Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shakes hands in a recent meeting with Iran’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif (Global)
February 21, 2020
B’nai Brith Canada
OTTAWA – B’nai Brith Canada has filed a lawsuit against the federal government, citing its failure to comply with a motion to list Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), in its entirety, as a terrorist organization.
The action, specifically launched against both the government and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, comes about five weeks after B’nai Brith, the Council of Iranian Canadians and the Justice 88 Campaign publicly urged the implementation of a motion passed by the House of Commons in June of 2018.
“We made it clear last month that no further delays by the government would be accepted by Canadians,” said Michael Mostyn, Chief Executive Officer of B’nai Brith Canada. “Unfortunately, there is no alternative at this point to legal recourse. It is intolerable that 20 months have elapsed since this important motion passed, and no action has been taken by our government to implement it.
“The IRGC poses a very serious security threat to Canadians. Listing it as a terrorist entity in this country is necessary to deter this threat and reduce its ability to do harm.”
The lawsuit, B’nai Brith Senior Legal Counsel David Matas explained, asks the Court to respond to the request B’nai Brith has made to list the IRGC as a terrorist entity.
The IRGC was responsible for last month’s downing of a civilian airplane in Tehran, killing 57 Canadians and another 81 people who were travelling to Canada.
It is tasked with protecting Iran’s brutal Islamist dictatorship and supporting its international terrorist proxies. Its principle objective is to fuel and fund terrorism. It suppresses Iran’s own people and is a serious public security threat throughout the Middle East and around the world.
In Toronto and other major cities around the world, the IRGC supports the disturbing al-Quds Day hatefests that demonize Israel and incite hatred toward Jews. Earlier this week, B’nai Brith drew attention to the use of a “We Are Jew-Killers” slogan at an IRGC-backed rally in Tehran.
So what does it mean to be listed as a terrorist group in Canada?
Groups listed as terrorists in Canada are forbidden from legally operating in the country. In addition, a listing forbids Canadians from supporting or funding the terrorist group. As of now, it is fully legal for any Canadian to provide funds to brutal and dangerous terrorist groups if they are not listed. That is why listing the IRGC is necessary.
The House of Commons motion in June of 2018 was sponsored by Sherwood Park-Fort Saskatchewan MP Garnett Genuis, who asked the government to “immediately” list the IRGC as a terrorist entity. All Conservative and Liberal MPs in attendance voted in favour.
The United States formally listed the IRGC as a terrorist group in April of 2019. Canada previously listed the Quds Force, the IRGC’s external operations branch, but not the umbrella organization.
“Today,” Mostyn said, “the Islamist regime is undoubtedly seeking to avenge the killing of its IRGC General (Qasem Soleimani, killed by a U.S. air strike Jan. 3). Canadians are more at risk than ever by the IRGC. Our safety concerns are pragmatic, moral and urgent.
“The government must act immediately – and our lawsuit aims to ensure this immediate action.”
B’nai Brith Canada Launches Lawsuit Against Federal Government
Some people see the frictions of these days, including the layoffs and the harm to industry, as all negative. But aren’t there always nitpickers?
Arwen~Trudeau’s lack of leadership has emboldened and enabled the “protesters” ( paid activists). He was MIA on his UN Security Council Seat tour, and came back to Canada to remain MIA. Zero leadership. He has tools to use to put this to a halt, and he refuses, optics..he passed the buck to the Indigenous leaders to remove the blockades, the same leaders who refuse to dialogue. He is weakening our nation not only at home but globally, in true globalist fashion.
Has the bat-signal gone out for the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity to insert the power of her mighty mandate into the current crisis? We need the full power of this enigmatic ministry to sort us out. It’s not like there’s anything else in that portfolio keeping the minister busy.
Has the word come in from the PMO to get the gender analytics team into full feminist gear, and by studious scrutinization of gender categories and sub-categories get a definitive X-ray of what this crisis is really about? Surely sexism must be at the heart of it, it being a truism with every progressive government that sexism is at the heart of everything.
Where’s the Deliverology Maestro now that the country really needs him? Has the wisdom of this sage so fully evaporated since the Liberals went into full symposium with him — children at the feet of a guru — in the early and cheerful days of their initial majority? If there was ever a time for deliverance this must surely be it.
Where’s the Deliverology Maestro now that the country really needs him?
It was at the very heart of Justin Trudeau’s triumph in his first election, that having vanquished the Mordor orcs of Harperland, that the country was going to be served by new thinking and fresh approaches, that anger and conflict would be no more. In an era marked by respectful thinking, exquisitely careful language, above all by the ability to listen, protests would be no more. Concord would reign, all would be sweetness and light.
What few and feeble disputes that might emerge would be defused with a waving of the diversity wand, and a choir drawn from the Liberal backbenches intoning solemnly “this is not who we are as Canadians” before the Centennial Flame on Parliament Hill.
As an ultimate fillip every month a kitten and a ball of wool would be sent to every Canadian household (and Lo, a zen-like tranquillity would settle over the land). To be clear, these would be very progressive kittens, and the wood fair-trade down to the last twisted fibre.
Finally, what was the ultimate promise of the Trudeau era? Why that the “politics of fear and division” that characterized the iron-rule of Czar Harper (which to be fair, I never really noticed during the demure Mr. Harper’s tenure) would once and for all be at an end.
Well, as the events of the past two weeks clearly demonstrate, the Canada of “peace, order and good government” has descended on us like a bomb. Some people see the frictions of these days as all negative. But aren’t there always nitpickers?
Has no one tabulated how much the shutdown of our rail services has lowered our carbon emissions, and so put a smile on the faces of those who treasure our sacred “Paris commitments?” Diesel locomotives that don’t move, that don’t haul freight or passengers, also do not consume any fuel. Our great national rail service — the very emblem of Canadian nationhood at one point — is now even more of a binding symbol: it has a zero-carbon footprint! That demands that underline.
Our great national rail service … now has a zero-carbon footprint!
With a little more effort, and invention on the part of the blockaders, perhaps they could get to work on the airports. Imagine the national airlines and regional carriers, all grounded and leaving not a single stream of deadly carbon-dioxide molecules befouling our Canadian atmosphere.
I hear, sadly, that some Canadian National and Via Rail workers have been laid off; some companies are dangerously close to undersupply. More jobs will be eliminated. Projects are being cancelled, plans deferred, the great industry infrastructure could grind to a halt. However, it’s not a cloud if it doesn’t have a silver lining. No jobs you see, also means people are not going to work. And what does that mean? No cars on the road. Idle machinery. Factories at a standstill. Carbon emissions flatline yet again.
Looked at in the cool light of reason, in the fight against global warming, this has to have been Canada’s best two weeks EVER. Keep it up and Canada, the whole wide, cold country, can soon declare itself one half-a-continent carbon-emission-free zone. Apocalypse deferred.
How do you spell Hallelujah? Greta Thunberg — Canada has heard you. Find a bamboo raft and come visit us again.
To bring this lullaby to our brave green new Canada to a finish, I’m going to take the laptop off Sarcastic Mode for just one observation. It’s gotten somewhat buried in the rush of events. It concerns Mr. Trudeau’s little sermon earlier in the week about listening to all sides, and even to those who have a different perspective than ourselves. It took just an hour before he imperiously declared — on what possible authority it will be left to others to discover — that Andrew Scheer was not going to be invited to the party leaders’ summit Trudeau had convoked.
Mr. Trudeau, in his one act of “leadership” since this mess began, declared Mr. Scheer had “disqualified” himself by “his remarks” with which Mr. Trudeau plainly did not agree. Now the Bloc leader, who wants an end to Canada, was not disqualified. Elizabeth May, who dreams of a Canada without an oil industry, was not disqualified. And Jagmeet Singh, who if he were not now a parliamentarian would probably be attending the protests, was not disqualified.
But the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition, the voice of our standby government, was by virtue of Trudeau’s mighty edict ruled ineligible, a non-person, not worthy of sitting down with the other three.
Even in the surreal hours of this blockade threatening to bring the country to a standstill this was an egregious piece of hypocrisy. I was tempted during the moment to mutter to the TV screen “this is not who we are as Canadians.” But what would have been the use?
The law professor Alan Dershowitz has thrown a legal hand-grenade into America’s political civil war by claiming to have evidence that former President Barack Obama “personally asked” the FBI to investigate someone “on behalf” of Obama’s “close ally,” billionaire financier George Soros.
He made his cryptic remark in an interview defending U.S. President Donald Trump against claims he interfered in the prosecution of his former adviser, Roger Stone.
Dershowitz, a confirmed liberal, drew the ire of the left by joining Trump’s impeachment defense team —not because he’s a Trump fan, but because he cares about upholding the rule of law and the U.S. constitution, which he believes (with good evidence) are being trashed in the anti-Trump witch-hunt.
Now, though, Dershowitz has crossed yet another line. For to criticize Soros, the principal funder of treasured activist causes, means automatically turning into a bogeyman of the left.
Predictably, therefore, Dershowitz has been painted as a wild conspiracy theorist. Other critics of Soros, a Jewish Holocaust survivor, find themselves labelled antisemites.
Last December, Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani suggested that Soros was involved in the Ukraine-Trump imbroglio, controlled various ambassadors and had employed FBI agents who the Trump camp believe were involved in a criminal conspiracy to bring down the president.
“Don’t tell me I’m antisemitic if I oppose him,” he told New York magazine. “Soros is hardly a Jew. I’m more of a Jew than Soros is… He doesn’t belong to a synagogue, he doesn’t support Israel, he’s an enemy of Israel.”
Cue outrage among American Jewish groups. Anti-Defamation League national director and CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said: “For decades, George Soros’s philanthropy has been used as fodder for outsized antisemitic conspiracy theories insisting there exists Jewish control and manipulation of countries and global events.”
It’s undeniable that Soros has been targeted by antisemites who depict him as a caricature Jew trying to manipulate the world.
Focusing on his Jewishnesss is gratuitous and irrelevant. But just because he’s a magnet for antisemites does not mean there aren’t well-founded grounds for complaint against his behavior.
In the last few years, Soros has been trying to control local U.S. law-enforcement agencies by pumping massive amounts of money into backing radical candidates in key district attorney races.
In December, radicals who ran on a platform of not prosecuting certain crimes and reducing other state felonies to misdemeanors were elected as top prosecutors for three suburbs of Washington, D.C.
In Virginia’s Fairfax County a defeated prosecutor, Jonathan Fahey, said: “We have a world right now where the president picks the U.S. attorneys and George Soros picks the top state prosecutors. And that’s a scary world to live in.”
Jews are falsely and maliciously accused of manipulating countries and global events. But as Soros has himself acknowledged, that’s precisely what he has set out to do.
Quoting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s remark that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but bends towards justice,” he told the U.K.’s Guardian: “I don’t believe that’s true. I think you need to bend the arc.”
In his book Soros on Soros, the financier wrote: “I do not accept the rules imposed by others… I recognize that there are regimes that need to be opposed rather than accepted. And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.”
What that means is that he has tried to re-order the world according to how he thinks it should be run. And that means opposing the U.S. and its values.
He has called America “the main obstacle to a stable and just world order,” and said E.U.-style socialism “is exactly what we need.”
Through his Open Society Foundations, which started out genuinely aiding freedom behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War, his billions have been used to institutionalize policies such as the legalization of drugs, the promotion of illegal immigration or backing for anti-white groups such as Antifa—initiatives which attack western values, undermine the nation-state, and damage cultural resilience and cohesion.
He has funded a plethora of anti-Israel and anti-Zionist groups. According to leaked documents, the OSF has financed NGOs in the United States, Europe and the Middle East which pressurize and delegitimize Israel. He has given millions to groups which support BDS and accuse Israel falsely of war crimes and ethnic cleansing.
He has also lent credence to the antisemitic claim that the “Israel lobby” has exercised undue influence over American foreign policy and in silencing criticism of Israel.
Now he appears to be stepping up yet further his attempts to delegitimize America and destroy the nation-state. At the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, he declared that the United States, China and Russia all remained “in the hands of would-be or actual dictators.”
In that speech, he announced a new $1 billion Open Society University Network to fund education programs around the world — described by the Financial Times as a plan to “educate against nationalism.”
Soros is entitled to hate Trump, despise the nation-state and support the idea of a transnational utopia. But when one single individual spends billions of dollars buying up and thus transforming public debate and global politics outside the normal democratic process, people are entitled to express significant concern.
Yet those doing so run a gauntlet of abuse. The left routinely employs smear by association against anyone who shares a platform with someone deemed to be (however falsely) a racist, fascist or some other kind of thought-criminal.
This happened recently over a conference in Rome discussing “national conservatism,” organized by the Israeli scholar (and orthodox Jew) Yoram Hazony, whose book The Virtue of Nationalism seeks to restore support for the nation to conservative thought.
Although this conference featured solid conservative thinkers such as Chris DeMuth and Ofir Haivry of the Edmund Burke Foundation and John O’Sullivan of National Review, it also included figures such as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Giorgia Meloni, whose Brothers of Italy party is supported by members of Mussolini’s family, and Jean-Marie Le Pen’s niece Marion Marechal.
All these are demonized as “far-right” by the liberal establishment, which in turn demonizes anyone who shares their platform.
Appallingly, British Jewish leaders rushed to stoke the flames of this auto-da-fe of political heretics.
The Board of Deputies attacked the Conservative MP Daniel Kawczynski for attending the conference, claiming the Conservative party ran the “serious risk of the public assuming that they share his views” unless it disciplined him. Which it duly did, issuing Kawczynski with a formal warning and forcing him to apologize for his attendance.
Thus the Board of Deputies has also implicitly and absurdly smeared Hazony, one of the most impressive Jewish thinkers of current times.
In a mirror image of this tactic, anyone who criticizes George Soros is accused of being an antisemite — because antisemites have attacked him.
The point about antisemitism is that it is based on paranoid and deranged lies. There is, however, good evidence to believe that Soros has used his vast wealth to promote policies that undermine and weaken democracy, the west and the State of Israel.
By defending him in such a Pavlovian fashion and using character assassination to silence his critics, Jews and others engaged in such witch-hunts do no favors to the Jewish people or the causes of fighting antisemitism and defending freedom, which they thus trivialize and undermine.
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” — old proverb.
The names Rochdale, Rotherham and Huddersfield sound like dots on the U.K.’s lovely green landscape.
You’d be forgiven if your mind jumps to a quaint village pub and smiling Brits wanting to share a pint.
But the above names have become synonymous with political correctness gone amuck and a horror show for young girls crushed to powder by pimps and ass-covering functionaries.
And a slew of vulnerable girls paid a horrific price because cops, school officials and bureaucrats turned a blind eye to the twisted antics of Muslim sex gangs.
Saving drug-addicted teenaged girls from being sexually exploited and sold to leering middle-aged men was apparently too much to ask.
Better to be woke, hunker down with a lorry full of jargon and virtue signalling and hope the whole thing goes away.
On Wednesday, six men were jailed for up to 15 years for raping young girls in Huddersfield, nestled in Yorkshire.
Usman Ali, 34, Gul Riaz, 43, Banaras Hussain, 39, Abdul Majid, 36, and two others who could not be legally named were jailed for a combined 55 1/2 years.
They raped and assaulted two girls who were 14 and 15 at the time. It is unlikely they will recover. Court heard the rapes were “insidious and persistent.”
British newspapers call the men “grooming gangs.” Almost all are South Asian.
Their victims? White, poor, possibly drug-addicted and doomed.
“It allowed predatory men to perpetrate gross sexual abuse for their own perverted gratification,” Judge Geoffrey Marson told the court.
“They were planned offences by a large group of Asian men. The way these girls were treated defies understanding. The abuse was vile and wicked.”
The two victims have struggled with PTSD, depression, bulimia and suicidal thoughts.
If they didn’t do what they were told, they and their families were threatened with violence.
But it’s not like these girls and others like them failed to go to the cops.
Instead of arresting the perps, the complaints were buried in an avalanche of dreary cant.
A report on police conduct on the gangs that are nestled in northern England was damning.
The chief of Manchester’s police service said he was “disgusted” cops ignored the evil that was in “plain sight.”
Those soothing words were far too late for Victoria Agoglia. She killed herself when she was 15-years old after being raped and abused by one of the gangs.
She told detectives she was raped and shot up with heroin by a 50-year-old South Asian man. She died of a heroin overdose two months later.
But because of the ethnicity of Victoria’s rapists, nothing was done. Hot potato. Whoops! Not for us.
One former detective described police indifference.
“There was a deliberate and intentional desire to bury the truth,” Maggie Oliver told ITV News.
Oliver noted that police brass under-sourced a probe into the sickening abuse, reports and minutes of meetings vanished into the ether.
Some of the groomers would bring booze and marijuana to homes for troubled girls. Officials knew about it.
And the sickos kept abusing, protected by a praetorian guard of the politically correct.
“Nobody, nobody came to me. Social [workers] never came, I kept on telling them and telling them, and they won’t listen, none of them listened to me, they never said they were sorry, they never even came to see me,” Victoria’s grandmother Joan told an inquiry.
And the high priests of wokeness who perpetrated this disaster of humanity?
LONDON – The British government announced Wednesday its plan for a complete overhaul of its immigration system — closing its borders to unskilled migrants and instead allowing easier entry for “the brightest and the best from around the world.”
Home Secretary Priti Patel called the immigration policy “a historic moment for the whole country,” as the government pledged to transform the British economy by starving its businesses of low-wage workers from Europe and forcing companies to adopt technology and automation instead.
The government said that beginning next year, it will reduce the overall number of migrants allowed into the country, honouring what it sees as one of the main mandates of the Brexit vote in June 2016.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who led the campaign for Brexit, has called the new immigration regime revolutionary. His government formally outlined the new plan Wednesday, confirming that Britain will install a new “points-based” system, which will take back control of its borders and end what it described as the country’s over-reliance on low-skilled workers.
These are workers, many from Eastern Europe, who today enter freely into Britain to toil in low-wage, labor-intensive sectors such as food processing, hospitality, construction, kitchen work and caring for the elderly. They do jobs such as picking strawberries in Sussex and cleaning hotel rooms in Soho that many native-born Brits won’t do for the wages paid.
In remarks Wednesday to the BBC, Patel imagined that British businesses might somehow lure the 8.45 million “economically inactive” British-born adults, ages 16 to 64, to take the place of low-skilled foreigners who will be denied entry.
“We want businesses to invest in them,” she said of the nonworking native-born. “To invest in skilling them up, training them.”
The government vowed to give its top priority to migrants “with greatest talents,” such as “scientists, engineers, academics and other highly-skilled workers.”
Those wanting a work visa must demonstrate that they speak English and have a job offer from a known employer with a guaranteed minimum salary of $33,200.
As the Guardian put it: “Self-employed people need not apply – spelling the end of Polish plumbers or Romanian builders coming on their own initiative.”
The Telegraph newspaper wrote, “Huddled masses need not apply.”
In several British cities, many of the workers renovating homes, driving trucks and cutting up poultry are European migrants — not scientists — many without fluency in English.
Britain’s Home Office said the new plan was designed to eliminate “the distortion” caused by “the freedom of movement,” one of the four cherished pillars for members of the European Union, which allows citizens to live and work anywhere in the 28-nation bloc.
Britain officially left the European Union last month and is in a “transition phase” until the year’s end, while the two sides negotiate their future relationship and attempt to craft a trade deal.
Johnson will introduce legislation next month to begin its new immigration system in January. For travelers coming to Britain, from the United States and elsewhere, for short business trips or tourism, little will change.
Some British businesses that rely on low-wage imported labor are calling the new policy a crisis in the making. A union that represents low-skilled employees said it was a disaster.
We intend to create a high wage, high-skill, high productivity economy
The government has shrugged.
“Employers will need to adjust,” the Home Office stated bluntly. “We intend to create a high wage, high-skill, high productivity economy.”
“We need to shift the focus of our economy away from a reliance on cheap labor from Europe and instead concentrate on investment in technology and automation,” the Home Office announced.
As for employers clamouring for workers, Johnson’s government advised there were at least 3.2 million E.U. citizens living in the United Kingdom who will be able to stay and work in post-Brexit Britain. “This will provide employers with flexibility to meet labor market demands,” the government avowed.
No longer will citizens from the European Union be given any advantage over migrants from other continents applying to live and work in Britain. The new system is designed to give a software designer from Nepal an edge over a bartender from France.
It might also make it easier for Americans to migrate to Britain — if they get a job offer.
“Of all the things we have seen as a result of Brexit so far, it’s hard to see anything more significant than this as a policy decision,” said Rob McNeil, deputy director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford. “This is the British government turning away from Europe and toward other parts of the world.”
in some sectors, firms will be left wondering how they will recruit the people needed to run their businesses
He said for those outside of the European Union, the changes were a “liberalization,” with Americans and others needing to meet lower salary and educational thresholds to work in Britain.
“The government is saying, ‘it’s going to be difficult, and some industries are going to adapt.’ They are talking a lot about automation. But it’s not clear how you do things like automate a nursing home,” he said.
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s First Minister, tweeted that the policy was “offensive.” “It labels vital workers, making a big contribution as ‘low skilled’ & slams the door in their faces. And it is disastrous in practice — it will badly damage our economy.”
Last month, Sturgeon called for powers to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament so that they could introduce their own “Scottish visa” to respond to local needs and an aging population. Her plans were rejected by the British government.
Carolyn Fairbairn, the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, said that businesses will welcome some of the proposals issued Wednesday, such as abolishing the cap on the number of skilled visas, and allowing foreign students who attend a British university to work in the U.K. for two years after graduation.
“Nonetheless,” she said, “in some sectors, firms will be left wondering how they will recruit the people needed to run their businesses.”
Kate Nicholls, chief executive of business association UK Hospitality, said that “ruling out a temporary, low-skilled route for migration” will be “disastrous for the hospitality sector and the British people.”
Demographic changes mean that there are 200,000 fewer 18- to 24-year-old Britons entering the workforce today than a decade ago. “We are facing record low levels of unemployment, a dip in young people entering the labor market and have the highest vacancy levels of any sector,” Nicholls said.
She said that a quarter of the hospitality workforce across the U.K. are foreign nationals – in cities such as London, the figure rises to 80 percent.
Minette Batters, president of the National Farmers Union, said that British farmers “remain very concerned about how they will recruit vitally important seasonal workers.”
British farms are hugely reliant on migrant labor, she said, with over 99 percent of the fruit and vegetable pickers coming from the European Union, mostly from Romania and Bulgaria.
Patrick McGovern, a migration expert at the London School of Economics, called the policy “a massive labor market experiment.”
“It’s the first time any of the major world economies has completely closed the door on low-skilled migration,” he said, comparing the top-down retooling of the economy to “a kind of Soviet-central planning.”
In the post-war years, Britain relied on migration from Ireland and the Commonwealth countries, which is no longer available in the same way. And then it relied on migration from the European Union.
It’s such a fundamental change to the labor supply that McGovern wondered if the policy will be sustained over the long-term. “It may be that as reactions kick in and shortages become evident and businesses complain that there is a gradual opening before next general election or sometimes afterward,” he said.
Our glorious country, the True North is no longer strong nor are its citizens free.
For the past two weeks, citizens from coast to coast have been held hostage by illegal blockades, erected by foreign paid rent-a-mobs, who claim they are standing in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en peoples of British Columbia against the LNG Coastal GasLink pipeline.
The problem is, the majority of the Wet’suwet’en and other First Nations whose territories will be directly affected by the pipeline infrastructure, have signed on in agreeance with the building of the pipeline.
There are five hereditary chiefs, who are not in agreeance, and are fighting against their 13,000 members who voted for the pipeline.
It has been reported that the five chiefs have been paid to not accept the agreement and are holding out to get complete control over who gets hired.
The issue over what is ‘unceded’ land, meaning ‘no treaty was signed’: Which leads us to the question, “who has the right to build, or grant building rights on ceded or unceded land in Canada?”
All across our once great country, towns, cities, municipalities, provinces have granted rights to citizens, developers, corporations, to build homes, buildings, infrastructure on the lands.
Our Fathers of Confederation, who have recently been vilified for their actions and treatment of Canada’s aboriginal peoples a century ago, by some of our Indigenous peoples by our woke folk, didn’t bother taking into consideration, where would our country be if our Fathers of Confederation hadn’t of had the wherewithal, vision and cooperation of the country to build a nationwide railway?
That same railways that now bring the goods, foods, oils, gases and chemicals to all of Canada, including our remotest parts, to make life more comfortable for those who live there, including Indigneous communities.
The protesters who are shutting down our railways, bridges and roads, for the majority, are not Indigenous peoples, so why is the Trudeau government ‘listening’ to them, while refusing to ‘listen’ to the Indigenous leaders and end the illegal blockades?
The five Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs demanded that Justin Trudeau order the RCMP to leave ‘their lands’. Again, there are some ceded and unceded areas along the proposed path for the Coastal GasLink pipeline, that the hereditary chiefs have no claim to.
If Justin ‘orders’ the RCMP to not do their jobs by enforcing a court order, then once again, he will be in direct conflict of his own words. He recently orated that “his government will not be a government that dictates to the police on how to do their jobs.”
Simply put, if he can order the RCMP to ‘stand down’, he can also order them to ‘stand up’ and enforce the law that they pledged an oath to uphold.
CN Rail has announced that they will be laying off 450 workers, due to the blockades.
During the SNC-Lavalin scandal, Justin Trudeau stood up and told Canadians, “I was standing up for 9,000 jobs”, after he was caught lying about his interference in our judicial process, and was then caught lying again, when the CEO of SNC stated, “There were no jobs at stake.”
So why is Justin Trudeau protecting the ‘rights’ of foreign paid, rent-a-mob illegal protesters that are misappropriating Indiginous cultural rights, to assert their agenda “Shut Canada Down” agenda, while ignoring the wishes of the majority of the Wet’suwet’en peoples, Canadian businesses, Canadian’s who are losing their jobs, and Canadian’s who will be severely affected because the trains that deliver goods, food, medicine, oils, gases to Canadian communities can’t deliver desperately needed products to their communities?
To add insult to injury to the democracy of our once great nation, Justin Trudeau didn’t invite the official leader of the Queen’s opposition to his little pow-wow to help him figure out how to end the crisis of the shutting down of our nations train tracks.
Our bearded Dear Leader, stated that “Andrew Scheer disqualified himself from attending because of his unacceptable comments.”
Conservative Leader, Andrew Scheer’s comments consisted of, “weak responses by the Prime Minister… delivering word salads that do nothing to end the illegal blockades.”
It appears that Mr. Scheer, hurt Justin’s feelings, by not agreeing with his action plan of not having a plan.
Justin wants to ‘dialogue’. With whom, remains a mystery.
In a democratic country, the leader of the Queen’s opposition party should never be excluded from talks of national interests, no matter how much the sitting, virtue signalling government is offended with mock outrage.
If this is the way Justin ‘dialogues’ with elected members of Parliament, how does he plan to ‘dialogue’ with the Wet’suewet’en who want the pipeline project to go through?
Is it any wonder why our country is in such a state of turmoil?
The following is a missive that was posted on FaceBook, by an Indigenous man, Wun Feather, which begs the question; is this all about power and control, or enjoying Indigenous cultural rights?
“This post is gonna hurt some feelings.
I am good with that.
I am totally tired of people who say stupid things like “Give us back our land”.
I like to look them in the eyes and say:
“Ok. If you had your land back, what would you do with it?”
I will wait for the answer.
Have you ever taken the time to use google maps and look at the huge tracts of Federal land that are not being used for any purpose at all?
No one is trapping any beavers on the land.
No one is hunting wolves or coyotes, or any other fur bearing animal on that land.
Very rarely do you ever see anyone hunting anymore.
If we compare that land to the land owned by the Hutterite Colonies, you would shit yourself if you saw what they are doing on their land.
They have hay and oats and barley and grain, and they run large herds of livestock and flocks of domestic geese and chickens.
Well, ever since I was 18, I have owned my own home.
I bought my first mobile home in Fraser Lake BC and darn it all, it was mine.
Nobody gave it to me.
I never held my hand out for it like a pet monkey in a zoo.
I earned it.
And I have never, ever, EVER been without at least one house on land ever since that day.
I guess you could say that I am the kind of Indian who just goes to work every day, and buys my own piece of land with the money I earn at my job.
I have every single right that anyone else in Canada has.
But because I am a status Indian, (I am non Treaty.) That means even though I am Status, I am not bound by any treaty agreements or obligations.
I have WAY more rights than most Canadians.
Firstly, I have the right to be free.
I have the right to become educated if I want to.
I have the right to freedom of speech, and I have the right to every single privilege that any other Canadian has.
But that is not where it ends!
I can hunt and fish and trap and do significantly more than all my non Indigenous friends do.
No one has ever stopped me from trapping animals for subsistence on crown land.
No one has ever stopped me from hunting for subsistence on crown land.
No one has ever stopped me from gathering medicines, plants, fungi, berries or roots for traditional or ceremonial purposes.
So if I can do all those things like my ancestors did before me, why would I want to have that land back??
Isn’t it actually already mine to use anyway??
Only, unlike the land that I have bought for myself over the years, I do not have the burden of paying property taxes on the land where I harvest my moose.
Thought of the Day – has the 1997 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia Supreme Court ruling done more harm than good? To some, it has.
This is not to say the “historical people” and/or their descendants haven’t been misled, mistreated or harmed – this is to say that the ruling and what is happening today is brought on by the same form of government.
I will reiterate – As for anyone questioning my statements – you know nothing about my ancestors therefore you should control the urge to comment.
From John Ivison’s article “Canada is turning into a mob city while Trudeau remains silent,” February 13, 2020:
“But the Wet’suwet’en have not established title, or ownership, over their traditional lands in Canadian court or through negotiation. They would likely have a very strong case to take to the Supreme Court of Canada but, while there is a duty to consult, there is no veto. In time, the hereditary chiefs might stop the Coastal GasLink project but that will be up to the courts.
Such nuances are clearly lost on protestors such as the young activists blockading the Justice building, who insist that, since the land was unceded, it remains sovereign.
But that is not the law.
“Under Canadian law, whether land has established aboriginal title or not, Canadian courts don’t treat it as ‘sovereign’,” said Dwight Newman, the Canadian research chair in Indigenous Rights at the University of Saskatchewan.”
And from the case itself:
“205 With regard to the issue of self-government, I conclude, as does the Chief Justice, that there was insufficient evidence before this Court to make any determination regarding this aspect of the appellants’ claim.”
Throughout the history of Canada there have been multiple cases involving the Indians. There have been statements regarding the Royal Proclamation of1763. There have also been contradictory court rulings where the RP1763 did not actually support Indian title. St. Catharines Milling and Lumber Co. v. R, 13 SCR 577 comes to mind.
“The proclamation assumes the title to be in the crown and not in the Indians. By this proclamation the crown gives power to the Governors to grant lands east of a certain line. If the Indian title existed, how could they exercise this right? What becomes of the titles granted east of the line in question? The crown reserves for the present the lands west of the line. If the Indians accept title under this proclamation, then they accept a reservation during the pleasure of the crown. Subsequently by the statute, passed in 1774, the boundaries of the Province of Quebec are extended so as to embrace the lands in controversy, and the proclamation is annulled by the very terms of the act. If, therefore, this proclamation is the foundation of the Indian title, they accept it merely as an act of bounty from the crown, with the right to the crown to alter or annul it.”
With the installation of the 1982 Constitution, again, it would seem government has played fast and loose with the hearts and minds of the Indians and all Canadians.
“RIGHTS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF CANADA
Recognition of existing aboriginal and treaty rights
(1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed….”
What Trudeau did with this document was what he did to all Canadians. He removed rights from those who he said he was guaranteeing rights. The “existing aboriginal and treaty rights” are in said treaties and the fact that the Indians agreed to the RP1763 and “they accept it merely as an act of bounty from the crown, with the right to the crown to alter or annul it.”
To see this one need only look to section 25 of the 1982 Constitution.
“Aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by Charter
The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including
(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and
(b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.”
There is also the Hudson Bay Company territory, of which Canadians are generally kept in the dark about. It spanned, not only the tributaries of the Hudson Bay but, right out to the Pacific Ocean and all the way up into the Artic, saving any lands which had not previously been granted by the King and/or another country. (THE HUDSON’S BAY TERRITORIES AND VANCOUVER’S ISLAND) The Hudson Bay Company, before it became Rupert’s Land, 1870, was to be considered “a Foreign Country, under the Government of the Hudson’s Bay Company” and the government of Canada or any province, “couldn’t force” their “way in.” (Nation Maker. Sir John A. MacDonald: His Life, Our Times. Richard Gwyn, p. 99-100.)
I find government is disingenuous with their statement of “Truth and Reconciliation” and I also find that had government truly respected the Indians in Canada they would have removed the Indian Act, and in particular the reference to the 1982 “Charter,” the “UNDRIP,” and the “Canadian Human Rights Act .” All this does is remove the rights of all Canadians and limits those rights into non-existence. As expressed in 1948 by the Canadian Bar Association:
“Therefore it becomes immediately apparent that if those freedoms and rights are inalienable it must be because they are already part of the constitution and cannot be conferred by legislative enactment. The moment it is conceded that they are within the power of gift by the legislature it must be conceded that they are vulnerable to further legislative action and can be withdrawn at any time.”
Both Father and son have done a great disservice to this Nation – one Nation – that being Canada. Are Canadians prepared to have this happen again?
Has the 1997 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia Supreme Court ruling done more harm than good? To some, it has.