Recent Posts

Posted on

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.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

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

(Open call for 1-world government)

“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.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

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