figures

12/ Broadly speaking, how does peer review work?
-You need an idea of which journals to submit to
-You submit your research
-You may have to redo large sections of your paper
-Editor of publication often orders revise & resubmit
-Editor will find referees with similar publications to review yours
-Referees are usually volunteers, it’s more of an honour
-It can easily take a year or two to get published

Predatory Publications by TRU Professor Pyne (Part 1: The Paper)

(Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC)

CLICK HERE, for the Integrity in Research and Scholarship Policy

CLICK HERE, for the whistle-blower protection policy

CLICK HERE, for research ethics

An economics professor, Derek Pyne, at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC, was suspended over “defamatory language and accusations”, over a paper he published regarding “predatory publishing”.

Pyne is now back at work at TRU, though the controversy is far from over.

For some reason, suggesting that university faculty are engaged in pay-to-publish scheme tends to burn bridges and create tension.

Here is a brief review of the research paper.

Note: This review is not a factual determination one way or another of the validity of the findings, but just an overall critique of the paper.

Quotes From The Paper

“derek pyne
.
This study is the first to compare the rewards of publishing in predatory journals with the rewards of publishing in traditional journals. It finds that the majority of faculty with research responsibilities at a small Canadian business school have publications in predatory journals. In terms of financial compensation, these publications produce greater rewards than many non-predatory journal publications. Publications in predatory journals are also positively correlated with receiving internal research awards. By improving the understanding of the incentives to publish in predatory journals, this research aims to contribute to a better-informed debate on policies dealing with predatory journals.”

Okay, this is just the opening summary, but the point is clear: so-called “predatory journals” seem to be more lucrative in terms of receiving publications, and in professional gains.

“When academics publish in these journals, their university affiliations contribute to the credibility of the journals. Because decision makers and the public may lack the expertise to distinguish between nonsense and legitimate research, they may be led to suspect expert opinion in general. In addition, when academics are rewarded for publishing in predatory journals, the research incentives of their universities are distorted.”

This is actually a bad combination: researchers get rewards distorted by publishing in predatory journals, and the decisions are being made by people who lack the expertise.

The university does not have merit pay for research success, but publications affect compensation in several ways:
.
1. through initial academic rank and placement of individuals on the salary grid;
2. through the speed at which individuals are promoted and thus pass the salary ceiling for their existing rank; and
3. by the opportunity cost of time spent on research in lieu of earning opportunities.
.
The first two considerations imply a positive relationship between publication success and compensation, while the third implies a negative relationship.

Interesting observations. #1 and #2 refer to “indirect” rewards which are gained from publishing, while #3 references time researching and not “working”.

“literature review Several articles have examined the relationship between journal publications and faculty compensation. For example, Sen, Ariizumi, and DeSousa studied the relationship between the research productivity of economics faculty in Ontario universities and their salaries. Contrary to the present study, they found that publications in top journals were positively correlated with salary increments but that publications in lower-ranked journals were not related to salaries.

A fairly obvious conclusion, and one that is backed up with more research. Publishing in top journals gets more money, while publishing in subpar journals has little effect.

“[Beale’s] six pages of criteria for evaluating journals largely relate to dishonest practices. Examples include not conducting ‘a bona fide peer review,’ copying or mimicking journal titles from other publishers, identifying the publisher’s owner as the editor of each and every journal published by the organization, not identifying a specific person as the editor, two or more of the publisher’s journals having duplicate editorial boards, and the publisher falsely claiming to have an ISI impact factor or purchasing ‘fake impact factors’ services. Publishers who believe they have been wrongly included can apply to a four-person appeal panel for removal.”

Interesting signs to look for:
-No proper peer review
-copying or imitating titles
-identifying owner of publication as each journal’s editor
-not having a specific editor
-2+ journals with duplicate editorial boards
-false claims of impact factor services.

Bohannon conducted a ‘sting operation’ by submitting a scientifically flawed paper to 304 open access journals, some on Beall’s list. Eighty two per cent of the journals on Beall’s list accepted the paper; thus he concluded that ‘Beall is good at spotting publishers with poor quality control.
.
Ray argues that predatory journals may be able to screen for hoax articles. Thus, her approach was to submit essays written by eighth- and tenth-grade secondary school students to ten open access journals. Of the nine who responded with an editorial decision, six accepted the paper without revisions, and only one rejected the paper. The paper was rejected for being too short, but the journal suggested to the author that it be expanded and resubmitted. “

Nice ways to screen for validity of academic journalism: do a little investigative journalism and see if they will literally publish anything. Several pages of data and charts are then presented in the paper.

“discussion and conclusions Predatory journals have become an increasing problem when it comes to assessing and rewarding researchers for the merit of their publishing records. In addition, the presence of predatory journals makes it difficult for non-experts to judge the quality and validity of published research. This paper finds that, at least at one university, there are few incentives not to publish in predatory journals. In addition, when the opportunity cost of forgone income from extra teaching is significant, publishing in ranked journals is costly.

A number of questions for future research on predatory publication are raised. A key question is the degree to which these findings are generalizable to business schools, and other faculties, at other universities. The similar proportions of questionable publications reported by Ray suggest that the results may be generalizable to other business schools, but additional research is needed. This type of research involves time consuming data collection, and answering these questions would require significant research support. However, the benefits of better understanding the market for predatory publications would be substantial. For example, such data could be used to study whether faculty research output is improved when administrators also have a research background.”

To summarise here: the author actually makes a pretty compelling case (backed up by data), that publishing in so called “predatory journals” is economically a better choice. This would apply both in terms of time (far fewer rejections), and financially (such as costs involved in ranked journals).

This topic will be continued later.

Duke Pesta & Common Core Education

(Duke Pesta in his critique of “Common Core” Education in America)

Not much I can add to this, but Heartland Institution was contacted for information. This is a fascinating, yet morbid review of the new Federal standards of education.

Amendment 10
.
– Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People
.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

From Lennie Jarrett of Heartland Institute

I answered each question below it. Let me know if you need anything else.

This was in regards to some of the videos I had seen of Duke Pesta addressing education in the US. It was fascinating to watch in a morbid way.

1/ Regarding the introduction of Common Core and uniform standards across the states: do you view it as well intended/well meaning, or some malevolent purpose?

I view it as both. Many people had really good intentions but were very naïve in how Common Core (CCSS) would be implemented and managed by a self-serving bureaucracy. I know others wanted national standards so they could control education easily from a centralized bureaucracy. CCSS gave them the closest thing possible to that.

2/ This may be outside your scope, but if the public has never been consulted in any meaningful way, would there be any grounds to invalidate CC requirements?

Unfortunately, no, they could not be invalidated. This is a lesson for many parents, that there is no true local control of education. It’s been controlled by the states and federal interventions for decades.

3/ Could you explain the rationale for making mathematics more complex than needed? (Arithmetic shouldn’t look like introduction algebra)

The rationale is some believe they are making it easier by trying to teach different methods while claiming it is a higher method of learning. As a student of mathematics myself, the methods they are teaching are absurd. Math must be taught systematically starting at its foundation. Without a foundation, the higher learning becomes difficult at best leaving many students unprepared for future careers in the STEM fields.

4/ Why are people with no teaching experience being allowed to write CC or other cirriculum?

Much of the curriculum is created by those wanting to make money off their products. They use CCSS as a tool to try and build their market share regardless of the product’s effectiveness at teaching.

Secondly, there are examples of curriculum written by non-teachers that are excellent. It’s really a matter of subject matter mastery, not necessarily a matter of teaching experience.

5/ Could you offer any solutions to getting children out of this nonsense?

Universal education choice is the only solution. Parents must be fully enabled to find the education that best fits the needs of their child. The selection of schools by parents will drive the curriculum to be the best for the student instead of the bureaucracy driving the curriculum to what is best for them.

6/ Why would people like Bill Gates be supporting this? It seems designed to collapse a nation.

Gates needs STEM ready employees. He was not getting that from the public schools. He thought he could fix the system. He was wrong. He claims to learn from his mistakes, and while he does make changes into his direction, he has yet to realize it’s the system itself that is preventing any significant reform and success.

7/ Anything else you think concerned parents should know?

Stop thinking your school is great, while everyone else’s school is bad. The entire system is the problem. CCSS is just the latest fad with more coming each time one fails. Demand your right to have the money designated for your child to follow your child to the education opportunity of your choice. Simply put, fund children, not bureaucracy.

Mandatory Minimum Sentences: Good, Bad, Or It Depends?

Suggested Offences With Mandatory Minimums
CC 46-48 (Treason)
CC 83.01-83.3 (Terrorism)
CC 151-154 (child Sex Offences)
CC 229-239 (Murder, 1st degree)

The case AGAINST Mandatory Minimums
-Judges are better able to look at a case and decide what is fair
-Judges are better able to decide what would be best for the public
-Judges are not subject to the whims of the population, given their jobs are secure
-In the event of very poor rulings, they can be appealed
-Mandatory minimums are very costly to the public
-Mandatory minimums result in “social costs” to the public
-There is no general deterrence
-Politicians in general cannot be trusted to pass good laws
-Politicians take so much power anyway, a separate judiciary is necessary
-Government should stay out of people’s lives as much as possible
-Given fraud and corruption within gov’t it is hypocritical for them to be passing such laws
-Judges are best able to “make that exception” when needed
-Mandatory minimums make it hard, if not impossible to make punishment fit the crime. It always must.

Articles Cited:
Research At A Glance
Mandator Minimum Penalties
Mandatory Minimums Unfair and Expensive
PBS Special on Mandatory Minimums

The Case IN FAVOUR OF Mandatory Minimums
-Politicians can (theoretically) be thrown out, judges cannot
-Although far from perfect, public input can help draft laws
-While judges are well intended, different perspectives can lead to widely differing sentences on cases of similar facts
-Consistency is necessary in applying sentencing principles
-If bad rulings occur and are not struck down, they can create ”precedent” for future bad rulings. Having set standards eliminates that possibility
-If not mandatory minimums, then guidelines (as is also the case in US/UK)
-Some offences are so bad they “require” prison time (as mentioned, it covered offences like murder, terrorism, child sex offences)
-Of course, this is not to imply that all, or even most offences should carry mandatory minimums
-The crimes being proposed for mandatory minimums are committed so rarely, that there would be ”no dragnet” of people.
-For certain offences, the well being of society needs to trump individual rights
-The Principles of Sentencing (see below) to see a need to balance both individual rights and society’s (the group’s rights)
-Items (a), (b), (c) put societal interest first, while (d), (e), (f) put individual interest first

What Does The Law Say?

Note: the information here is not necessary to prove that mandatory minimums are necessary, but rather to explain when the rationale behind sentencing.

Also the Bill C-42 was introduced to remove so-called ”conditional sentencing” for certain offences. The rationale being, if house arrest is inadequate, the probation would be even more so. In effect, it would ”create” mandatory jail sentences (though the length not specified).

Purpose and Principles of Sentencing
Marginal note:
Purpose
718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

Objectives — offences against children
718.01 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen years, it shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct.

Objectives — offence against peace officer or other justice system participant
718.02 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence under subsection 270(1), section 270.01 or 270.02 or paragraph 423.1(1)(b), the court shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of the conduct that forms the basis of the offence.

Objectives — offence against certain animals
718.03 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence under subsection 445.01(1), the court shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of the conduct that forms the basis of the offence.

Fundamental principle
718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Restrictions on Conditional Sentencting, Bill C-42

R v. Proulx (2003) for conditional sentencing

“The requirement in s. 742.1 (b) that the judge be satisfied that the safety of the community would not be endangered by the offender serving his or her sentence in the community is a condition precedent to the imposition of a conditional sentence, and not the primary consideration in determining whether a conditional sentence is appropriate. In making this determination, the judge should consider the risk posed by the specific offender, not the broader risk of whether the imposition of a conditional sentence would endanger the safety of the community by providing insufficient general deterrence or undermining general respect for the law. Two factors should be taken into account: (1) the risk of the offender re-offending; and (2) the gravity of the damage that could ensue in the event of re-offence. A consideration of the risk posed by the offender should include the risk of any criminal activity, and not be limited solely to the risk of physical or psychological harm to individuals.

Once the prerequisites of s. 742.1 are satisfied, the judge should give serious consideration to the possibility of a conditional sentence in all cases by examining whether a conditional sentence is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2. This follows from Parliament’s clear message to the judiciary to reduce the use of incarceration as a sanction.

A conditional sentence can provide significant denunciation and deterrence. As a general matter, the more serious the offence, the longer and more onerous the conditional sentence should be. There may be some circumstances, however, where the need for denunciation or deterrence is so pressing that incarceration will be the only suitable way in which to express society’s condemnation of the offender’s conduct or to deter similar conduct in the future.

Generally, a conditional sentence will be better than incarceration at achieving the restorative objectives of rehabilitation, reparations to the victim and the community, and promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender and acknowledgment of the harm done to the victim and the community.

Where a combination of both punitive and restorative objectives may be achieved, a conditional sentence will likely be more appropriate than incarceration. Where objectives such as denunciation and deterrence are particularly pressing, incarceration will generally be the preferable sanction. This may be so notwithstanding the fact that restorative goals might be achieved. However, a conditional sentence may provide sufficient denunciation and deterrence, even in cases in which restorative objectives are of lesser importance, depending on the nature of the conditions imposed, the duration of the sentence, and the circumstances of both the offender and the community in which the conditional sentence is to be served. A conditional sentence may be imposed even where there are aggravating circumstances, although the need for denunciation and deterrence will increase in these circumstances.

No party is under a burden of proof to establish that a conditional sentence is either appropriate or inappropriate in the circumstances. The judge should consider all relevant evidence, no matter by whom it is adduced. However, it would be in the offender’s best interests to establish elements militating in favour of a conditional sentence.

Sentencing judges have a wide discretion in the choice of the appropriate sentence. They are entitled to considerable deference from appellate courts. Absent an error in principle, failure to consider a relevant factor, or an overemphasis of the appropriate factors, a court of appeal should only intervene to vary a sentence imposed at trial if the sentence is demonstrably unfit.”

R v Proulx makes a pretty compelling case in favour of “conditional sentencing” a.k.a. “house arrest”. This case is recognized and relied on when handing down sentences. Many defense lawyers argue that conditional sentencing would better serve everyone (in most cases) than physical prison.

The restrictions that came from Bill C-42, however, means that certain offences are no longer eligible for conditional sentencing. This means that Judges will have to choose jail sentences, since probation would be considered unfit.

Overall, a very interesting topic to cover.