Video by ShortFatOtaku. This is based on the research from Nick Monroe, about payment processors refusing to do business with people based on their political ideologies.
Matt Christiansen meets with Jacqueline Hart of Patreon. From this conversation, it becomes clear that a commitment to free speech isn’t on the agenda here.
First Video is a stunningly thorough video from ShortFatOtaku, who does a piece concluding that Mastercard (and other credit card companies possibly) are behind the deplatforming of various online content creators. Yes, the research and leg work had been done by Nick Munroe, but it’s still quite the compilation.
Second Video is a response from YouTuber Matt Christiansen and a call he got from a Patreon representative, regarding Patreon cancelling certain accounts
Other Videos shows a partnership between Mastercard and various organizations which are promoting mass migration to the Western World.
ShortFatOtaku (SFO) argues that MasterCard is behind the censorship of certain voices who are considered “unfriendly” to their agenda, which is “financial inclusion”. MasterCard wants to grow its business, and sees mass migration as a way to achieve that aim. Voices hostile to that goal are to be silenced.
SFO is definitely correct that Mastercard is pushing for expansion (a lot into Africa), trying to get more people “financially included”. And the reasons are hardly altruistic.
Let’s take a look at the MasterCard FAQ:
Frequently Asked Questions Why is the Mastercard Lab for Financial Inclusion important?
With two billion adults living without access to mainstream financial tools and services, there is an urgent need to speed up the creation of commercially viable products and services on a global scale.
Why is Mastercard Lab for Financial Inclusion located in Africa?
We believe that this region represents some of the most successful countries in terms of implementation and reach of digital financial services. While the lab is based in Kenya, it does have both regional and global reach.
What is the Lab’s proven innovation methodology?
We have implemented a focused, practiced and proven process that includes broad ideation as well as technical and business evaluation leading to prototyping and pilot execution and finally execution. At every step, we combine Mastercard best practices gained from operating in the payments arena for more than 50 years with leading-edge technologies.
What does it mean to be financially excluded?
When you are excluded, you don’t have access to the basic financial tools we take for granted like saving or borrowing money or getting insurance. It means being stuck in a cash-based economy that makes you vulnerable to increased crime, inconvenience and higher costs.
What’s Mastercard’s strategy for meeting the challenge of financial inclusion?
Our approach to financial inclusion is not through corporate social responsibility or philanthropy. We address it by leveraging our existing digital payments technology and applying that through public and private partnerships.
What does a future where more people are financially included look like?
The future is a global economy that is closer to being truly global because we’re more connected digitally and less dependent on cash. Increasing financial inclusion:
-expands the middle class
-generates equal opportunities
-increases social engagement and economic mobility
-narrows income inequality
-empowers people
When MasterCard talks of “financial inclusion”, they mean getting more people into banking, and into the credit system. Why do they want this? Because it grows their customer base.
Center for financial inclusion is located in Africa? Presumably this is because Mastercard sees the most potential for growth there.
Being “financially excluded” is touted as a danger and gross inconvenience, such as being more susceptible to being robbed, or having to pay higher fees. But there is one obvious omission: using cash means transactions are virtually impossible to trace
Regarding the list at the end: 1/ Expand the middle class, 2/ equal opportunities, 3/ economic mobility, etc… Mastercard sets it up such that “their” services are necessary to achieve this livelihood.
What About Payment Processors Like Patreon?
People Who Can’t Use Patreon
.
Because Patreon empowers people financially, we impose restrictions not only on the types of content and projects that can be funded through Patreon, but also on which people can and cannot receive funds through Patreon.
People Who Can’t Use Patreon
.
After creating a Patreon page, any creator caught in the act or convicted of making credible violent threats, committing violent crimes, child abuse, malicious doxing, coordinating nonviolent harm (such as fraud, money laundering and gambling), or encouraging others to do any of these activities, may be banned from using Patreon.
Dangerous Organizations
.
People with a dangerous criminal history or a known affiliation with violent or dangerous groups (including terrorist or cyber terrorist organizations, organized criminal groups, and violent hate groups), cannot receive funds through Patreon, no matter the purpose or apparent intention of their Patreon page.
.
You can discuss these groups on Patreon but any creator praising or actively supporting these groups or their leaders won’t be allowed on Patreon.
This sounds okay, but keep in mind, that these are the days when fairly innocuous comments are viewed as hate speech. Also, if people have vocal opinions on issues which are “counter” to what MasterCard, Visa, Patreon, PayPal, or some other financial processor, would they be shut down?
More and more, the answer seems to be yes.
Further, in the phone call between Matt Christiansen and Jacqueline Hart of Patreon, Hart states that Patreon cannot do anything they want. “We are not Visa or MasterCard.” This raises an interesting question: If Visa or MasterCard didn’t want someone spreading their views online, could they pressure Patreon to ban them?
Who Sponsors “Financial Inclusion” at the UN?
Again, see here.
31 January 2018
Last week in Davos, an influential group of CEOs from a diverse set of leading multinational companies formed a partnership to accelerate financial inclusion around the world. They were convened by the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Advocate for Inclusive Finance for Development, Queen Máxima of the Netherlands.
Members of the CEO Partnership for Financial Inclusion represent a wide range of businesses, including banks (Rabobank, Santander), fintechs (Ant Financial, PayPal), payments technology (Mastercard), insurance (AXA), mobile network operators (Bharti Airtel, Telenor), and consumer goods companies (PepsiCo, Unilever).
Gathering for the first time during the World Economic Forum, the CEOs agreed to use their complementary assets, expertise, and collective commitment to meaningfully expand financial services for the 2 billion people who currently have no access to basic tools such as savings, insurance, payments, or credit.
“Advancing financial inclusion can lead to good business opportunities, and private sector-driven solutions could really accelerate our progress,” said the Special Advocate. “Expanding partnerships among this varied group of private actors will be key to increasing access and usage of financial services for underserved people.”
Let’s see, who is on that list
Members of the CEO Partnership for Financial Inclusion
Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, UN Secretary-General’s Special Advocate for Inclusive Finance for Development
Mastercard
Santander
Telenor
AXA
Rabobank
Eric Jing, Ant Financial
Sunil Mittal, Bharti Airtel
PepsiCo
Unilever
PayPal
ShortFatOtaku correctly points out that Jacqueline Hart had legitimate concerns about having the phone call with Matt Christiansen recorded. She wants to keep Patreon successful, while still being able to ban people at will.
Christiansen repeatedly calls Hart out for her nonsense. He notes 3 critical points
1/ Patreon is not a free speech platform.
2/ Patreon is not a free market platform.
3/ Patreon enforces its rules subjectively.
In the card Hart lets it slip that Patreon has rules to follow. The implication is obvious “we are not Visa or Mastercard”. Patreon is forced to tow the line of “actual” payment processors. SFO concludes that the credit card companies, specifically Mastercard, is behind the selective deplatforming.
SFO goes to very extensive detail pointing out the connections between Mastercard and other processors. He also details the staffing and relational overlap between the companies. Mass migration is not used as a humanitarian effort, but as a business venture. Obviously, people can’t be publicly criticizing and exposing it.
It is a first class expose.
Is Mastercard the final boss?
In all fairness to SFO, he is partially right here. Mastercard is very much involved. Mastercard definitely is pushing for the “financial inclusion” agenda, and they are certainly pushing for the mass migration to the Western World.
However, Mastercard is but one “boss” here. There are a great many “level bosses” to deal with here.
The United Nations interferes in national governance all over the world. Here are just a few exerps.
2005 World Summit Outcome I. Values and principles
1. We, Heads of State and Government, have gathered at United Nations Headquarters in New York from 14 to 16 September 2005.
2. We reaffirm our faith in the United Nations and our commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter and international law, which are indispensable foundations of a more peaceful, prosperous and just world, and reiterate our determination to foster strict respect for them.
3. We reaffirm the United Nations Millennium Declaration, which we adopted at the dawn of the twenty-first century. We recognize the valuable role of the major United Nations conferences and summits in the economic, social and related fields, including the Millennium Summit, in mobilizing the international community at the local, national, regional and global levels and in guiding the work of the United Nations.
Quite the loyalty oath here….
6. We reaffirm the vital importance of an effective multilateral system, in accordance with international law, in order to better address the multifaceted and interconnected challenges and threats confronting our world and to achieve progress in the areas of peace and security, development and human rights, underlining the central role of the United Nations, and commit ourselves to promoting and strengthening the effectiveness of the Organization through the implementation of its decisions and resolutions.
7. We believe that today, more than ever before, we live in a global and interdependent world. No State can stand wholly alone. We acknowledge that collective security depends on effective cooperation, in accordance with international law, against transnational threats.
8. We recognize that current developments and circumstances require that we urgently build consensus on major threats and challenges. We commit ourselves to translating that consensus into concrete action, including addressing the root causes of those threats and challenges with resolve and determination.
9. We acknowledge that peace and security, development and human rights are the pillars of the United Nations system and the foundations for collective security and well-being. We recognize that development, peace and security and human rights are interlinked and mutually reinforcing. 10. We reaffirm that development is a central goal by itself and that sustainable development in its economic, social and environmental aspects constitutes a key element of the overarching framework of United Nations activities.
This all sounds lovely and flowery, but are nations actually swearing off independence and autonomy? It goes on and on, with “independent” nations swearing and affirming their commitment to being collectively governed.
“The UN General Assembly and democracy
Since 1988, the General Assembly has adopted at least one resolution annually dealing with some aspect of democracy. Democracy has emerged as a cross-cutting issue in the outcomes of the major United Nations conferences and summits since the 1990s and in the internationally agreed development goals they produced. Member States at the World Summit in September 2005 reaffirmed that “democracy is a universal value based on the freely expressed will of people to determine their political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives
The Summit Outcome Document also stressed that “democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing,” and pointed out that “while democracies share common features, there is no single model of democracy.” Member States resolved to promote increased representation of women in Government decision-making bodies, including to ensure their equal opportunity to participate fully in the political process.
The World leaders pledged in the Millennium Declaration to spare no effort to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law, as well as respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They resolved to strive for the full protection and promotion in all countries of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights for all and to strengthen the capacity of all countries to implement the principles and practices of democracy and respect for human rights.”
This all sounds good, but why does the UN see the need to meddle in everyone’s elections? Is there anything the UN “won’t involve itself in?
Of course, it wouldn’t be complete without pandering to gender quotas
Here are some of the goals:
In 2000, the Commission recommended a series of important legislative, institutional and practical measures to consolidate democracy (resolution 2000/47); and in 2002, the Commission declared the following as essential elements of democracy:
-Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms
-Freedom of association
-Freedom of expression and opinion
-Access to power and its exercise in accordance with the rule of law
-The holding of periodic free and fair elections by universal suffrage and by secret ballot as the expression of the will of the people
-A pluralistic system of political parties and organizations
-The separation of powers
-The independence of the judiciary
-Transparency and accountability in public administration
-Free, independent and pluralistic media
Since its establishment in 2006, the Human Rights Council (successor to the Commission) has adopted a number of resolutions highlighting the interdependent and mutually reinforcing relationship between democracy and human rights. Recent examples include resolutions 19/36 and 28/14 on “Human rights, democracy and the rule of law”.
Keep in mind, that the Human Rights Council is made up of memberstates which don’t believe in human rights. Also, the Council for the Status of Women contains memberstates which don’t believe women are equal, or should have rights.
Promoting the idea of democracy sounds great, but also keep in mind some of the other ideas this globalist organization is behind:
1/ UN proposes a world government (UNPA)
2/ UN proposes internet regulation (digital cooperation)
3/ UN wants to ban criticism of Islam globally
4/ UN want global migration compact
5/ UN pushed Agenda 21
6/ UN pushed Agenda 2021
7/ UN pushed Agenda 2030
8/ UN promotes gender/language agenda
9/ UN promotes forestry control
10/ UN wants urban development control
11/ UN pushed Paris Accord
12/ UN pushed climate change scam
13/ UN promotes abortion as human right
The idea of building up democratic systems across the globe sounds very appealing. But considering how much the UN controls, it is difficult to not view any such government as a UN puppet.
The UN wants governments “democratically” elected, as long as those governments support UN agendas.
“2. Article 6 recognizes and protects the right to life of all human beings. It is the supreme right from which no derogation is permitted1 even in situations of armed conflict and other public emergencies. The right to life has crucial importance both for individuals and for society as a whole. It is most precious for its own sake as a right that inheres in every human being, but it also constitutes a fundamental right, 2 whose effective protection is the prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights and whose content can be informed and infused by other human rights.
3. The right to life is a right which should not be interpreted narrowly. It concerns the entitlement of individuals to be free from acts and omissions intended or expected to cause their unnatural or premature death, as well as to enjoy a life with dignity. Article 6 guarantees this right for all human beings, without distinction of any kind, including for persons suspected or convicted of even the most serious crimes.
4. Paragraph 1 of article 6 of the Covenant provides that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life and that the right shall be protected by law. It lays the foundation for the obligation of States parties to respect and to ensure the right to life, to give effect to it through legislative and other measures, and to provide effective remedies and reparation to all victims of violations of the right to life.”
So far, this looks pretty good. The UN states very bluntly that it values life.
Individuals should not be subjected to acts or omissions which cause their premature death (a.k.a. murder), and that they should have dignity in their lives.
States of the UN are obligated to respect life. This applies even to people suspected or convicted of committing the most serious crimes. It seems we are going down the line of “serial killers are human too”.
“6. Deprivation of life involves a deliberate3 or otherwise foreseeable and preventable life-terminating harm or injury, caused by an act or omission. It goes beyond injury to bodily or mental integrity or threat thereto, which are prohibited by article 9, paragraph 1.4 “
Nothing in this statement I can disagree with.
“8. Enforced disappearance constitutes a unique and integrated series of acts and omissions representing a grave threat to life and may thus result in a violation of the right to life.7 It also violates other rights recognized in the Covenant, in particular, article 9 (liberty and security of persons), article 7 (prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) and article 16 (right to recognition of a person before the law). “
Nothing in this passage that is offensive either. Forced disappearances “do” cause an obvious threat to life and violate all sorts of regulations.
We will skip over 9, and come back to it.
“10. [While acknowledging the central importance to human dignity of personal autonomy, the Committee considers that States parties should recognize that individuals planning or attempting to commit suicide may be doing so because they are undergoing a momentary crisis which may affect their ability to make irreversible decisions, such as to terminate their life. Therefore,] States should take adequate measures, without violating their other Covenant obligations, to prevent suicides, especially among individuals in particularly vulnerable situations.”
I would agree with this. Taking the effort to engage in intervention to protect potentially suicidal people is definitely worthwhile.
“12. States parties engaged in the use of existing weapons and in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of new weapons, and means or methods of warfare must always consider their impact on the right to life. “
Agree fully.
“14. States parties should monitor the impact on the right to life of less-lethal weapons which are designed for use by law-enforcement agents and soldiers charged with lawenforcement missions, including electro-muscular disruption devices (Tasers),29 rubbercoated metal bullets, and attenuating energy projectiles. The use of such weapons must be restricted only to law-enforcement agents who have undergone appropriate training, and must be strictly regulated in accordance with international protocols for their use.”
Try not to kill suspects? Sure, good idea.
“20. The Covenant does not provide an enumeration of permissible grounds for deprivation of life. Still, article 6, paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 implicitly recognize that countries which have not abolished the death penalty and that have not ratified the Second Optional Protocol may continue to apply the death penalty with regard to the most serious crimes subject to a number of strict conditions. Other procedures regulating activity that may result in deprivation of life, such as conditions for use of lethal weapons by the police or protocols for new drug treatment, must be established by law, accompanied by effective institutional safeguards designed to prevent arbitrary deprivations of life, and be compatible with other provisions of the Covenant.”
Limit the death penalty to the most serious crimes? Sure.
“28. Persons with disabilities, including psychosocial and intellectual disabilities, are entitled to special measures of protection so as to ensure their effective enjoyment of the right to life on equal basis with others. Such measures of protection shall include reasonable accommodation of public policies which are necessary to ensure the right to life, such as ensuring access of persons with disabilities to essential goods and services, and special measures designed to prevent excessive use of force by law enforcement agents against persons with disabilities.”
People with physical and intellectual disabilities are also entitled to life and dignity. Agreed.
“42. Under no circumstances can the death penalty be imposed as part of a policy of genocide against members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Article 6, paragraph 3 reminds all States parties who are also parties to the Genocide Convention of their obligations to prevent and punish the crime of genocide, which include the obligation to prevent and punish all deprivations of life, which constitute part of a crime of genocide.”
So, where does the problem exist?
See paragraph #9.
“9. Although States parties may adopt measures designed to regulate terminations of pregnancy, (1) such measures must not result in violation of the right to life of a pregnant woman or her other rights under the Covenant, including the prohibition against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. Thus, (2) any legal restrictions on the ability of women to seek abortion must not, inter alia, jeopardize their lives or subject them to physical or mental pain or suffering which violates article 7. States (3) parties must provide safe access to abortion to protect the life and health of pregnant women, and in situations in which carrying a pregnancy to term would cause the woman (4) substantial pain or suffering, most notably where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or when the foetus suffers from fatal impairment. States parties may not regulate pregnancy or abortion in a manner that runs contrary to (5) their duty to ensure that women do not have to undertake unsafe abortions. [For example, they should not take measures such as (6) criminalizing pregnancies by unmarried women or applying criminal sanctions against women undergoing abortion or against physicians assisting them in doing so, when taking such measures is expected to significantly increase resort to unsafe abortions]. Nor should States parties (7) introduce humiliating or unreasonably burdensome requirements on women seeking to undergo abortion. The (8) duty to protect the lives of women against the health risks associated with unsafe abortions requires States parties to ensure access for women and men, and, in (9) particular, adolescents, to information and education about reproductive options, and to a wide range of contraceptive methods. States parties must also (10) ensure the availability of adequate prenatal and post-abortion health care for pregnant women.”
Now we get to the real problem,
UNBORN CHILDREN DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE
4. About The Bolded Comments
1/ States can “regulate” abortion, but not if it means violating her rights, or anything she may find cruel, inhumane or degrading. Screw the child.
2/ No legal restrictions if it jeopardises the “mental” health of the mother. Not the physical health or life, but the mental health, which can mean anything.
3/ States must provide access to abortion if it endangers health, and yes, that means mental health. I guess as long as the child in an inconvenience.
4/ Again, they consider “suffering” to be mental as well.
5/ States have to provide abortion to ensure that women won’t “unsafely” kill their children
6/ Remove any penalties for abortion, if it would lead to “unsafe” abortions.
7/ Unreasonably burdensome? Would a therapist or medical exam be considered burdensome? Would telling the mother to think it over be too much?
8/ Again, since women may engage in “unsafe” abortions, states are obligated to provide it.
9/ Why the hell are we giving children advice on reproductive options?
10/ Kill the child or birth it, we still have to give the same care to the mother?!?!
UN doesn’t seem to see how inconsistent this attitude is with other provisions of the same document.
22. The second sentence of paragraph 1 provides that the right to life “shall be protected by law”. This implies that States parties must establish a legal framework to ensure the full enjoyment of the right to life by all individuals. The duty to protect the right to life by law also includes an obligation for States parties to take appropriate legal measures in order to protect life from all foreseeable threats, including from threats emanating from private persons and entities.
24. States parties must enact a protective legal framework which includes effective criminal prohibitions on all forms of arbitrary deprivations of life by individuals, including intentional and negligent homicide, disproportionate use of firearms, infanticide, “honour” killings, lynching, violent hate crimes, blood feuds, death threats, terrorist attacks and other manifestations of violence or incitement to violence that are likely to result in a deprivation of life. The criminal sanctions attached to these crimes must be commensurate with their gravity, while remaining compatible with all provisions of the Covenant.
UN prohibits infanticide, unless it is being done by the mother.
Abortions for everyone.
Abortions for children.
The Government of British Columbia has announced that it will enact legislation to enforce UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Currently, there is a Federal version (Bill C-262) working its way through the Canadian Senate.
For reference, links to both C-48 (oil transportation), and C-69 (amend environmental acts) are both included. Canada is a nation that relies on resource development. Both of these bills will make these industries harder to function.
The UNDRIP, however, although “non-binding” may now be implemented at the Federal level and/or in British Columbia. This will give veto power to any development that may occur across of near “traditional lands”.
2. From The CBC Article
“”We need to address reconciliation in British Columbia, not just for social justice… but for economic equality for all citizens, Indigenous and non-Indigenous.”
Horgan’s NDP campaigned on a promise to implement UNDRIP, which includes 46 articles meant to recognize the basic human rights of Indigenous Peoples’ along with their rights to self-determination.
Article 32 is among those in the declaration often cited by Indigenous leadership. It directs states to obtain free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous groups before approving projects that would affect their lands or territories.
“For too long uncertainty on the land base has led to investment decisions being foregone, and I believe that that hurts Indigenous people and it hurts other British Columbians,” Horgan said on Tuesday.”
Okay, so what is this Article 32? It is right here:
Article 32
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.
2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.
3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.
A/ Take steps to mitigate social, cultural or spiritual impact? Industry now has be developed “around” religion or spirituality?
B/ Is this a right to veto any such projects? Or is this a right to demand “tolls” or “commissions”?
C? Is this an acknowledgement that Canada doesn’t have control over its own lands?
3. What Else Is In UNDRIP
Article 4 Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
Interesting. Not necessary to actually be part of a nation when it is inconvenient.
Article 5 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.
So it is not necessary to choose. A person “can” be part of both the state, and a separate collective, depending on what is convenient at that time.
Article 8
1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.
2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;
(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;
(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.
The UN believes that Indigenous People’s should never be forced to assimilate. UN “also” views assimilation of migrants to not be important. This will lead to fracturing and balkanizing nations.
The next several articles go on about the host country not being forced to assimilate of change. Perhaps we can use it against future waves of migration.
Article 27 States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process, giving due recognition to indigenous peoples’ laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems, to recognize and adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their lands, territories and resources, including those which were traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. Indigenous peoples shall have the right to participate in this process.
If this wording is to be taken literally, it looks like parallel legal systems can be used. This makes any uniformity or justice unlikely.
Article 31
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.
2. In conjunction with indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights.
Would be nice if the rest of Canada was entitled to keep our identity, rather than this multicultural, post-nation state that is forced upon us.
Article 45 Nothing in this Declaration may be construed as diminishing or extinguishing the rights indigenous peoples have now or may acquire in the future.
Okay, this list is not exhaustive, and new “rights” may be added later, or other previous rights will also be enacted.
Admittedly, there are some good things in this declaration. However, getting any major projects going will be difficult if several groups are able to veto at any time for any reason.
There is evident a double standard when it comes to protecting identity.
So, what does Bill C-262 say?
In short, it has a short introduction to adopt UNDRIP, then quotes it all
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
.
3 The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations as General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on September 13, 2007, and that is set out in the schedule, is hereby affirmed as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law.
. Consistency
.
4 The Government of Canada, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples in Canada, must take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
. National Action Plan
.
5 The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples, develop and implement a national action plan to achieve the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Like many United Nations initiatives, this looks fairly innocuous and harmless. However, once it is implemented, the actual consequences are far from clear.
It could be a sign of goodwill, and a way to ensure autonomy.
Or it could help destroy the Canadian economy. Time will tell.
All personal court appearances are under “BLOG”
Challenge to UN Global Migration Compact dismissed in Calgary, however
Court rules that it is non intended as legally binding contract
Court Case
A v. Her Majesty, the Queen
Court File No: T-2089-18
Calgary Branch, Federal Court
300-635 8th Ave SW, Calgary
Filed: November 6, 2018
Ruled: February 12, 2019
The Claim was filed in Calgary Federal Court on December 6, 2018. It asked (among other things), for an injunction against signing the UN Global Migration Compact.
The Defense filed a motion to strike, claiming that under Federal Courts Act, it should have been an “Application for Judicial Review”, not a claim. However, that doesn’t seem to be the only problem.
After some back and forth, the Statement of Claim was struck out (without permission to amend), and a $500 cost award was issued against me.
Here are some quotes from the ruling. The most interesting is possibly the one where the Judge confirms that the UN Global Migration Compact is not intended as a legally-binding agreement.
So, who won? The goal of the claim was to prevent Canada from joining the UN Compact, and the Judge says that it has no legal weight anyway.
[2] (Plaintiff) pleads, in the alternative, that if Canada has already signed the UN Compact when the Court rules on her claim, the Court should void the signature and any legal consequences
In this case, the issue of whether it should have been a 1/ Statement of Claim, or 2/ Application for Judicial Review, is sort of mute, since this alternative “does” fall within the scope of a Claim.
Court is also correct that seeking to nullify any legal consequences “is” primary function of this action. However, the Judge will go on to say that the UN Global Migration Compact “doesn’t” carry legal weight.
[8] However, this does not exempt a plaintiff from pleading material facts supporting the claim. Rule 174 states that a Statement of Claim “shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies.
Court finds that the facts plead were not specific enough to be suitable for an action.
[15] The Supreme Court has substantive content of each Charter right in the case law, and a Plaintiff who relies on the Charter must plead material facts to satisfy the criteria applicable to the provision in question. Charter cases can not be decided in a factual vacuum.
Interesting to know. General pleading are not enough in this case, and more definitive and substantive arguments must be made.
[26] As it is plain and obvious that (her) claims based on the Charter and other statutory provisions cannot succeed, the thrust of her claim is simply that Canada should be enjoined from joining the UN Compact, a non-legally binding, cooperative framework agreement because she is of the opinion that it attempts to normalise mass migration to any country, and that the public should have been consulted on this agreement.
Again, the Judge re-iterates that it is “non-legally binding”. Having rejected the specific constitutional arguments earlier, apparently the only argument left is that the public should have been consulted.
[27] It is well-established that the conduct of foreign affairs, and international relations, including the decision to conclude or withdraw from a treaty, is part of the Crown’s prerogative powers and falls exclusively under the executive branch of government. In the absence of a Charter challenge, a decision pertaining to such matters is not justifiable.
There “were” several Charter challenges listed, but the Calgary Court found them too broad to be acceptable.
[25] Based on my review of the Statement of Claim, it is plain and obvious that the Contract Claim discloses no cause of action and must be struck out. The Statement of Claim quotes lengthy exerps from the UN Compact, including the following statement at Paragraph 54 of the claim, which indicates the UN Compact is not intended as a legally binding contract:
44(7) “This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, co-operate framework that builds on the commitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. It fosters cooperation among all the relevant actors on migration, acknowledging that no one State can address migration alone, and upholds the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law.”
This is possibly the most interesting part of the entire ruling. The Judge states that the UN Global Migration Compact is not intended as a legally binding contract.
We now have a Federal Court Judge ruling that the UN Compact is “not intended as a legally-binding contract”. This is huge, as this may thwart any attempt by open-borders advocates to use the UN Compact as a “reference point” at a later date.
Even though the Court threw the case out, the reasons given may be what we need to prevent it from becoming “soft law”.
You’re welcome, Canada
$900 — costs of travel, court fees, other fees
$500 — costs award issued by Calgary Court
PRICELESS — protecting Canada’s sovereignty
Check out Australian YouTuber Daisy Cousens, for an interesting review on the Green New Deal. Thorough, and on point in her critique.
1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam
CLICK HERE, for #1: major lies that the climate frauds tell. CLICK HERE, for #2: review of the Paris Accord. CLICK HERE, for #3: Bill C-97, the GHG Pollution Pricing Act. CLICK HERE, for #4: in 3-2 decision, Sask. COA allows carbon tax. CLICK HERE, for #5: controlled opposition to carbon tax. CLICK HERE, for #6: controlled opposition Cons ==> Supreme Court. CLICK HERE, for #7: climate bonds pitched as $100T industry. CLICK HERE, for #8: Joel Wood pitching various pricing options. CLICK HERE, for #9: Mark Carney and UN climate finance. CLICK HERE, for #10: Goldman Sachs, Obama, Clinton, Chicago CX. CLICK HERE, for #11: Coronavirus, Pirbright Inst, Gates, Depopulation.
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for the Green New Deal FAQ. CLICK HERE, for House Resolution 109, Green New Deal. CLICK HERE, for the Forbes article referenced in the FAQ. CLICK HERE, for the Huffington Post article referenced in the FAQ.
3. Context For This Review
Newly elected US Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has announced an extremely ambitious “Green New Deal”. It will not only save the world, help eco-systems, dramatically boost the US economy, phase out carbon industries, but it will provide economic security for everyone — even those not willing to work.
Of course, don’t bother asking how much this will cost. The only question that matters (apparently) is the cost if nothing is done. That will be the end of the world as we know it.
Many still question this economics graduate, just because she doesn’t know how economics work. But that is just being divisive.
Additionally, it will pander to every imaginable group who is oppressed. The world may be ending, but it doesn’t mean we have to put aside such issues as gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc….
Please don’t be selfish here. Wondering about (a) your job security; (b) your lifestyle; (c) your private property; (d) your civil rights, etc are inconsequential. All that matters is saving the world.
Some may wonder what will happen if they “refuse” to go along with this massive, sweeping, government program. Afterall, many are resistant to change. But we will have to see what the penalties will be later. Perhaps some amendments will be added. Daisy Cousens (in the above video), makes the valid point that in order to see this deal go through, government force will be required.
4. The FAQ Section
“What is the Green New Deal?
.
The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan to create a greenhouse gas neutral society that creates unprecedented levels of prosperity and wealth for all while ensuring economic and environmental justice and security.
The Green New Deal achieves this through a World War 2 scale mobilization that focuses the robust and creative economic engine of the United States on reversing climate change by fully rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, restoring our natural ecosystems, dramatically expanding renewable power generation, overhauling our entire transportation system, upgrading all our buildings, jumpstarting US clean manufacturing, transforming US agriculture, and putting our nation’s people to work doing what they do best: making the impossible possible.”
1/ The first part says that it is to create a greenhouse gas neutral society, yet also promises unprecedented levels of wealth and prosperity.
2/ Logistical question: how do you ensure economic justice when implementing such a drastic plan? It sounds expensive.
3/ So fighting climate change is like fighting Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? Okay.
4/ To dramatically expand renewable power, wouldn’t that involve developing on those lands you want to restore?
5/ Upgrade all buildings? Does that include all homes? How is such a thing possible, and will people be put up in hotels while their homes are being upgraded?
6/ Jumpstarting US clean manufacturing? Will private or public funds be poured into that? Also, won’t you also be putting a lot of other people out of work? Look at Ontario or BC to see how those “clean initiatives” have played out.
7/ If this enviro shift will lead to unprecedented levels of prosperity, why is it no private companies have attempted anything like this (even on a small scale)? Aren’t they all greedy capitalists?
8/ About this crumbling infrastructure, will it all be demolished and new ones built, or is it geared towards massive renovations?
9/ What will happen to people who refuse to go along with it?
Any large-scale transformation of society can create the risk of some people slipping through the cracks. That’s why the Green New Deal also calls for an upgrade to the basic economic securities enjoyed by all people in the US to ensure everybody benefits from the newly created wealth. It guarantees to everyone:
-A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
-High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
-High-quality health care
-Clean air and water
-Healthy food
-Safe, affordable, adequate housing
-An economic environment free of monopolies
-Economic security to all who are unable or UNWILLING TO WORK
(my emphasis above). That’s right. It guarantees everyone “unwilling” to work economic security. Not those unable to work, but anyone “unwilling”. This is doomed to fail, since there will be absolutely no incentive to work.
People will figure out very quickly it makes no sense to work and pay taxes for non-workers, when they can just be one of those non-workers, and get money for free. It will kill any incentive to be productive.
“Why is such a large-scale mobilization necessary right now?
A recent IPCC report declared that global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate. This calls for global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions of 40 to 60 percent by 2030. The U.S. contributes 20% of global emissions. To hit these global targets, the US must not only get to a greenhouse gas emissions neutral society by 2030, but it must also lead this change abroad to avert climate catastrophe.”
1/ So it’s not that the world will end in 12 years, but that there “may” be a rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, (which was 1700s)
2/ IPCC has a very lengthy history of making wrong predictions. Does that matter to you?
3/ Also, if greenhouse emissions were such a critical factor, wouldn’t all this industrialization you’re calling for make the problem worse?
4/ Wouldn’t planting a lot more trees take a lot of this impact away? Just hire poor highly-indebted college students.
“How will you pay for the Green New Deal?
The Green New Deal is a massive investment program, not an expenditure. The question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what is the cost of inaction, and what will we do with our new shared prosperity created by the investments in the Green New Deal.
We will finance the investments for the Green New Deal the same way we paid for the original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the rich, and decades of war – with public money appropriated by Congress. Further, government can take an equity stake in Green New Deal projects so the public gets a return on its investment. We already know that investments in infrastructure create huge returns on investment. The interstate highway system returned more than $6 in economic productivity for every $1 it cost. Similarly, investments in upgrading and transforming industry are a chance to grow the wealth of our nation dramatically.”
This completely dodges the question. Leftists tend to refer to all spending as “investments” in order to deflect attention. No responsible government would simply commit to open-ended spending of this sort. The US is already $22 trillion (yes, trillion) in debt. Where would this money come from? And will people be “forced” to pay for and go along with this scheme?
The Huffington Post article echoes that mentality.
“We must give up our obsession with trying to ‘pay for’ everything with new revenue or spending cuts.”
“Will this hurt communities that rely on fossil fuels jobs?
The Green New Deal will prioritize creating high-quality, family wage-supporting union jobs in communities that rely on fossil fuel industries. It will ensure that all communities have a better alternative for high-wage work before they transition away from fossil fuel industry based work.”
This is wishful thinking. Pumping almost endless amounts of money into an open-ended, and largely unquantifiable “World War II” agenda “may” lead to a job boom. But once the borrowed money runs out (hint: it will), it would lead to a regional collapse as those new jobs disappear.
“Is this an environmental plan? Why do you have things like universal health care and other social safety net measures in here?
The Green New Deal is a plan to make a full-scale transition of our economy that puts jobs and justice first. This plan will require a strong social safety net so that every U.S. person can make this transition comfortably and nobody falls through the cracks in the process. If we want to be able to mobilize our economy fully, we can’t afford to have employees stuck in their current jobs because they are afraid to lose health care or workers unable to participate because they can’t afford the education and training programs. We also need to be sure that workers currently employed in fossil fuel industries have higher-wage and better jobs available to them to be able to make this transition, and a federal jobs guarantee ensures that no worker is left behind. We believe that the economic securities and programs for justice and equity laid out in this Green New Deal resolution are a bare minimum of what we need to do to successfully execute the Green New Deal.”
1/ So, this is to dismantle the US economy altogether and replace it with a new one?
2/ We can’t afford to have people stuck in those low paying jobs, yet you are going to shut down entire industries.
3/ Your plan for a new infrastructure involves pumping money in indefinitely. Until these systems are operational, they won’t be running, or able to produce anything else.
4/ This will involve creating a whole separate economy to build up all these new energy efficient systems, and overhauling existing buildings.
5/ Where will all this money come from? Wait, not supposed to ask.
6/ What will happen to transportation when all air travel is phased out?
7/ How does any of this “reduce” carbon emissions?
8/ Can we assume that “going along” with this plan will be voluntary? Or will it be forced?
Okay, now we get to the House Resolution itself, and the introduction of incessant identity politics.
First, here comes the fear mongering, and the costs of doing nothing. Take everything will a grain of salt.
“(3) global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause—
(A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change;
(B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100;
(C) wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019;
(D) a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth;
(E) more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050; and
(F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States; and
(4) global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require—
(A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030; and
(B) net-zero global emissions by 2050;”
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez supports open borders and mass migration. She openly calls to abolish immigration control entirely in the US. So how will mass migration to a high-consumption society “reduce” carbon emissions?
B/ $500B in lost economic output, yet we are not supposed to ask about money when funding this new deal?
C/ A source would be nice.
D/ These are the same scientists who say the north pole would disappear.
E/ 350M more people exposed to heat stress? I thought temperatures were only going to raise 1.5 degrees Celcius?!
F/ A risk to $1 trillion worth of public infrastructure by a temperature raise of 1.5 degrees Celcius? And I thought money was no issue.
4/ “Pre-industrialised periods” means before 1800s.
A/ 40-60% cut? Yet you want to phase out carbon entirely.
B/ Plant more trees. Problem solved.
“Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as “systemic injustices”) by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);”
The references to identity politics are rampant throughout the bill.
“(2) a 4-decade trend of wage stagnation, deindustrialization, and antilabor policies that has led to—
(A) hourly wages overall stagnating since the 1970s despite increased worker productivity;
(B) the third-worst level of socioeconomic mobility in the developed world before the Great Recession;
(C) the erosion of the earning and bargaining power of workers in the United States; and
(D) inadequate resources for public sector workers to confront the challenges of climate change at local, State, and Federal levels; and”
It’s an interesting double standard here. Ocasio-Cortez keeps bringing up wages, finances and economic situations when it comes to getting support for the bill. Yet she continuously avoids financial discussion when it comes for paying for this green new deal. Can’t have it both ways.
“(3) the greatest income inequality since the 1920s, with—
(A) the top 1 percent of earners accruing 91 percent of gains in the first few years of economic recovery after the Great Recession;
(B) a large racial wealth divide amounting to a difference of 20 times more wealth between the average white family and the average black family; and
(C) a gender earnings gap that results in women earning approximately 80 percent as much as men, at the median;”
A/ Having an economic disparity by itself is not evidence of injustice. People who are highly driven tend to far out earn their unproductive counterparts. But remember, you wanted to create a system which paid people a living wage for refusing to work.
B/ Is this an apples-to-oranges comparison? Would Ocasio-Cortez be comparing European living standards to African living standards? Or is she suggesting this gap is all within America?
Remember, the 1% is very small.
So, if an average black family earned $30,000/year, does it mean the average white family earned $600,00/year? That doesn’t add up
C/ The gender pay gap is simply the earnings difference between men and women overall. Women tend to earn less since they take more time off to raise children, and often choose lower paying jobs.
If you could get the same work from a woman as a man, and just pay her less, then wouldn’t there be an incentive to fire all the men and only hire women?
“(3) a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses; and”
Sorry to rain on the parade, but what happens if large segments of these groups DON’T want the deal, and the burdens it imposes on them? Will their will be ignored?
Now, let’s talk about how this will be implemented. Again, the Resolution doesn’t take into account what will happen if people say no.
“(4) to achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects—
(A) providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization;
(B) ensuring that the Federal Government takes into account the complete environmental and social costs and impacts of emissions through—
(i) existing laws;
(ii) new policies and programs; and
(iii) ensuring that frontline and vulnerable communities shall not be adversely affected;
(C) providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization;
(D) making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries;
(E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;
(F) ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level;
(G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;
(H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States;
(I) strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;
(J) strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors;
(K) enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections—
(i) to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and
(ii) to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States;
(L) ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused;
(M) obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples;
(N) ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies; and
(O) providing all people of the United States with—
(i) high-quality health care;
(ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;
(iii) economic security; and
(iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.”
While this may be well intentioned, it is clearly not realistic
A/ Financing is important, but you need to provide “way” more detail on this.
B/ Take the societal impacts into account? Okay. What happens if your own studies say that your program is impractical?
C/ High education to everyone? Government controlled, or free market?
D/ Making investment in research? Okay, but how long will the research take to complete? Remember, this is only a 10 year plan
E/ Directing investments? Great, though again, we need more detail.
F/ Ensuring the democratic process? That “sounds” great, but this can only be achieved by “taking away” people’s rights.
G/ Guaranteed jobs and training?
H/ More guaranteed jobs.
I/ Strengthening their rights, yet this deal can only be achieved by “removing” rights and imposing it.
J/ Strengthening H&S laws? Normally I would be totally on board with this, but it context of everything else, it is chilling what the details will look like.
K/ This may be poor wording, but how does one “transfer pollution”? Also, why would you worry about borders? Don’t you want to abolish ICE?
L/ Protecting public lands? Actually a good one.
M/ Consent from Indigenous Peoples? Okay, will you still go ahead if they say no?
N/ Prevent unfair competition? But don’t you “ensure” it, with this government monopoly?
O/ Guaranteed health care, housing, jobs, necessities
5. Final Thoughts
While this all sounds great, the details (and lack of) are scary. Not only that, the authors seem totally unaware of how self-contradictory the GND is.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly RELIES ON financial incentives to sell the program, yet AVOIDS any talk of how this will be paid for.
Further she talks about GIVING rights and discretions to groups and how they run their lives, yet implementing this will require TAKING rights away.
The deal mentions EQUALITY many times, but entire sections are devoted to divisive IDENTITY POLITICS and to pandering to specific groups.
The Green New Deal is to PROVIDE new opportunities and entitlements for everyone in America, yet involves SHUTTING DOWN entire sectors of the economy.
All of these promises are made that the social service needs of AMERICANS will be met. However, Ocasio-Cortez promotes OPEN BORDERS IMMIGRATION, which would see those services overrun.
For this deal to be implemented in any real form, any and all rights of citizens (to oppose) it would need to be taken away, and the deal imposed by force. Even then, it would bankrupt the USA long before it ever became reality.
