Recent Posts

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #6: State Supplied Drugs For Drug Addicts

(An alternative to drug treatment: just give free drugs, but do it “safely”)

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.

This current masterpiece touts the value of state-funded narcotics as a way to ”reduce harm” and to save lives.

No, this doesn’t mean methodone, or any treatment designed to wane users off their addiction. It doesn’t mean treatment in the hopes of getting people back into society as functioning adults.

This simply is about providing narcotics to users free of charge as a ”harm reduction” policy. Furthermore, medical staff are employed (again, at taxpayer expense), to administer this program. Let’s go through the article.

CLICK HERE, for the CBC article itself.

“Carissa Sutherland’s history with drugs is a lot like many others in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.
.
The 29-year-old started about 10 years ago with morphine and hydromorphone pills marketed under the brand name Dilaudid or “Dilly” as it’s known on the street.
.
“I kind of just progressed more and more, and then I couldn’t get Dillies very much — or they were more expensive than heroin, so that I ended up just doing heroin,” said Sutherland, who soon added methamphetamine to the mix.
.
For her, an especially low point came when she overdosed, alone, in a Wendy’s bathroom about two years ago. Luckily, someone found her, and her life was saved.”

This is saddening to hear, but perhaps trying another solution would be better. Switching to heroin simply because it’s cheaper is asking for trouble.

“Now, a “safe supply” program for people in Sutherland’s situation is launching in the neighbourhood.
.
Operated by the Portland Hotel Society (PHS) out of its Molson Overdose Prevention Site (OPS), the pilot program will distribute free Dilaudid pills for 50 patients.
.
The hydromorphone pills, which are manufactured to be taken orally, will be crushed up and rendered as an injectable drug, just like heroin. It’s the first time in Canada that opioids will be prescribed in this way and an idea that came directly from the street.”

Okay, these pills are designed to be taken orally, but instead will be crushed up so they can be injected. Absurd, it means taking prescription medication and knowingly not using it in its intended form. This is harm reduction? Is there medical research?

Not hearing any sort of plan on actual treatment for these people, but perhaps that will come later in the article.

”According to Coco Culbertson, who is overseeing the program for PHS, the dosage will be prescribed by a physician, and participants will be able to get up to five doses per day, to be injected under the supervision of PHS staff and volunteers.
.
Culbertson said the pills, which are worth about 36 cents when bought legally, cost drug users $20 – $30 on the street. According to Sutherland, a user on the street can make up to four or five pick ups per day to support a habit, sometimes buying multiple pills each time.
.
“We’re really looking for our “hard target” folks that are experiencing repeated overdose and that are subject to a toxic drug supply on the street,” said Culbertson, who added that there’s already a list of about 75 people for the program, which starts on Tuesday.”

A physician will be prescribing these pills, to be taken orally. Yet he knows that they will be crushed up and used in injection form. This person’s medical license should be revoked.

You are worried about a toxic drug supply on the street? Did it cross your mind that perhaps these pills, when injected (again, not their intended form) may be toxic?

Still no mention of any treatment program. Instead, the public will be funding not only drugs for illicit purposes, but medical staff to “safely” administer?!?!

””This is safe. It’s effective. It’s cost effective. It reduces mortality, reduces crime — both violent crime and property crime — and it reduces the burden on taxpayers,” said MacDonald, who believes the facility’s pharmacy could distribute injectable doses for as many as 800 people across the region. ”

(a) It’s cost effective? How so? It forces the public to may both ”material and labour” to continue a drug addict’s spiral?

(b) It reduces crime? Perhaps, if you view legalizing illicit drug use as a form of reducing crime, you are correct, in a morbid sort of way.

(c) 800 people across the region? Does it occur to you that this will not stop people who have drug problems, rather, it will encourage others to get drugs for free.

(d) Still no mention of any plan to get these addicts back into society.

“‘Safe supply’
Sutherland’s life has taken a dramatic turn for the better since her overdose. She’s still a regular drug user, but for the past year and a half, she’s been injecting under supervision at Molson OPS

She quickly started volunteering there and now Sutherland’s on the payroll as a peer support worker. She’s taken part in reversing dozens of potentially fatal overdoses. She’s also found housing through PHS.

But despite the more stable life, the drugs have still put her in risky situations. Sutherland is hoping that will disappear if she’s accepted in the new ‘safe supply’ program.

“I’m hoping that once I get on the Dilly program, I won’t have to do that — I won’t have to go boost from stores — or steal from stores or sell things to get money to get drugs,” she said.

For her, she says, safe supply doesn’t just mean drugs that won’t contain unknown amounts of deadly fentanyl, it also means a drug supply that leads to a much safer lifestyle.”

(I) That is the end of the article, and not one mention about getting drug addicts any real sense of a life.

(II) No talk whatsoever about weaning them off drugs, or any long term treatment plan. It all seems to be about state-funded use forever.

(III) Okay, public pays for drugs, pays for medical staff, and now putting actual drug users on the payroll?

How is it that this is being allowed? All without any sort of public mandate?

Don’t get the wrong idea. People with drug problems do need to have them addressed. However, this is not the solution. Actual treatment is the solution, and getting them off the drugs is what we should be focusing on. Continuing to supply and fund hard drug use seems to be kicking the can down the road.

Every ”medical professional” involved in this needs to have their license revoked. This is blatant malpractice, and neglect for patient well being.

One final thought: could actual drug dealers take advantage of this? (Yes, this is being flippant), but the dealer wouldn’t be drug dealers, they would merely be practicing without a license.

Posted on

UN Special Rapporteur On The Human Rights Of Migrants

Since 2000 (and probably even longer), the UN has viewed migration as a human right. It explains why they are so pro-migration, and deliberately try to undermine national governments.

Annual reports are available for all to read.

Here is the text from the site:

Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants

Introduction

The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants was created in 1999 by the Commission on Human Rights, pursuant to resolution 1999/44. Since then, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur has been extended by Commission on Human Rights resolutions 2002/62 and 2005/47 and Human Rights Council resolutions 8/10, 17/12, 26/19, and 34/21 each for a period of three years.

With the reform to the UN human rights machinery in 2006, the newly established Human Rights Council was called upon to assume, review and, where necessary, improve and rationalize all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the former Commission on Human Rights. As a result, the Human Rights Council, through resolution 8/10 of 18 June 2008, strengthened the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and further extended it for a period of three years. This mandate was renewed by the Human Rights Council in resolution 17/12 of 10 June 2011, resolution 26/19 of 26 June 2014, and resolution 34/21 of 7 April 2017.

The mandate of the Special Rapporteur covers all countries, irrespective of whether a State has ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, of 18 December 1990.

The Special Rapporteur does not require the exhaustion of domestic remedies to act. When the facts in question come within the scope of more than one mandate established by the Commission, the Special Rapporteur may decide to approach other thematic mechanisms and country Rapporteurs with a view to sending joint communications or seeking joint missions.

The main functions of the Special Rapporteur are:

(a) To examine ways and means to overcome the obstacles existing to the full and effective protection of the human rights of migrants, recognizing the particular vulnerability of women, children and those undocumented or in an irregular situation;

(b) To request and receive information from all relevant sources, including migrants themselves, on violations of the human rights of migrants and their families;

(c) To formulate appropriate recommendations to prevent and remedy violations of the human rights of migrants, wherever they may occur;

(d) To promote the effective application of relevant international norms and standards on the issue;

(e) To recommend actions and measures applicable at the national, regional and international levels to eliminate violations of the human rights of migrants;

(f) To take into account a gender perspective when requesting and analysing information, and to give special attention to the occurrence of multiple forms of discrimination and violence against migrant women;

(g) To give particular emphasis to recommendations on practical solutions with regard to the implementation of the rights relevant to the mandate, including by identifying best practices and concrete areas and means for international cooperation;

(h) To report regularly to the Human Rights Council, according to its annual programme of work, and to the General Assembly,

In the discharge of these functions:

(a) The Special Rapporteur acts on information submitted to him regarding alleged violations of the human rights of migrants by sending urgent appeals and communications to concerned Governments to clarify and/or bring to their attention these cases. See Communications.

(b) The Special Rapporteur conducts country visits (also called fact-finding missions) upon the invitation of the Government, in order to examine the state of protection of the human rights of migrants in the given country. The Special Rapporteur submits a report of the visit to the Human Rights Council, presenting his findings, conclusions and recommendations. See Country Visits.

(c) The Special Rapporteur participates in conferences, seminars and panels on issues relating to the human rights of migrants as well as issues press releases.

(d) Annually, the Special Rapporteur, reports to the Human Rights Council about the global state of protection of migrants’ human rights, his main concerns and the good practices he has observed. In his report, the Special Rapporteur informs the Council of all the communications he has sent and the replies received from Governments. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur formulates specific recommendations with a view to enhancing the protection of the human rights of migrants. Upon request of the Human Rights Council the Special Rapporteur may also present reports to the General Assembly. See Annual Reports.

Furthermore, in September 2008, pursuant to Resolution 9/5, the Human Rights Council requested the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of Migrants, other special procedures of the Council and the High Commissioner for Human Rights to pay special attention to cases of arbitrary detention of migrants, particularly of migrant children and adolescents. Likewise, it encouraged the Special Rapporteur to continue to examine ways and means of overcoming obstacles to the full and effective protection of the human rights of migrants, including national and international efforts to combat the trafficking of persons and smuggling of migrants, in order to achieve a better comprehension of the phenomena and to avoid practices that could violate the human rights of migrants.
The Special Rapporteur also reports to the General Assembly.

Okay, let’s go through some of this.

“The mandate of the Special Rapporteur covers all countries, irrespective of whether a State has ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, of 18 December 1990.”

Doesn’t matter if you have signed on or not, the UN will stick its nose in your business.

“The Special Rapporteur does not require the exhaustion of domestic remedies to act. When the facts in question come within the scope of more than one mandate established by the Commission, the Special Rapporteur may decide to approach other thematic mechanisms and country Rapporteurs with a view to sending joint communications or seeking joint missions. “

Also doesn’t matter if you have tried to remedy the problem locally. The UN will still intervene on your behalf.

“(a) To examine ways and means to overcome the obstacles existing to the full and effective protection of the human rights of migrants, recognizing the particular vulnerability of women, children and those undocumented or in an irregular situation;”

The UN will protect the human rights of people migrating to another country, even those crossing illegally. Note: “irregular” or “undocumented” are just word games to gloss over the fact the person is coming illegally.

Of course, since the UN views migration as a human right, “illegal immigration” doesn’t really exist.

“(f) To take into account a gender perspective when requesting and analysing information, and to give special attention to the occurrence of multiple forms of discrimination and violence against migrant women;”

As a Canadian, one has to wonder about this. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau goes on and on about gender. Almost like he is a UN shill.

Also, why “take into account a gender perspective”? Shouldn’t the same human rights be applied to everyone?

“(g) To give particular emphasis to recommendations on practical solutions with regard to the implementation of the rights relevant to the mandate, including by identifying best practices and concrete areas and means for international cooperation; “

And what rights are those exactly? If someone is illegally immigrating (enough of the “undocumented” or “irregular” nonsense), what rights are they entitled to?

“(d) Annually, the Special Rapporteur, reports to the Human Rights Council about the global state of protection of migrants’ human rights, his main concerns and the good practices he has observed. In his report, the Special Rapporteur informs the Council of all the communications he has sent and the replies received from Governments. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur formulates specific recommendations with a view to enhancing the protection of the human rights of migrants. Upon request of the Human Rights Council the Special Rapporteur may also present reports to the General Assembly. See Annual Reports. “

Again, the idea that migration is to be globally managed, and that people entering a country illegally are to have human rights. It is this sort of nonsense that causes a nation to collapse.

Linked to this page are these annual reports. The United Nations has viewed migration as a human right since at least 2000, and probably a lot longer. Read through them,

There entire site should of course be analysed, but here is where the review ends. Once more, the UN demonstrates it has no respect for individual nations, and is trying to force mass migration on the Western World.

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #5: Resistance (And Borders) Are Futile

(CBC produces another “pro-illegal immigration” article)

Okay, securing borders is a tough job, so why even bother?

For my grandparents, divorce was unthinkable. My parents’ generation did that. For my parents’ generation, gay marriage was unthinkable. My generation did that. For my generation, more open borders is probably unthinkable. The next generation will do that.

An actual quote from the article.

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.
Okay, where to start with this gem? CLICK HERE, for the article itself.

“In 2015, there were 244 million international migrants — nearly seven times the population of Canada.
The total includes the more than 65 million people forcibly displaced from their homes by conflict and persecution. It is the highest number on record, surpassing even the years following WWII.
.
It also includes people whose homelands have cracked apart in earthquakes, withered in droughts or suffered through famines.
.
Some migrants are pushed from their homes by poverty and drawn to countries in the global north by the promise of a better life. Others cross borders to join their families or pursue an education.”

An interesting start. And some things we can take from it.

First, it says 244 million (yes, million) international migrants. That is absurd. But don’t worry, some globalist bodies (EU, UN) will force countries to take them in.

Second, there are 244 million “migrants”, yet only 65 million of them are “refugees”. Assuming, for the sake of argument that the numbers are correct, that would be 65 million refugees, and 179 million migrants. As percentages, those are 27% refugees, and the other 73% are migrants

Third, it lists natural disasters as reason to leave, but it seems unclear if these are “refugees” or migrants”. The article doesn’t specify.

Fourth, yes, many are drawn by: 1/ poverty; 2/ search of a better life; 3/ join families; or 4/ pursue an education. Those are called economic migrants, and moving to another country for those reasons is not considered a human right.

The numbers are going to keep growing. Researchers predict there could be 1 billion climate refugees by the middle of this century, and 2 billion by its end.

The CBC quotes this article, from Cornell University. Although the article provides no actual evidence for its claims, it does make many dire predictions

“Earth’s escalating population is expected to top 9 billion people by 2050 and climb to 11 billion people by 2100, according to a United Nations report. Feeding that population will require more arable land even as swelling oceans consume fertile coastal zones and river deltas, driving people to seek new places to dwell.”

Yes, predictions about rising sea levels submerging the land have been floated for decades. No evidence of it happening though.

For the last six years, Canadian lawyer François Crépeau has served as the United Nations’ leading investigator and expert on the human rights of migrants. His post put him on the frontlines of an international crisis, during some of the most challenging years in recent memory.

The CBC links this UN page. It will be done in another article. Bottom line, the UN views migration (even illegal immigration) as a human right.

“François Crépeau: I should start by saying that migration is part of humankind, of who we are. We were born as a species 250,000 years ago in Africa. We came out of Africa around 70,000 years ago, arrived in Australia 60,000 years ago when there was a land bridge, entered Europe 40,000 years ago when the ice retreated, and entered North America between 20 and 25,000 years ago.

Since then, we’ve moved around all the time. We are a migrating animal species. The numbers are high today, but they represent on average 3 per cent of the world population. We’re told by anthropologists and sociologists that this was the proportion 50 years ago, and this was the proportion 100 years ago. [Migration] is the constant of who we are.

The problem we’re facing today, what we call a crisis, is because we invented — about 400 to 500 years ago — borders. We implemented borders in the second half of the 19th century when we invented the passport. So for the past 200 years, we’ve had this idea that we should stop people at borders, but 200 years is very little as compared to 250,000 years.”

Nice history lesson, but where we were 250,000 years ago, or 20,000 years ago is irrelevant. He makes an argument since that because humans have moved around for centuries, that actual borders and border enforcement are a strange an abhorrent concept.

He either doesn’t get (or pretends not to get) that borders and nations are what allows societies to function. People united by heritage, language, culture, traditions, and yes, ethnicity have formed the basis of societies for a very, VERY long time. Though the concept of a nation-state is newer, the principles behind it are not.

“Michael Enright: This is the whole idea of the sovereign state — that sovereignty allows nation states to control their borders and keep people out.

It’s been said to be one of the attributes of state sovereignty, but it’s never happened. All borders are porous and democratic borders are more porous than others. Even the Soviet Union had porous borders. At that time, the people we called the smugglers and we present as terrible criminals today were actually helping people getting out of USSR, and we called them heroes.”

Yes, borders are porous, but they “shouldn’t” be. They exist for a purpose: to be a barrier and an outside limit for that nation.

“I think states have to accept that borders are not meant to stop everyone they would like to stop. Borders may mean knowing who enters and stays in the country. In order to get that knowledge, you have to have people come to border guards so that they can be identified, numbered, etc. In order to do that you have to provide them with papers. If you try to stop everyone you don’t like, the only thing you do is you create underground markets for smugglers.

A question of terminology here: what’s the difference between a refugee and migrant?
.
‘Refugee’ is defined in the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees. It’s someone who is outside his or her country of origin and fears persecution for five reasons: race, religion, nationality, belonging to a particular social group, and political opinions.

Refugees are a kind of migrant. But there are many other people who do not fear persecution or who fear many other things: people who are fleeing drought, tsunamis, poverty. These are good reasons to try to move somewhere else. This is a social stress, and migration has always been a human answer to social stress. It’s going to continue, and we have to adapt to that rather than try to refuse it.”

(1) Okay, this person flat out says that borders are not meant to stop everyone. Yeah, that “is” what they are for.

(2) If you stop everyone you don’t like, you create underground markets for smugglers? Sure, if someone isn’t allowed it, for whatever reason, just pay someone to smuggle them in.

(3) “Providing papers” is standard practice when you show up at a foreign border. Border guards need to know who people are, and whether they are admissible or not.

(4) Yes, refugees are something different than migrant, but throughout this article, you blur the lines. You don’t seem to care if they are fleeing some legitimate horror, or are just looking for a better life.

(5) “fleeing drought, tsunamis, poverty”? Poverty isn’t a natural disaster, and none of these are legitimate reasons to be considered a refugee. It is just blurring the lines here.

“In the last six years, in your position with the UN, you’ve travelled around the world. You’ve visited detention centres, camps, places where people try to cross borders. What stands out in your mind now from those visits?

I was expecting this to be very grim. And what stood out from day one, when visiting detention centres or camps, was the sheer determination, the grit, the courage of those people — the fact that even if they were detained, in their mind they were already somewhere else. They were already in the next step of their journey. They might be sent back home, but they would come back.

They are going to come whether we like it or not, because this is what humankind has always done. They are going to try to find a place where they can thrive, flourish, feed their kids and educate their kids. They don’t do it, often, because they like it. They do it because that’s where the future lies for themselves and their families.”

This is creepy. There is almost an awe that these migrants — attempting to enter illegally — will just keep trying again and again. And in the next paragraph, reiterating that it is people looking for a better life. Economic migrants, not refugees.

“Some countries have responded to this influx of refugees and migrants into Europe by trying to close their borders. You say there’s no such thing as a fully sealed border.

I mean, you can seal a border that deflects migration to other weak points along the border, but borders are very long. I suppose you could put a soldier every 10 meters with orders to shoot on sight. Democracies don’t do that, really.

If you try to stop [migration], the only thing you’re creating is an underground market for criminals. That’s what’s happened with the prohibition era between Canada and the U.S. We made the fortune of several Montreal families. That’s what’s happening with 40 years of the war on drugs. The cartels are not cowed, and are deadlier than ever.”

The pattern throughout the article is that people have the right to migrate — wherever, whenever, however — they want. There is no sympathy shown for the host nations who are forced to provide costs for security. No sympathy for the housing, education, health care, etc… that these open border policies force on host nations.

It is undemocratic to defend your border? Does a nation just “give up” enforcement if the illegal immigrants are determined to cross?

This is the same kind of nonsensical arguments that “safe injection sites” are founded on: provide for these people, otherwise, they will hurt themselves. Selfish.

This is not really surprising to read though. The UN has made it clear repeatedly that it DOES NOT respect national borders.

“But do nations have a moral responsibility to take in migrants?
.
I don’t think it’s a question of moral responsibility. It’s a question of facing the facts. Migrants are going to come.

Migrations occur because of push and pull factors. We very often discuss the push factors — environmental catastrophes, violence, war, economic deprivation. We never talk about the pull factors.

The main pull factor for countries in the global north is that we have huge labour markets that need those migrants. The undocumented migrants we have in Canada and Europe and the U.S., they all work. They all perform economic functions and there are millions of employers ready to employ them.”

A bit of honesty here. He says screw morality.

But that is where the honesty ends. True, there are many who do work, but there are many more (especially from the Middle East and Africa), who do not work, and are an economic burden.

Furthermore, there is no mention of the damage done to host nations, even by those working. A huge influx of workers leads to more competition for jobs, drives down wages, and often sees citizens being replaced in favour of cheap foreign labour.

“What about the suggestion that migrants coming into my country will somehow change or subvert the common culture?

That’s often heard. It’s not supported by social science. The biggest changes in our culture are linked to generational changes.. For my grandparents, divorce was unthinkable. My parents’ generation did that. For my parents’ generation, gay marriage was unthinkable. My generation did that. For my generation, more open borders is probably unthinkable. The next generation will do that.

Changes in values are much more important because of the passage of time — because we react to what our parents did — than by people coming in. We haven’t seen a change in democratic values because we had millions of people coming from undemocratic countries.”

Finally a good question, but the answers are chilling

(1) The speaker is either not aware, or deliberately lying, about mass migration changing the culture. Particularly with Islamic immigration, there is nothing but culture clash and violence.

(2) The speaker says he believes open borders will become a reality.

“Isn’t there an argument to be put forward that countries like France or Sweden have found it very difficult to integrate migrants into the common culture?

No one ever said that welcoming migrants was easy. It’s always been difficult. There are ways of making it easier — putting people in language courses very early on, training, trying to have mechanisms so that the skills and experience they have can be translated into Canadian experience and skills.

Countries like France have had migrants for generations. But in the post-war period they have turned a complete blind eye to integration, because all those migrant workers of the 50s, 60s and 70s were supposed to go back home, and France never realised that they would stay. So integration was not part of the process.

You have a marginalized community if you don’t have proper integration policies. Now, that is true for migrants. But that is true for Roma people in in Europe. That is true for Aboriginal people in Canada. That is true for poor people in most of our cities. It’s true for older people. Integration is not simply an immigration problem; it’s a social problem that we collectively have for several communities who are excluded from the mainstream.”

Notice that again there is no concern for the host countries now forced to deal with many thousands of “migrants”.

But an interesting point, you need proper integration. But if people are just going to migrate anyway, then all of this is cast aside. Again, it is selfish to just force these burdens on host countries.

And this is to say nothing of Islam, which rejects assimilation, and attempts to conquer and dominate anyway, via mass migration. Let’s be clear, Islam is a political ideology, not a religion.

“What about the argument of politicians and people who say, well, embedded in the intake of migrants, there may be terrorists who pose a threat to my individual and national security?

That’s true. There are bad apples in every community. There are bad apples in our communities who have been here for several centuries, and there are bad people in Aboriginal communities, and there are bad people in immigrant communities. That exists. It’s true. So, we could exclude everyone, try to prevent everyone from coming.

The issue is, if you talk to anti-terrorism people, they are not interested in migration policies, and they will tell you as much. Migration policy, stopping everyone at the border, it doesn’t give [them] any information on the precise person who poses a danger. To identify a person who poses danger, this is intelligence, and intelligence means groundwork with communities. Most terrorist attacks in the global north have been done by people who were either born or integrated in those countries.”

Going out of the way to miss the point. Should we not bother with borders and screening at all then, since bad apples have gotten through? Moreover, if we can determine who is not a good fit, then it makes it more likely to prevent their radicalised children from becoming a threat to the public.

“How young would they be, the ones that are alone?
.
Most of them are between 13 and 18. You have a very small minority who are younger, sometimes 9, 10, 11. They are often not those who are found on boats, because they simply don’t have the social capital to be able to negotiate that. But they will be found, for example, trying to cross into the U.S. from Mexico.

The older ones, 13 to 18 — this is an age where you become an adult in many societies. So we consider them as children, and they are in terms of their development, but certainly they don’t take the responsibilities of children. They take the responsibilities of adults. In countries like Afghanistan, where often the men have disappeared due to conflict, the oldest boy at 14 or 15 becomes the man of the family and does what it takes.”

Actually, there have been many cases of adult men claiming to be boys for 2 reasons: 1/ harder to deport; and 2/ more generous welfare. It has gotten so bad in Europe they started doing bone scans to better estimate ages.

“How much of the resistance to migration, to migrants, to refugees, is simple old-fashioned bigotry or racism? When you hear David Cameron, the former British prime minister, talking about migrants as a “swarm” and then his foreign secretary calls them “marauding” and, of course, we know what the current president of the United States thinks — how much of that is just pure racism?

I think racism and bigotry is a great percentage of the populist nationalist discourse on migration, and we have to understand why it’s possible.

We’ve had bigotry, racism and discrimination against all marginalized groups in society forever. The Jews, the Roma, women, Aboriginals. I mean, you name them. Slowly these people started fighting back, claiming their rights as equal citizens. Industrial workers fought back, and women fought back, and Indigenous people fought back. Gays and lesbians fought back.

It’s only when they started coming out and saying publicly, “we’re not going to take it anymore,” that politicians started changing their tune and stopping doing sexist jokes — well, they still do sexist jokes, but in much less quantity than when I was young.

This is not going to happen anytime soon for migrants. They don’t vote. They have no influence on politicians whatsoever, and they don’t participate in the public debates. Normally you would make policies with the people concerned. Try to imagine policies about women made by committees of men, as it was done 100 years ago. Today it would sound ludicrous. Well, migration policies are made by people who are not migrants and have no idea what migration means in most countries.”

(a) Folks, if you oppose mass illegal migration, chances are it is because you are a racist and a bigot.

(b) Illegal immigrants are just another discriminated against group? Really?

(c) Illegal immigrants don’t vote in Canada — yet. But there are moves being made to change that.

(d) They don’t influence or participate in debate? Have you turned on a TV lately?

Final Thoughts
This review doesn’t cover every passage. However, it is disturbing: CBC, our state funded broadcaster airing a speaker who blatantly promotes open borders.

He is not pushed or challenged on his beliefs. Nor are the demands and consequences imposed on the Canadian (or other host nation) explored. Remember, The public will be the ones footing the bill for this mass migration.

There seems to be little concern for: 1/ medical screening; 2/ police screening; 3/ state security screening; 4/ language abilities; 5/ cultural compatibility; or general employment prospects. The entire article is written though the lens of those wishing — no demanding — access to whatever country they wish. Remember this quote:

For my grandparents, divorce was unthinkable. My parents’ generation did that. For my parents’ generation, gay marriage was unthinkable. My generation did that. For my generation, more open borders is probably unthinkable. The next generation will do that.

National sovereignty be damned.

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #4: More On The “Wage Gap”

(CBC Promoting The Long Debunked “Wage Gap”)

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.

CBC released this article, today, but included in the references is this article. This review includes them both.

“A new report on the highest-paid CEOs adds evidence to the argument that women face a “double-pane glass ceiling” at the top of Canada’s corporate ladder — first in getting to the executive suite and, once there, earning as much as their male counterparts.
.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) calculates that of the more than 1,200 named executive officers (NEOs) at 249 publicly traded companies in Canada, women earn about 68 cents for every dollar made by their male counterparts.
.
The study says the gap closes to 86 cents when looking at the wages of women and men in senior manager roles, almost in line with the country’s overall pay gap of 87 cents based on Statistics Canada calculations.”

The article will provide no evidence for this claim of a “double-pane glass ceiling” at all. Some actual proof of this claim would be nice.

Interestingly, this article links an older CBC article, see below, which makes the claim that the earnings gap between men and women is explained largely by different personal choices, such as 1/ family life; 2/ employment path; and 3/ education choices.

“The author of the report says the findings, while focused on the executive level where pay is already high, point to a larger equity issue.
.
CEOs make 197 times pay of average worker
.
“This is certainly about executives — that’s what we’re looking at — but I think it’s reflective of what’s happening throughout corporate Canada and the difficulties that women face in getting a fair shake even if they do have the qualifications,” said David Macdonald, the centre’s senior economist.
.
The findings are attached to the left-leaning centre’s annual report on the salaries of Canada’s highest-paid CEOs, who are estimated to earn what an average worker makes in a year by the time lunch rolls around Wednesday.
A review of corporate filings of publicly traded companies shows the top CEOs earned an average of $10 million in 2017, the most recent year available, or about 197 times more than the average worker.”

The report is focused on executive level, where pay is already high, which points to a larger equity issue?!

Do they mean “equality”, which is equal opportunity?

No, they mean “equity”, which is equal outcome

No evidence is provided that women don’t “receive a fair shake” in the corporate world. Again, if you are going to make such claims, back them up.

Yes, CEOs typically make far, far more than the average worker. But that is not proof of discrimination. With this equity push, is this a roundabout argument in favour of communism?

“”But this supposedly more competitive job market is not yielding markedly higher average wages, and ordinary workers aren’t gaining on CEOs,” the report says.
.
An earlier analysis by The Canadian Press that’s cited in the centre’s report found a similar gender gap among the country’s top 60 publicly traded companies. The review of records for 312 NEOs showed only 25 women and they earned an average of 64 cents for every dollar made by male counterparts.”

Once more, merely stating that there are differences is not proof of any discrimination. This article doesn’t seem to account for different industries, length of service, or profitability.

Interviews with about a dozen executives revealed a range of reasons.

Okay, before going any further, it needs to be pointed out: 12 is a low number.

“Old boys’ club hiring
.
They told The Canadian Press about how companies rely on the “old boys’ club” for executive searches. They also spoke about how outdated — and unchallenged — corporate culture in some companies leave women out of top jobs or fail to provide workplace support. The executives also mentioned a lack of confidence and risk-taking among women, an issue highlighted in academic research on executive pay.
.
Macdonald’s report zeros in on three issues:
.
[1] Few women are CEOs — about four per cent of Canadian CEOs and 10 per cent of top executives are women — where pay is the highest.
.
[2] “Performance pay” given to top executives — stock, stock options or cash rewards based on how a company performs — is predominantly higher for men than women. Eliminating bonus pay from the equation shrinks the gap to 82 cents, or almost the gap in the wider workforce.
.
[3] Companies with more women in executive ranks tend to be smaller organizations, and therefore pay less than their larger counterparts, Macdonald said.”

These sections actually largely refute the claims given above.

No workplace support? That is unfortunate, but if you are a senior officer or CEO of a company, then that company effectively is your life. Doubtful men get much support either.

The first reason given — few women are CEOs or executives — is not proof of any bias. This article does not detail any difference in education, work experience, or family or personal circumstances that might genuinely explain why women are not getting involved in high level business.

The second reason given — performance pay — is not discrimination. If a company does better, then it’s top staff will likely get bigger bonuses. Eliminating the bonus pay may shrink the “wage gap”, but it goes against free markets, and is a step towards communism.

The third reason given — women work for smaller companies — would be a valid justification to pay an executive less. Much harder for a smaller company to make the same payouts.

Rather than support the thesis, that there is a “double-pane glass ceiling” for women in business, other parts of the article suggest there are perfectly legitimate reasons women in top positions are earning less on average than men.

Further, this linked article provides a very reasonable explanation for the “wage gap”: men and women, on average, make different life choices. Sure, if we take free choice away, we could obtain wage parity.

“Securities legislation passed in 2017 created a “comply or explain” model for diversity on corporate boards, rather than setting quotas for the number of women, for instance. Macdonald’s report, citing a decade of data from Norway where quotas have increased the number of women on boards, suggests quotas aren’t the answer to closing the pay gap.”

Spoken too soon. There have been efforts to force social engineering on major companies, and the evidence still doesn’t show the difference disappearing.

“About a third of CEO pay is in the form of bonuses, supposedly tied to stock prices, and another quarter is in the form of stock options.
.
The CCPA argues this has the effect of promoting short-term thinking that boosts stock prices, but is not necessarily good management.
.
“With so much of CEO total pay being variable and related to short-term stock price fluctuations, there is a strong incentive to forego long-term investments that may depress present-day profits in favour of short-term decisions, like under-investment, that will boost current profits and stock prices,” the report says.”

This seems to reinforce the earlier suggestion that men in charge of companies have companies that perform better. This may be a knock against capitalism itself, but at no point does it show evidence for the “double-pane glass ceiling” that is keeping women down.

Perhaps there are other factors that explain the “wage gap”.

Men Are Killed More At Work

CLICK HERE, for the recent Bureau of Labor Statistics (US) released in the U.S. on December 18.

Look on page 4, specifically on the divide on gender and occupational injury resulting in death. There were listings for 2016 and 2017 on a per-capita basis (per 100,000 people). Note: it excluded: 1/ children under 16 years of age; 2/ volunteers; and 3/ military personnel.

2016, for women there were 387 deaths per 100,000 workers,
2016, for men there were 4,803 deaths per 100,000 workers.

2017, for women there were 386 deaths per 100,000 workers.
2017, for men there were 4761 deaths per 100,000 workers.

From this, we can determine that men were 12.4 times more likely to be killed at work than women in 2016, and 12.3 times more likely in 2017. At least this is the case in the U.S.

Men Work In More Physical And Dangerous Jobs

CLICK HERE, for a Bureau of Labor Statistic release in 1995. Most of the physical and dangerous jobs are ones with a majority of men.

Men Work More Hours

CLICK HERE, for the actual link.

This one, citing a 2007 data collection, showed men working on average 39.5 hours per week, while woman worked 33.2 hours per week.

CLICK HERE, for another StatsCan graph showing overtime. An interesting split, men were more likely to work “paid” overtime, while women were more likely to work “unpaid” overtime.

Men And Women Have Different Work Patterns
We could go on endlessly about the differences in work, work type, overtime, and danger. However, the data is clear from the research available. These are just a few data sets chosen, from Statistics Canada and the BLS in the United States.

Despite being regularly debunked, the “wage gap” is still thrown around as if there is actually some human right.

Yes, there are difference in how much men and women are paid. But there are legitimate reasons for those differences.

Posted on

What If Bill C-16 Took Effect Outside of Canada?

(Never mind. It already has in some places.)

1. Canada’s Bill C-16

CLICK HERE, for an earlier article on amending both the Canadian Criminal Code and Human Rights Code for ”gender identity or expression”.

2. New York City

CLICK HERE, for the link to the NYC Human Rights Commission.

The document is a very long one, but let’s start with the first topic: misnaming or misgendering someoneone.

1. Failing To Use an Individual’s Preferred Name or Pronoun
.
The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.
.
Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. 10 Many transgender and gender non-conforming people choose to use a different name than the one they were given at birth.
.
All people, including employees, tenants, customers, and participants in programs, have the right to use their preferred name regardless of whether they have identification in that name or have obtained a court-ordered name change, except in very limited circumstances where certain federal, state, or local laws require otherwise (e.g., for purposes of employment eligibility verification with the federal government). Asking someone their preferred gender pronoun and preferred name is not a violation of the NYCHRL

And the penalties for this?

IV. PENALTIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

The Commission can impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct. The amount of a civil penalty will be guided by the following factors, among others:

The severity of the particular violation;
The existence of previous or subsequent violations;
The employer’s size, considering both the total number of employees and its revenue; and
The employer’s actual or constructive knowledge of the NYCHRL.
These penalties are in addition to the other remedies available to people who successfully resolve or prevail on claims under the NYCHRL, including, but not limited to, back and front pay, along with other compensatory and punitive damages. The Commission may consider the lack of an adequate anti-discrimination policy as a factor in determining liability, assessing damages, and mandating certain affirmative remedies.

Yes, a potential $250,000 fine for misgendering someone.

Incidently, New York now recognizes 31 genders. Not a joke.

3. California Senate Bill 219

CLICK HERE, for the text of SB 219

1439.50. For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
.
(a) “Gender expression” has the same meaning as defined in Section 51 of the Civil Code.
.
(b) “Gender identity” means a person’s identity based on the individual’s stated gender identity, without regard to whether the self-identified gender accords with the individual’s physical appearance, surgical history, genitalia, legal sex, sex assigned at birth, or name and sex, as it appears in medical records, and without regard to any contrary statement by any other person, including a family member, conservator, or legal representative. An individual who lacks the present ability to communicate his or her gender identity shall retain the gender identity most recently expressed by that individual.

Existing law, the California Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of residential care facilities for the elderly by the State Department of Social Services. Under existing law, a person who violates the act, or who willfully or repeatedly violates any rule or regulation adopted under the act, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law also provides for civil penalties for a violation of the act.

So, just in case you are wondering, yes, it would be an actual offence. To be fair, it is being challenged in court.

4. Australia

CLICK HERE, got the tedious guidelines for awarding costs.

CLICK HERE, for the section on gender identity.

The Commission recognises that terminology can have a profound impact on a person’s identity, self-worth and inherent dignity. The use of inclusive and acceptable terminology empowers individuals and enables visibility of important issues.
.
The Commission supports the right of people to identify their sexual orientation and sex and/or gender as they choose. The Commission also recognises that terminology is strongly contested, particularly terminology to describe sex and/or gender identity. The consultation revealed that there is no clear consensus on what is appropriate terminology in this area.
.
This report uses the phrase ‘gender identity’ in two specific contexts. First, international human rights discourse often uses the phrase gender identity. Second, many state and territory laws use a variation of this phrase. As a result, the phrase ‘gender identity’ is used when referring to international human rights agreements or state and territory laws.
.
This report also frequently uses the phrase ‘sex and/or gender identity’. This term is used to refer to the whole spectrum of sex and/or gender in our community. It aims to include all people regardless of whether they identify within or outside of the binary gender.

5. New Zealand

CLICK HERE, for the list of things you can complain about.

The Human Rights Act 1993 makes it unlawful to discriminate based on:
.
Sex – includes pregnancy and childbirth, and discrimination against transgender and intersex people because of their sex or gender identity.
Marital status – includes marriages and civil unions that have ended.
Religious belief – not limited to traditional or mainstream religions.
Ethical belief – not having a religious belief.
Colour, race, or ethnic or national origins – includes nationality or citizenship.
Disability – including physical, psychiatric, intellectual or psychological disability or illness.
Age – people are protected from age discrimination if they are over 16 years old.
Political opinion – including not having a political opinion.
Employment status – being unemployed, on a benefit or on ACC. It does not include being employed or being on national superannuation.
Family status – includes not being responsible for children or other dependants.
Sexual orientation – being heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian or bisexual.
These grounds apply to a person’s past, present or assumed circumstances. For example, it is unlawful to discriminate against someone because they have a mental illness, had one in the past, or someone assumes they have a mental illness.
.
The prohibited grounds for discrimination are covered in detail in part two of the Human Rights Act.

6. Europe

The ECHR refers to the European Court of Human Rights

CLICK HERE, for some decisions over the years.

CLICK HERE, for an ECHR guidebook.

ARTICLE 8

Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family
life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
of others

However, this is the same ECHR that upheld Islamic blasphemy law in Austria.

7. More Nonsense

CLICK HERE, for an absurd article that tries to erase biology altogether.

Note: While laws and punishments do vary, this stupidity is pushing the limits of tolerance and accomodation. It causes people to be openly contrarian, especially when discussion of these topics leads to stigmatizaion.

While there is legitimate concern and sympathy for trans-people, laws like these have the unintended consequence of being weaponized against undeserving targets.

Even open minded people are sick of it.

Posted on

CCS #2: The Paris Accord: A Giant Wealth Transfer Scheme

(The great climate change “wealth transfer”)

1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

CLICK HERE, for #1: major lies the climate frauds tell.

Yes, the UN Global Migration Compact is a secretive scheme drawn up by globalist leaders to erase nations borders and destroy our societies. But that is not the only evil plot the U.N. works on. Another is a “virtue signalling” scheme to tax pollution out of existence.

CLICK HERE, for some background information on an earlier article on the climate change scam.

CLICK HERE, for a copy of the actual Paris Agreement.

2. Pointing Out The Obvious

First, this needs to be said right away: it is entirely disingenuous to hold these annual conventions. Tens of thousands of people are flown in from all corners of the globe. They create a massive carbon footprint, to attend seminars about limiting greenhouse gases. We are in the age of the internet and video conferencing.

Second, climate change is an urgent matter, but we hold annual conventions. As soon as the first one wraps up, begin planning for the next one. Doesn’t sound very urgent.

Third, even if all parties had to meet, why bring a delegation of thousands of people? Why not send just a handful of people instead? Practice what you preach.

Fourth, when the U.N. talks about “greenhouse gases”, they include carbon dioxide, which is used as plant food (along with water) for photosynthesis to generate sugars and other complex molecules. Why lie and call it pollution.

Fifth, all of these predictions are based on computer modelling. In modelling, you input some data, using a certain algorithm, and the computer spits out a prediction. These are predictions, not actual evidence and are extremely unreliable.

Sixth, even if you disregard all of the above, one question still has to be asked. How does taxing “greenhouse gases” actually result in less of them? (Short of killing your economy of course).

Seventh, for all of you who keep deflecting concerns saying this is “not legally binding”, take note.
Catherine McKenna says that consumers will be billed for “pollution”.

Here, McKenna says they are “just guidelines”.

Here, McKenna says they are “rules nations are expected to follow“.

Here, McKenna says targets “may become law in the future“. How long until the same is said about the UN Global Migration Compact?

Okay, now that the obvious questions are addressed, let’s go through the text of the Paris Agreement for the most important sections. Quotes are in blocks, responses in regular text.

3. Text Of The Paris Accord

In pursuit of the objective of the Convention, and being guided by its principles, including the principle of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances,

Okay, this word salad is confusing. But should it interpreted that nations will be held to different standards?

Also recognizing the specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, as provided for in the Convention,

Taking full account of the specific needs and special situations of the least developed countries with regard to funding and transfer of technology,

The specific needs and special situations…. with regard to funding and transfer of technology? So, this is not only about handing over money. What equipment or technology will be supplied as well?

Taking into account the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationally defined development priorities,

Acknowledging that climate change is a common concern of humankind, Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity,

This reads like some leftist checklist:
-indigenous people;
-local communities;
-migrants;
-children;
-persons with disabilities,
-gender equality;
-empowerment of women;
-intergenerational equity (not equality, equity, as in equal outcome)

Is the Paris Agreement about protecting the environment or pandering to identity groups?

Noting the importance of ensuring the integrity of all ecosystems, including oceans, and the protection of biodiversity, recognized by some cultures as Mother Earth, and noting the importance for some of the concept of “climate justice”, when taking action to address climate change,

This is very worrying. The Paris Accord notes the “importance of climate justice”, without actually defining what it is. What if someone wants to cause violence or destruction in the name of “justice”? Or is an economy-killing carbon tax considered “climate justice”?

Affirming the importance of education, training, public awareness, public participation, public access to information and cooperation at all levels on the matters addressed in this Agreement,

Recognizing the importance of the engagements of all levels of government and various actors, in accordance with respective national legislations of Parties, in addressing climate change,

These passages sound great, but elected leaders are intent on ignoring the population. Of course, when “opposition parties” support much the same thing, voters get screwed.

Article 2

1. This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by:

(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.

2. This Agreement will be implemented to reflect equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances.

Making “finance flows” consistent? This isn’t a joke — Paris Accord really is a wealth transfer scam. And as suggested before, there will be double standards, so environmental protection obviously isn’t important.

Article 3

As nationally determined contributions to the global response to climate change, all Parties are to undertake and communicate ambitious efforts as defined in Articles 4, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 13 with the view to achieving the purpose of this Agreement as set out in Article 2. The efforts of all Parties will represent a progression over time, while recognizing the need to support developing country Parties for the effective implementation of this Agreement.

All parties are to undertake? Almost sounds like a binding legal agreement. Article 3 references an ambitious plan, consistent with Article #2 (wealth transfer and double standards). The efforts will represent a progression over time? Seems like there will be a followup treaty, or 2, to come.

Article 4

4. Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets. Developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts, and are encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances.

5. Support shall be provided to developing country Parties for the implementation of this Article, in accordance with Articles 9, 10 and 11, recognizing that enhanced support for developing country Parties will allow for higher ambition in their actions.

6. The least developed countries and small island developing States may prepare and communicate strategies, plans and actions for low greenhouse gas emissions development reflecting their special circumstances.

7. Mitigation co-benefits resulting from Parties’ adaptation actions and/or economic diversification plans can contribute to mitigation outcomes under this Article.

-Economy wide reductions, economy be damned
-Give money to developing nations
-Other nations have different rules
-Rules for “mitigation”

Article 5

1. Parties should take action to conserve and enhance, as appropriate, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases as referred to in Article 4, paragraph 1 (d), of the Convention, including forests.

2. Parties are encouraged to take action to implement and support, including through results-based payments, the existing framework as set out in related guidance and decisions already agreed under the Convention for: policy approaches and positive incentives for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries; and alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests, while reaffirming the importance of incentivizing, as appropriate, non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches.

Okay, more money transferred from one state to another if certain targets are met.

Article 6

1. Parties recognize that some Parties choose to pursue voluntary cooperation in the implementation of their nationally determined contributions to allow for higher ambition in their mitigation and adaptation actions and to promote sustainable development and environmental integrity.

2. Parties shall, where engaging on a voluntary basis in cooperative approaches that involve the use of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes towards nationally determined contributions, promote sustainable development and ensure environmental integrity and transparency, including in governance, and shall apply robust accounting to ensure, inter alia, the avoidance of double counting, consistent with guidance adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement.

Some parties choose to pursue voluntary cooperation in their nationally determined contributions? Again, almost like this is legally binding.

Article 9: MOST IMPORTANT

1. Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention.

2. Other Parties are encouraged to provide or continue to provide such support voluntarily.

3. As part of a global effort, developed country Parties should continue to take the lead in mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels, noting the significant role of public funds, through a variety of actions, including supporting country-driven strategies, and taking into account the needs and priorities of developing country Parties. Such mobilization of climate finance should represent a progression beyond previous efforts.

4. The provision of scaled-up financial resources should aim to achieve a balance between adaptation and mitigation, taking into account country-driven strategies, and the priorities and needs of developing country Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change and have significant capacity constraints, such as the least developed countries and small island developing States, considering the need for public and grant-based resources for adaptation.

5. Developed country Parties shall biennially communicate indicative quantitative and qualitative information related to paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Article, as applicable, including, as available, projected levels of public financial resources to be provided to developing country Parties. Other Parties providing resources are encouraged to communicate biennially such information on a voluntary basis.

6. The global stock take referred to in Article 14 shall take into account the relevant information provided by developed country Parties and/or Agreement bodies on efforts related to climate finance.

7. Developed country Parties shall provide transparent and consistent information on support for developing country Parties provided and mobilized through public interventions biennially in accordance with the modalities, procedures and guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement, at its first session, as stipulated in Article 13, paragraph 13. Other Parties are encouraged to do so.

8. The Financial Mechanism of the Convention, including its operating entities, shall serve as the financial mechanism of this Agreement.

9. The institutions serving this Agreement, including the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention, shall aim to ensure efficient access to financial resources through simplified approval procedures and enhanced readiness support for developing country Parties, in particular for the least developed countries and small island developing States, in the context of their national climate strategies and plans.

To summarize Article #9
1/ Developed nations “will” support financially
2/ Other nations “encouraged” to support financially
3/ Developed nations shall be innovative in how they finance
4/ Small/island nations shall get more money
5/ Make public how much money is available
6/ This will be reviewed in 5 years time
7/ Guidelines to be adopted (mandatory?)
8/ Funding mechanism of convention to be used in agreement
9/ Cut the red tape for how/when to send money

Article 12

Parties shall cooperate in taking measures, as appropriate, to enhance climate change education, training, public awareness, public participation and public access to information, recognizing the importance of these steps with respect to enhancing actions under this Agreement.

1/ Enhance climate change education
2/ [Climate Change] Training
3/ Public awareness
4/ Recognizing the importance of these steps

This sounds a bit like “Objective 17”, of the UN Global Migration Compact, which aims to promote a certain point of view, and discourage viewpoints deemed “offensive”, by shutting it down and pulling funding.

Article 15

1. A mechanism to facilitate implementation of and promote compliance with the provisions of this Agreement is hereby established.

2. The mechanism referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall consist of a committee that shall be expert-based and facilitative in nature and function in a manner that is transparent, non-adversarial and non-punitive. The committee shall pay particular attention to the respective national capabilities and circumstances of Parties.

3. The committee shall operate under the modalities and procedures adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement at its first session and report annually to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement.

A committee to facilitate implementation and promote compliance? Almost as if this were a binding legal agreement. Wait, can’t be the case. We have been repeatedly told it is “non-binding”.

Article 21

1. This Agreement shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date on which at least 55 Parties to the Convention accounting in total for at least an estimated 55 per cent of the total global greenhouse gas emissions have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

2. Solely for the limited purpose of paragraph 1 of this Article, “total global greenhouse gas emissions” means the most up-to-date amount communicated on or before the date of adoption of this Agreement by the Parties to the Convention.

3. For each State or regional economic integration organization that ratifies, accepts or approves this Agreement or accedes thereto after the conditions set out in paragraph 1 of this Article for entry into force have been fulfilled, this Agreement shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of deposit by such State or regional economic integration organization of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

4. For the purposes of paragraph 1 of this Article, any instrument deposited by a regional economic integration organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by its member States.

Despite being “non-binding”, this Article states over and over again that it “comes into force”.

Article 24

The provisions of Article 14 of the Convention on settlement of disputes shall apply mutatis mutandis to this Agreement.

Settlement of disputes? Wow, almost like the Paris Agreement is legally binding.

Article 28

1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.

2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.

3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Agreement.

So, this is a “non-binding” agreement, but after 3 years we may give notice of one more year to leave?

4. Summary Of Agreement

Article 2 — Finance flow
Article 3 — All parties are to undertake
Article 4 — Economic modification
Article 5 — Rewards based money transfer
Article 6 — Sort of non-binding
Article 9 — Wealth transfer program
Article 12 — Media promotion
Article 15 — Promoting compliance
Article 21 — Agreement does come into force
Article 24 — Mechanism for dispute resolution
Article 28 — After 3 years, you can give notice to leave

This article does not cover every point, but readers are encouraged to read the entire thing for themselves.

For those in the more “conservative” leaning spheres, it seems ridiculous the idea that the Paris Accord can be endorsed without actually implementing any sort of “carbon tax” or other “secret taxes”. The text itself, particularly Articles 2, 4, 5 and 9 make it clear that wealth transfer is a major part of the Agreement.

But don’t worry, there will be another summit in 2019. There we can fly in another 20,000 to 40,000 delegates for a 3 day conference. Then another in 2020, 2021, 2022, etc…