Recent Posts

March 23, 2019May 4, 2022

Morgane Oger Foundation Wants To Be Another Doxxing Site

(Morgane Oger Foundation seems to be another Social Autopsy).

(A concise, but accurate review of “Social Autopsy”)

CLICK HERE, for the Morgane Oger Foundation.
CLICK HERE, for MOF information on hate crimes.
CLICK HERE, for the GlobalNews article on MOF’s agenda
CLICK HERE, for Federal Liberals contemplating censorship under the guise of “removing extremist content”.
CLICK HERE, for Proud Boys lawsuit against SPLC.
CLICK HERE, for SPLC’s so called “hate-map”

What is the Morgane Oger Foundation?

Our Work…

The Morgane Oger Foundation is a small volunteer-driven organization entirely run and funded by people who care about justice and inclusion, like you. We focus on opportunities to reduce prejudice-driven inequality in Canada a few projects at a time and pride ourselves with a 100% success rate to date. We are working on several initiatives where we feel we can best help change things for the better..

Sounds harmless and well meaning enough. Let’s see some details.

“An advocacy organization says it wants to map hatred and discrimination across Canada in a move that is prompting warnings of caution from one civil liberties group.

The Vancouver-based Morgane Oger Foundation has issued a call for volunteers to help build the Canadian Atlas of Populist Extremism, to be known as CAPE.

Founder Morgane Oger said the mapping tool would tie together extremist groups and people regularly associated with them, and also map incidents involving hate across Canada.

The idea is to shed light on how hatred is propagated, she said, while being mindful that allegations can’t be tossed out willy-nilly.

“We can’t say someone is a murderer unless they are in fact a murderer, but maybe it would be interesting to see it’s always the same dozen people who are doing anti-trans advocacy in the (B.C.) Interior or the white supremacy groups are working with each other,” said Oger, a former provincial NDP candidate and a member of the party’s executive.

1/ Okay, nice to know they won’t make false accusations of being a murderer unless the person actually is one. However, that is where the reasonableness seems to end.

2/ The examples cited are vague at best.
(a) So called trans activists seem to think “everything” is transphobia. Express any doubt about transgender children, or the never ending demands for accommodation, and you’re a bigot.
(b) Also what white supremacist groups? To left wing activists, anyone opposing open borders or forced multiculturalism is a white supremacist apparently.

3/Serious question: will create this “hate network” lead to innocent people being doxed for no other reason than you have different opinions? Seem very intolerant.

4/ A call for volunteers? What screening will be put in place to ensure that these people don’t have malintent and are actually capable of distinguishing what is hate?

Some Canadian Laws

Criminal harassment
264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
Marginal note:
Prohibited conduct
(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of
(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;
(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

Definition
298 (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
Marginal note:
Mode of expression
(2) A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or irony
(a) in words legibly marked on any substance; or
(b) by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words.

Just a few laws this group might want to know if they are serious about starting up this “database”.

Here are 2 prior examples of doxxing gone wrong

(1) Southern Poverty Law Center

The Southern Poverty Law Center in the United States has a “hate map,” which lists 1,020 groups. They include 51 Ku Klux Klan chapters, 49 anti-LGBT groups, 11 radical traditional Catholic groups and a combined 412 black and white nationalist groups.
The centre doesn’t list individuals, only organizations, and uses a similar definition to the FBI for them. The law centre defines a hate group as “an organization that – based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities – has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”

(2) Candice Owens and “Social Autopsy”

Prior to getting a media makeover and coming out as a conservative, Candice Owens launched a website called “social autopsy”. This was billed as an anti-bullying database. But it relied on people making personal complaints and sending personal information on others. See above videos.

Does Morgane Oger Foundation Want To Be Like That?

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and Social Autopsy are just 2 of the more well known examples of attempts to dox people they disagree with.

Bad ideas should be countered with good ideas. They shouldn’t be doxxed, threatened, or otherwise bullied.

March 21, 2019June 11, 2024

Florida Judge Rules Using Fake Documents To Get Driver’s License Isn’t Illegal

CLICK HERE, for text of the ruling.
CLICK HERE, for media on the subject.

“BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Government’s Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal Order (“Motion”), ECF No. [53]. The Court has considered the Motion, the Defendant’s Response in Opposition, ECF No. [54], and is otherwise fully advised. For the following reasons, the Motion is denied.

The Government asks the Court to reconsider its ruling dismissing the Superseding Indictment against the Defendant. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for motions for reconsideration. In ruling on a motion for reconsideration in a criminal case, federal district courts apply civil standards and exercise substantial discretion. See United States v. Sabooni, No. 09-20298-CR, 2014 WL 4385446, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 4, 2014) (Seitz, J.) (citing United States v. Pugh, 426 F. App’x 876, 876 (11th Cir. 2011)). “The only grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” Smith v. Ocwen Fin., 488 F. App’x 426, 428 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)). “A motion for reconsideration should not simply rehash previously litigated issues[.]” United States v. Russo, No. 11-6337-RSR, 2011 WL 3044844, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 25, 2011) (Rosenbaum, J.); see also Smith, 488 F. App’x at 428 (“A motion for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise arguments, or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment” (citing Arthur, 500 F.3d at 1343))).
In its Motion, the Government rehashes essentially the same arguments raised in its Response to the Defendant’s Motion for Dismissal, during argument at calendar call, and in its Response to Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum. The Government disagrees with the Court’s conclusion that the Government has failed to identify any federal statute or regulation prescribing an Order of Supervision as evidence of authorized stay in the United States. Yet the Government fails to point to any new facts or law, demonstrate clear error or manifest injustice, or identify any federal statute or regulation that would require the Court to change its prior finding. Simply put, the Government’s arguments amount to “mere disagreement” with the Court and do not warrant reconsideration. See Linet Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Florida, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2015) (affirming denial of reconsideration where plaintiff merely “disagreed with the district court’s treatment of certain facts and its legal conclusions” in the earlier order under review); see also Roggio v. United States, No. 11-22847-CIV, 2013 WL 11320226, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2013) (Goodman, J.).

It appears the Government argues that evidence of authorized employment in the United States necessarily equates to evidence of authorized stay in the United States. However, this argument is not persuasive because Section 1546(a) clearly delineates documents evidencing “authorized stay” and documents evidencing “authorized employment” as two distinct forms of authorization. By equating these two forms of authorization, the Government’s interpretation of Section 1546(a) necessarily renders the words “or [authorized] employment” superfluous. See In Re Walter Energy, Inc., 911 F.3d 1121 (11th Cir. 2018) (“[W]e generally construe a statute so that ‘no clause, sentence, or word’ is rendered superfluous, void, or insignificant.” (quoting TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001))). While the Court agrees with the Government that, when amending Section 1546(a) in 1986, Congress intended to broaden the types of documents encompassed by Section 1546(a) beyond those “required for entry into the United States,” see ECF No. , the Government’s Superseding Indictment did not provide the Defendant notice of any intent to prove that an Order of Supervision is “prescribed by statute or regulation… as evidence of authorized… employment in the United States,” ECF No. [22].

Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Government’s Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal Order, ECF No. [53], is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 7th day of March, 2019.

This is absurd. The driver’s license was obtained under false pretenses. Shrugging this off as “procedural” is setting a dangerous precedent. It will be interesting to see if this is appealed.

Hopefully either it is overturned, or the State Congress will enact legislation to prevent this from happening again.

March 21, 2019November 15, 2021

UN Issues “Human Rights Compliant Guidance” For Treating Returning Terrorists

(1) https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Human-Rights-Responses-to-Foreign-Fighters-web-final.pdf
(2) UNCHR Human Rights Responses to Foreign Fighters or Terrorists
(3) https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/FTF-Report-1-3_English.pdf
(4) https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/4/7/393503_2.pdf
(5) OSCE Guidelines for Addressing the Foreign Terrorists Fighters
(6) https://stepstojustice.ca/steps/1-understand-grounds-detention

“Guidance to States on human rights-compliant responses to the threat posed by foreign fighters”

That title is a direct quote. The UN promotes “human rights-compliant responses” to terrorists who have left their country to take up arms against them, commit atrocities, then expect to be welcomed back.

” In June 2014, it was estimated that up to 12,000 people from more than 80 countries had travelled to Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic to join groups such as the Al-Nusrah Front and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). In September 2015, that number was thought to have grown to almost 30,000 from more than 100 countries. By August 2017, the flow of people to Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic had diminished dramatically in light of the military efforts against ISIL. In October 2017 it was estimated that over 40,000 people from more than 110 countries had joined ISIL, and that at least 5,600 of them had returned home.”

1/ In 2014, 12,000 people across 80 countries travelled to Iraq and Syria.
2/ In 2015, that number thought to be 30,000.
3/ In 2017, thought to be 40,000.
4/ At least 5,600 thought to have returned home.
How is this not a crisis?

“2. There is no clear profile for foreign terrorist fighters. Some are motivated by extremist ideology, while others appear more driven by alienation and boredom. Motivation may also change over time. Motivational factors may also include the desire to belong to a group or to gain peer acceptance; kinship, nationalism or patriotism; and humanitarian reasons, namely to protect the local population. Financial or material gain may also be a factor. The Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy points to prolonged unresolved conflicts, dehumanization of victims of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, lack of the rule of law and violations of human rights, ethnic, national and religious discrimination, political exclusion, socio-economic marginalization and lack of good governance conditions among the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism”

This seems deliberately designed to avoid the obvious: above, 12,000-40,000 people were thought to have joined ISIS. You know what motivates them? ISLAM. This UN report dances around that point, and implies that any form of unhappiness or social exclusion leads to people joining.

“3. The movement of people for the purposes of joining and supporting terrorist groups as well as their return to their countries of origin poses serious challenges to States in their efforts to prevent acts of terrorism. It is crucial that States adopt comprehensive long-term responses that deal with this threat and manage the return of fighters, and that in doing so they comply with their obligations under international human rights law. States have an obligation to protect the lives of individuals subject to their jurisdiction, and this includes the adoption of effective measures to counter the threat posed by foreign fighters. However, in its 2016 review of the Global Counter- Terrorism Strategy, the General Assembly expressed serious concern at the occurrence of violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms committed in the context of countering terrorism and stressed that, when counter-terrorism efforts neglected the rule of law and violated international law, they not only betrayed the values they sought to uphold, but they might also further fuel violent extremism that could be conducive to terrorism.”

That’s right. The UN expects host nations to “manage” the return of foreign fighters, who — to be frank — are overwhelmingly muslim. Nations have an obligation to ensure that “their” human rights are not violated in any way.

Curious to know: how does punishing them “further fuel violent extremism”? They are already violent, and anyone looking to join ISIS is a radical anyway.

“5. In resolution 2178 (2014), the Security Council underscored that respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are complementary and mutually reinforcing with effective counter-terrorism measures, and are an essential part of a successful counter-terrorism effort. It noted the importance of respect for the rule of law so as to effectively prevent and combat terrorism, and that failure to comply with these and other international obligations, including under the Charter of the United Nations, is one of the factors contributing to increased radicalization and fosters a sense of impunity. The Counter-Terrorism Committee has noted the importance, as States revise legislation and policy to stem the flow of foreign terrorist fighters, to recognize that the protection of human rights and the rule of law contribute to the countering of terrorism. Arbitrary arrests, incommunicado detentions, torture and unfair trials fuel a sense of injustice and may in turn encourage terrorist recruitment, including of foreign terrorist fighters”

This is asinine. Somehow, if nations were nice and tolerant to returning terrorists, and ensured they have all the human rights they rejected…. then people won’t turn to terrorism. Perhaps there is a flow of terrorists because host countries are weak. Something to consider.

“7. In December 2017, the Security Council adopted resolution 2396 (2017), building on resolution 2178 (2014) and providing greater focus on measures to address returning and relocating foreign terrorist fighters and their families, and requiring States to strengthen their efforts in border security, information-sharing, and criminal justice. In order to protect public order and safety in the countries to which foreign terrorist fighters return or relocate, resolution 2396 (2017) sets out additional measures beyond those in resolution 2178 (2014), which may raise concerns from a human rights perspective”

Interesting. Not only do we have obligations to terrorists, but to their families as well.

” The document then analyses the gender aspects and the situation of children affected by or involved in foreign fighter activities and provides guidance on how to ensure information exchange, data collection and analysis in conformity with human rights. The document then addresses criminal justice measures, including the definition of terrorism; prosecution, fair trial and due process rights; rehabilitation and reintegration of returnees; and special laws, sunset clauses and review mechanisms. Finally, the document provides guidance on the right to an effective remedy for those whose rights have been violated and on preventing and countering violent extremism and incitement.”

Wouldn’t be the UN without a few gender references.

You read that right: rehabilitation and reintegration of returnees.

“11. Any measures undertaken to implement resolutions 2178 (2014), 2396 (2017) or other Security Council resolutions must comply with general human rights principles grounded in treaty law and customary law. This means that any measures which may limit or restrict human rights must be prescribed by law, be necessary, proportionate to the pursuance of legitimate aims and non-discriminatory. They should also be procedurally fair and offer the opportunity of legal review.“

What do you consider reasonable then? Is leaving to go join ISIS not a valid reason for the host country to fear for the safety of its citizens, should you return? As far as legal process goes: how does one investigate in a war zone across the world?

“13. In a limited set of circumstances, States may also take measures to temporarily derogate from certain international human rights law provisions. As noted by the Human Rights Committee, measures derogating from the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights must be of an exceptional and temporary nature. Two fundamental conditions must be met: the situation must amount to a public emergency which threatens the life of the nation; and the State party must have officially proclaimed a state of emergency. The obligation to limit any derogations to those strictly required by the exigencies of the situation reflects the principle of proportionality which is common to derogation and limitation powers.”

Okay, from your criteria: #1 is met. These fighters are a threat to the public.
As for #2, “why” must a public declaration be made?

14. The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, along with regional refugee instruments,22 are the core legal instruments of the international refugee regime, complemented by customary international law and international human rights law. These instruments define the term “refugee” and establish an international framework for the protection of refugees

These people are not refugees. UN is deliberately obfuscating here. They are terrorists, who “chose” to leave their country.

“16. International humanitarian law is also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict and is applicable to both situations of international or non-international armed conflicts. These rules are enshrined in the four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, as well as in customary rules of international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons, civilians, who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities as well as fighters hors de combat and restricts the means and methods of warfare.“

This is not an official war. People can’t just leave their country, join a foreign army, then expect to return afterwards. They have committed treason. It’s idiotic to claim that humanitarian law would apply to these people.

“18. States have used different measures, whether legislative, administrative or operational, to prevent the departure of foreign fighters to conflict areas as well as to prevent their return. These could include travel bans, the seizure, retention, withdrawal and non-renewal of passports or identity cards, the stripping of citizenship, restrictions on travel or entry to territory and various types of house arrests or preventive detention. All of these measures have a serious impact on a number of fundamental human rights, including the rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement. They also raise a number of serious due process concerns if, for example, decisions are taken following secretive proceedings, in absentia or on the basis of vaguely defined criteria without adequate safeguards to prevent statelessness.“

Here’s the thing: very few people would actually care if any terrorists were left stateless as a result. If you leave to take up arms against a nation or it’s allies, you are a TRAITOR. You have forfeited your rights to be a citizen.

“21. The right to life, liberty and security of person is fundamental in international human rights law. It is the first substantive right protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Deprivation of liberty involves a more severe restriction on motion than merely interfering with freedom of movement. Examples of deprivation of liberty include arrest, imprisonment, house arrest, administrative detention and involuntary transportation, but may also include the cumulative effects of multiple restrictions on freedom of movement when, taken together, they would amount to a de facto deprivation of liberty. International human rights law protects against such deprivation of liberty, except on grounds of and in accordance with procedures established by law. But, even assuming that a deprivation of liberty is lawful, international human rights law also absolutely prohibits any deprivation of liberty that is arbitrary. The prohibition of arbitrary detention is non-derogable and must be understood to incorporate elements of “inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law as well as elements of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality”. The right to life is non-derogable, and the Human Rights Committee has stated that the fundamental guarantee against arbitrary detention is also non-derogable insofar as even situations that allow for derogations in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights cannot justify a deprivation of liberty that is unreasonable or unnecessary under the circumstances.”

It would be nice if the UN at some point starts listing rights and protections that society should have.

I’ll stop it here, but it goes on about ensuring that foreign fighters and terrorists have their human rights met. Ironic, since this group would never extend human rights or life to others.

Noticeably absent is any concern for the populations of these countries. Returning terrorists will pose a risk to the public, most likely for life. However, the UN talks about “managing” those risks.

Canadian Criminal Code:

Purpose and Principles of Sentencing
Marginal note:
Purpose
718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

I think that terrorism would certainly qualify under the first 3 criteria. We must (a) denounce the conduct; (b) deter the offender, and others, and (c) separate the offender from society. The other 3 are of much less concern.

Grounds to Deny Bail

The Crown considers 3 grounds of detention:
Primary – You may not go to court when required.
Secondary – You may commit another crime, or the public may not be safe while you’re out on bail.
Tertiary – Because of the circumstances of your offence, the public might feel that the justice system is not working if you’re let out of custody.

Terrorists would qualify on all 3 grounds.

Regardless, the overwhelming majority of the public does not want these people coming back. Not now, not ever.

March 20, 2019December 11, 2024

World Border Congress Meets In Morocco, March 19-21

2. Giving Some Context

CLICK HERE, for the UN’s response to repatriating terrorists.
CLICK HERE, for Border Security Report.

As a bit of a side note: Morocco is also where the UN Global Migration Compact was signed on December 10, 2018.

Also, I cannot be the only one who thinks such an organization is creepy as hell. Why is there a “global border management”? What happened to countries making their own decisions?

3. Who Are These People?

“The annual gathering of the international border management and protection community will take place in Casablanca, Morocco on 19th-21st March 2019.

Co-hosted by the Ministry of Interior and General Secretariat for Migration and Border Surveillance of Morocco (Directeur de la Migration at de la Surveillance des Frontieres), the World Border Security Congress is delighted to be welcomed back to the North African country and economic hub of the region.

The 2019 World Border Security Congress will see the largest international gathering of border security and management policymakers and practitioners from more than 50 countries gather for the 3 day meeting for some great discussions, meetings, workshops and networking with colleagues and peers from the global border security community.”

Okay, this seems to be a globalist love-fest.

From Their Main Page

Current Border Security Challenges:
– Migration Crisis Tests European Consensus and Governance (1)
– Migrants and refugees streaming into Europe from Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia (2)
– Big Business of Smuggling Enables Mass Movement of People for Enormous Profits (3)
– Climate Change and Natural Disasters Displace Millions, Affect Migration Flows (4)
– Europe and the United States Confront Significant Flows of Unaccompanied Child Migrants (5)
– Tackling Southeast Asia’s Migration Challenge (6)
– ISIS threatens to send 500,000 migrants to Europe (7)
– Border Skirmishes Resonate in National Domestic Politics (8)
– Women’s Labour Migration from Asia and the Pacific (9)

As we see the continued escalation of the global migration crisis, with mass movements of people fleeing the war zones of the Middle East as well as illegal economic immigration from Africa and elsewhere, international terrorism(10) shows every sign of increasing, posing real threats to the free movement of people.

The world is expected to see a continuation of the migration challenges for the border management and security community, as little sign of peace and security in the Middle East is apparent and porous borders in Africa continue to provide challenges.

International organized criminal gangs and human and drug trafficking groups exploit opportunities and increasingly use the internet and technology to enhance their activities.

Controlling and managing international borders in the 21st Century continues to challenge the border control and immigration agencies around the world. It is generally agreed that in a globalised world borders should be as open as possible, but threats continue to remain in ever evolving circumstances and situations.

Advancements in technology are assisting in the battle to maintain safe and secure international travel. The border security professional still remains the front line against these threats.

This reads like it was brought to you by the same people who pushed the UN Global Migration Compact. But let’s go through this list a bit. Starting with your points list:

1/ Testing European consensus and governance? There “is” no European consensus, unless one argues that Europeans are unhappy with what their governments have brought them

2/ Yes migrants ARE streaming into Europe from Africa, the Middle East and Asia. But you promote open borders, which makes this problem all that much worse.

3/ True, smuggling people IS big business. However, you fail to mention that mass migration, and promoting mass migration is also big business, and it has much the same effect (legal or not).

4/ Climate change: everyone’s favourite boogeyman. Mass migration has nothing to do with welfare and handouts that economic migrants can get by moving to the West and pretending to be refugees.

5/ Regarding all of these “unaccompanied child migrants”, it would be interesting to know just how many of them are actually children. This seems to be a widespread scam.

6/ Yes, Southeast Asia has a migrant crisis as well. However, mass migration to the west is not the solution. All it will do is drain Western nations and cause their collapse.

7/ ISIS threaten to sends 100,000 fighters to Europe, but globalist organizations like the UN say that we must be compassionate. They also don’t want countries rejecting “citizens” who fight for ISIS.

8/ If there are border skirmishes going on, all the more reason to shut down borders and heavily restrict, if not outright ban people from certain countries.

9/ Of course, it wouldn’t be complete without the feminist card.

10/ Strengthen borders to stop this from coming here.

11/ Technological advancements? Now that sounds interesting. Seems these people don’t actually want to PREVENT bad things from happening, rather they wish to PROFIT from it happening. In fact, 2 major sponsors: FIND BIOMETRICS, and BIOMETRIC UPDATE, could see a huge surge in business caused by mass migration.

Here is a quote from the report:

“Governments around the world need to continue to invest in their border security, as a wide range of threats, such as combating terrorism, controlling the movement of goods and monitoring personnel across international borders, continue to pose challenges requiring round the clock monitoring.”

What a coincidence: the sponsors of this conference are selling just the tools that governments will need to secure their borders.

This conference is sponsored by companies that sell:
A/ Biometric services
B/ Security screening devices
C/ Digital and mobile technology

Is it much of a surprise that mass migration would be PROMOTED by a group and its sponsors who will end up PROFITTING from it? Not really.

World Border Congress Has Sympathy For ISIS Fighters

From THIS REPORT:
“Despite the fact that it is illegal to make an individual stateless, there is strong public opinion in most countries that supports the idea of leaving them to fend for themselves, and it easy to understand why. Whatever prison sentences they receive and deradicalisation they undergo, they will have to be regarded as a potential threat for the remainder of their lives.

And of course, it is certain that at least some of them will go on to attempt to commit an atrocity sometime in the future.

So, for most people, stopping their return seems like plain common sense. But would it be the wisest choice? If you leave them stateless, what will happen to them and where will they go?

It is fairly certain that the Kurds won’t want to be responsible for them for any prolonged period. And the Turkish authorities certainly won’t want to inherit the problem. The most likely outcome is that they will gradually be quietly released or abscond and use underground trafficking routes, new documents and new identities to either return to Europe or go elsewhere to carry on the fight.”

This group glosses over legitimate security risks posed by mass migration. However, the risks that “do” exist can be managed by purchasing services from the conference’s many sponsors.

This is disturbing. Want to know what is actually worse?

4. UN Response To “Foreign Fighters”

Again, the report is available here.

3. The movement of people for the purposes of joining and supporting terrorist groups as well as their return to their countries of origin poses serious challenges to States in their efforts to prevent acts of terrorism. It is crucial that States adopt comprehensive long-term responses that deal with this threat and manage the return of fighters, and that in doing so they comply with their obligations under international human rights law. States have an obligation to protect the lives of individuals subject to their jurisdiction, and this includes the adoption of effective measures to counter the threat posed by foreign fighters.

13. In a limited set of circumstances, States may also take measures to temporarily derogate from certain international human rights law provisions. As noted by the Human Rights Committee, measures derogating from the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights must be of an exceptional and temporary nature. Two fundamental conditions must be met: the situation must amount to a public emergency which threatens the life of the nation; and the State party must have officially proclaimed a state of emergency. The obligation to limit any derogations to those strictly required by the exigencies of the situation reflects the principle of proportionality which is common to derogation and limitation powers.

16. International humanitarian law is also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict and is applicable to both situations of international or non-international armed conflicts. These rules are enshrined in the four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, as well as in customary rules of international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons, civilians, who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities as well as fighters hors de combat and restricts the means and methods of warfare.

18. States have used different measures, whether legislative, administrative or operational, to prevent the departure of foreign fighters to conflict areas as well as to prevent their return. These could include travel bans, the seizure, retention, withdrawal and non-renewal of passports or identity cards, the stripping of citizenship, restrictions on travel or entry to territory and various types of house arrests or preventive detention. All of these measures have a serious impact on a number of fundamental human rights, including the rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement. They also raise a number of serious due process concerns if, for example, decisions are taken following secretive proceedings, in absentia or on the basis of vaguely defined criteria without adequate safeguards to prevent statelessness.

The World Borders Congress states that it believes that fighters who go abroad have rights. It implies that the safety of the host populations must be “balances” against the rights of terrorists themselves. From the above passages, the UN is clearly on board with this proposal.

The UN is totally fine with mass migration and returning terrorists for IDEOLOGICAL reasons.

Sponsors of World Borders Congress is fine with mass migration and returning terrorists for FINANCIAL reasons.

A partnership made in hell.

March 17, 2019February 11, 2020

Sovereignty Is Canada’s #1 Issue?

(Article originally published on rightdecision.ca. It’s a recently started website with some different ideas and opinions.

The landscape has been changing even more in recent years. Who governs your country, and what agenda they have matters. But that divide is not what we have been led to believe.

It is not Left v.s. Right.
Rather,
It is Globalist v.s. Nationalist

A NATONALIST believes that their country should remain sovereign, and that the citizens should be responsible for determining its destiny. There will be differences of opinions, yes, but the belief is still that citizens should be in charge of their future. The culture, language, heritage and traditions should remain intact. Control should lie with elected representatives of a Federal Parliament/Congress.

A GLOBALIST believes that national sovereignty should be eroded or stopped altogether in the name of “the greater good”. This ideology rejects any sort of distinctive national identity, and promotes world government/1-world vision ideals. The needs and interests of host nations are obstacles to be overcome, and a global body should determine what is best for everyone.
If you think your Federal representatives don’t look after your interests, do you think Global reps would do any better?

There is not a single administration in Canada that is responsible for this. Successive governments have implemented UN and Globalists ideas for over 50 years now. It is death by a thousand cuts.

Across the Western World, so called “Conservative” parties implement much the same policies as Liberals. They just aren’t as gung ho when selling them to the people.

To name a few:
-UN Global Migration Compact-UN Agenda 21/2030
-UN Digitial Cooperation (Internet Regulation)
-UN Religious Defamation (Blasphemy Ban)
-UN Paris Accord (Carbon Taxes)
-UN Global Citizenship Initiative
-UN Gender Agenda

Much of the work on my site, Canuck Law, has been to draw attention to what is happening. Globalist forces are piece by piece taking away our freedoms and autonomy.

In addition to writing about this topic, I took action in a different way: going to court (3 times now).
Challenge to the UN Global Migration Compact:

As was reported, I went to Calgary on December 6, 2018 in an attempt to file a legal challenge to it being implemented.
The short version of events is this, after some back and forth, the Federal Court Judge threw out the case (and awarded $500 in court costs). Although numerous grounds were cited in the reasons, one important thing stands out.

THE FEDERAL COURT RULED THAT THE United Nations Global Migration Compact WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A BINDING LEGAL CONTRACT.

Many of us were worried that signing this agreement would become a sort of “soft law”, which legally binding future decisions could then be based off of. In a sense, leaving the Compact unchallenged would the worst . But now that a Court has ruled it’s not binding, that “should” put a stop to it.

There are 2 other matters pending:
1/ Attempting to close the loophole in the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement. Canada and the US recognize each other as safe countries. Therefore, people attempting asylum claims should not be able to “shop” around, but claim asylum in the first country they reach. However, due to poor wording, it seems to not apply if they cross anywhere other than an official port.

2/ Although still in the proposal stages, hundreds of high ranking officials within UN supporting countries are floating the ideal of a UN Parliamentary Assembly, or Global Government. Obviously, Canada will have no control over its own interests if we joined such a group. Canada would be just 1 of 193 nations (and hold 0.5% of voting rights).

It will be interesting to see how those turn out.

Regardless, Canadians do need to wake up to what is happening around them. We don’t have a country, if we cannot control our borders, immigration, laws, or domestic policies.

I openly advocate leaving the UN (see https://canucklaw.ca/canada-should-leave-the-un-the-masterlist/). As more and more Canadians become aware, this opinion will certainly grow.

UN and Globalism Links
(1) UN International Court of Justice
(2) UN Global Migration Compact
(2a) Cities Compact for Global Migration (2017)
(3) Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement, and see HERE
(4) Proposed UN Parliament/World Gov’t
(4a) Mein Kampf 2.0 (in German)
(5) Paris Accord
(5a) UN Climate Change Agenda
(6) The Multiculturalism Act
(7) Can. Citizenship Act (birth tourism)
(8) Bill C-6 (citizenship for terrorists)
(8a) UN Supports Repatriation For Terrorists
(9) M-103 (Iqra’s Blasphemy Motion)
(9a) 2008 UN Vote to ban blasphemy (worldwide)
(10) $595M bribery of journalists, Pg40
(11) UN Agenda 21 (June 1992)
(12) UN Agenda 2030 (September 2015)
(13) UN Global Citizenship Education
(14) UN Internet Governance
(15) UN Forum on Forests
(16) UN Urban Development Agenda
(17) UN Decl. On Rights Of Indigenous People
(18) UN Right to Life, Article 6, Right To Life
(18a) UN Comment 36, Right to Abortion Para 9
(19) UN Gender & Language Agenda
(20) UN Democratic Agenda
(21) UN & MasterCard SDA Partnership
(22) UN consulting firm Lawyers Without Borders
(23) UN & Sexual Abuse/Exploitation
(24) ICLEI – Local Gov’t For Sustainability
(25) UN Promotes Replacement Migration Throughout 1st World
(26) World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland
(27) UN SDG (Agenda 21/2030) Data Hub
(28) Agenda 21 Book (Cut Freedoms, Very Honest)
(29) Ocasio-Cortez H-Res 109, Green New Deal
(29a) Green New Deal FAQ

Without sovereignty, and control over our own affairs, the nation dies.

March 16, 2019November 17, 2022

UN Security Council: Legalized Aggression

(Then President George W. Bush, arguing for an invasion of Iraq under blatantly false pretenses. The UN Security Council approved the use of force in 2002 by a 15-0 vote. War was launched on March 20, 2003).

(A critique on the problem with veto power)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for UN Security Council home page.
CLICK HERE, for the page on sanctions.
CLICK HERE, the UN Charter.
CLICK HERE, for Article 41 of the UN Charter (Sanctions).
CLICK HERE, for an index of voting records.
CLICK HERE, for Wikipedia page on “Proxy Wars”.

2. Stated Mission

Peace and Security

The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It has 15 Members, and each Member has one vote. Under the Charter of the United Nations, all Member States are obligated to comply with Council decisions.

The Security Council takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of settlement. In some cases, the Security Council can resort to imposing sanctions or even authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.

That is correct. 15 nations can decide what is “in the interest of global peace and security”. Hardly seems that other nations get much of a say in international matters. Would your own sovereignty be limited by what these 15 members of the “Global Community” have to say?

Even more undemocratic is the make up of the Security Council. There are 15 members, 5 of which are permanent, and 10 others which are chosen on a rotational basis.

The 5 permanent members are: 1/ the United States; 2/ Russia (formerly the Soviet Union); 3/ Britain; 4/ France; and 5/ China. These were the “winners” of World War II, when the UN was founded. Each of the 5 permanent members has “veto” power, meaning they can unilaterally block any resolution from passing.

In order to pass a Security Council resolution, a majority of members have to approve it. Additionally, none of the “Permanent 5” can veto. They each have to abstain or support.

3. Non Military Options

What if the UN doesn’t opt for military force? There are less direct, but more passive-aggressive measures called “sanctions”. These are essentially punishments the Security Council imposes.

(From Article 41)

“The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.”

From the page on sanctions:

“Security Council sanctions have taken a number of different forms, in pursuit of a variety of goals. The measures have ranged from comprehensive economic and trade sanctions to more targeted measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, and financial or commodity restrictions. The Security Council has applied sanctions to support peaceful transitions, deter non-constitutional changes, constrain terrorism, protect human rights and promote non-proliferation.”

The UN Security Council also lists who it has imposed sanctions upon: “Since 1966, the Security Council has established 30 sanctions regimes, in Southern Rhodesia, South Africa, the former Yugoslavia (2), Haiti, Iraq (2), Angola, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Eritrea, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Liberia (3), DRC, Côte d’Ivoire, Sudan, Lebanon, DPRK, Iran, Libya (2), Guinea-Bissau, CAR, Yemen, South Sudan and Mali, as well as against ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida and the Taliban.”

4. UN Contributing To World Peace?

Does UN Security Council Create World Peace?
Not really. This is especially true when one of the “Permanent 5” has veto power over any resolution to stop or condemn the aggression. Though the major powers may not directly be involved, they may provide aid to others and fight proxy wars.

Though not always the best site, Wikipedia is great for a quick reference.

Chinese Civil War (1944–1949)
Greek Civil War (1944–1949)
Iran crisis of 1946 (1945–1946)
First Indochina War (1946–1954)
Paraguayan Civil War (1947)
Malayan Emergency (1948–1960)
Internal conflict in Myanmar (1948– )
Balochistan conflict (1948– )
Arab–Israeli conflict (1948–present)
Korean War (1950–1953)
Mau Mau Uprising (1952–1960)
Second Indochina War (First Taiwan Strait Crisis (1953–1975))
Algerian War (1954–1962)
First Sudanese Civil War (1955–1972)
Suez Crisis (1956–1957)
Second Taiwan Strait Crisis (1958)
Lebanon crisis (1958)
Tibetan uprising (1959–1962)
Central American crisis (1960–1996)
Congo Crisis (1960–1965)
Portuguese Colonial War (1960–1974)
Xinjiang conflict (1960s–present)
First Iraqi–Kurdish War (1961–1970)
Eritrean War of Independence (1961-1991)
North Yemen Civil War (1962–1970)
Dhofar Rebellion (1962–1976)
Sarawak Communist Insurgency (1962–1990)
Sand War (1963)
Aden Emergency (1963–1967)
Insurgency in Northeast India (1963–present)
Rhodesian Bush War (1964–1979)
Dominican Civil War (1965)
Communist insurgency in Thailand (1965–1983)
Bolivian Campaign (1966–1967)
Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–1969)
South African Border War (1966–1990)
Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970)
Naxalite–Maoist insurgency (1967–present)
Communist insurgency in Malaysia (1968–1989)
Operation Condor (1968–1989)
Al-Wadiah War (1969-present)
Civil conflict in the Philippines (1969–present)
Yemenite War (1972)
Angolan Civil War (1974–2002)
Ethiopian Civil War (1974–1991)
Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990)
Western Sahara War (1975–1991)
Indonesian occupation of East Timor (1975–1999)
Cabinda War (1975–present)
Insurgency in Laos (1975–present)
Civil conflict in Turkey (1976–present)
Shaba I (1977)
Ogaden War (1977–1978)
Cambodian-Vietnamese War (1977–1991)
Mozambican Civil War (1977–1992)
Chittagong Hill Tracts conflict (1977–1997)
Shaba II (1978)
Uganda–Tanzania War (1978–1979)
NDF Rebellion (1978–1982)
Chadian–Libyan conflict (1978–1987)
Yemenite War of (1979)
Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989)
Sino-Vietnamese War (1979
Internal conflict in Peru (1980–present)
Ethiopian–Somali Border War (1982)
Sri Lankan Civil War (1983–2009)

This isn’t even a complete list. But when researching conflicts, you will find that it is most often one or more of the “Permanent 5” behind these conflicts. How can the UN actually help world peace when its own Security Council members can flaunt the principles without consequences?

Why are a nation’s well being and sovereignty dependant on the will of 15 nations, 5 of whom appointed themselves as permanent members with a veto.

This is not to say that nations should not be free to enter into military alliances and pacts. However, this arrangement seems stacked against smaller and weaker nations.

5. What Does UN Say About It?

Under the United Nations Charter, the functions and powers of the Security Council are:
.
-to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;
-to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction;
-to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;
-to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;
-to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;
-to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;
-to take military action against an aggressor;
-to recommend the admission of new Members;
-to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in “strategic areas”;
-to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.

There has been much speculation within Canada that Justin Trudeau is being so “UN compliant” because he is aiming for a seat on the Security Council. Not sure if this is true, though it’s certainly possible.

Military aggression. But “democratically performed” military aggression.”

6. Who’s Behind US Military Aggression?

In a word: Israel.

The State of Israel has been influencing US military policy, particularly in the Middle East, for decades. Western (Christian) nations go to war against Muslim nations. This in turn creates refugees who are forced to take shelter in other countries. Of course Israel won’t take them, but will help ship them off to the West.