War of the Worlds U.N. Migration Compact

[WestCanMan]

The UN is becoming more and more of a joke the last few years. This attempt at fascist control over the media isn't going to be well-received by actual democracies. Unfortunately, Canada isn't one of them. We're now on the list of countries whose governments have near total control the media thanks to the $1.3 Billion of our tax dollars that Trudeau just doled out.

[scribblet]

There's been quite a discussion about this on another thread so don't want to repeat all of it, but suffice to say at least 18 countries are now recognizing the problems and refusing to sign on.

 

[Centerpiece]

 If Trudeau signs it - you can bet that our activist courts will start to consider the "aspirations" that we committed to.  So - in spite of any and all assurances, we will - as usual - be at the mercy of the courts thanks to the influence of unelected elites at the UN and the worst PM in Canadian history. We are sleep-walking to a Canada that no one will recognize.

[DogOnPorch]

The Rebel has been banned from the UN-GCFM...by the looks of it, on the recommendation of JT and Ahmed Hussen.

But, you know...none of your fears re: $595 million bail-outs and the Free Press are real...you wack job.

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by DogOnPorch

[Army Guy]

18 hours ago, TTM said:

1. "I have nothing but vague irrational fears that I can in no way back up from the text of the document.  Nor can any of my so-called "sources" "

2. Yes, we treat migrants fairly well. 

A certain country to the south that is not wanting to sign the document has had its leader call immigrants rapists, terrorists, an infestation, an invasion, etc; tried to ban immigrants based on their religion; forcably separated children from their parents as a matter of policy and for the purpose of deterrence (and in many cases lost track of who the belonged to). A famous conservative pundit from that country recently suggested the military should cross the to the other side of the border and then gun down unarmed migrants seeking refugee status.

The rhetoric and actions of other countries with "right wing nationalist" governments or strong nationalist factions can also be used as an example. Coincidentally these are also the only ones that do not want to sign the pact.

3. Yes, he's pandering to the nationalists.  

4. Not possible

5. "right-wing nationalist" is a almost always de facto a politically correct way of saying "white nationalist"

6. UN conspiracists are nearly as sad as flat earthers and moon landing deniers

7. So what's the problem then?

8. And also works to *minimize* "irregular migration" (read refugees)

9. ?? Boot them out of the country, just like before.

 

1. Not sure your mocking my questions or not, like I said before I do not understand all the political double talk used in these UN documents enough to pin point the problem areas, what I do have is a bunch of questions raised by other parties, some of these parties are professional politicians who I am only assuming would be able to dissect these document and raise issues with some of it's parts...Now you seem to blow off these questions only because they come from a party which you do not agree with.....making you biased some what does it not, I say that because I have not fully agreed with my stance one way or another, hence the questions....most of which you really have not answered..

2. Fairly well, have you been to a refugee camp in other 2 and or 3 rd world countries....any of them put immigrants or refugees up in hotels...ensuring they are feed according to their culture, have excellent shelter, provided with funds, free education, etc etc the list goes on....I would upgrade your statement to we treat them Real well to excellent...And if that is the case WHY do we need to sign on to a UN compact. I really don't care what the US does, but then again we as Canadians have not really faced any real problems with people from all over the world seeking the American dream.....and still seeking to get into the US....

According to you it is just the right nationalist governments that do not want to sign , and yet here in this country we have a liberal government "for now" and most Canadians think we are accepting to many immigrants, and want to par down those numbers from there current numbers ....As for the Conservative government in Canada " I have issue with call any Canadian political party right wing, as they it is  known in Europe or the US , shit the US  democrats are far right when compared to our conservatives....it is our cons do  not want to sign this document and yet it does not want to zero immigration, or refugees but rather curb the figure to a lower number.... How many bils does Immigration and refugee cost this country every year? ....

3. How large is this white Nationalist group we are talking about, do they have enough people to actually make a difference , here in Canada, or are you calling all Conservatives right wing nationalist.....I think you don't think much of your fellow Canadians to think we could have , the same issue the US is facing right now, and elect a Canadian trump.....now that would be funney.....Who is that again ? I think that is some liberal myth invented by some tree hugger in BC, EYEBALL....did you start another rumour...

4. you say not possible... would you bet your life on it....and then again why are so many countries now deciding not to sign on to it....what do they know that we do not ? 

5. Man you are narrow minded when it comes to the right....

6. Are you suggesting that the UN is the all to be all institution, one that can stop wars in a blink of an eye, reverse famines by sitting out money and food where ever required, who's members that are appointed are non biased, and have years of experience on governing a institution as large as the UN. An institution that is beyond questioning, or reproach....maybe it will become illegal to question them in the next compact....

7. What is the problem....the problem is we have enough problems in this nation to consume all of our politicians full time, we do not need them running around taking photos and telling the world see what we signed on to.....when we already surpass everything in the compact....next lets not just jump into something with out at l;east discussing it in Parliament  , and the senate, now I would also think someone should sit down and explain it to the people....no one has done that, why has the liberal party pretty much kept it a secret ? frankly I don't trust them either...

8. Oh like the people coming in from the US, your saying that this compact is going to control that issue, how so....

9. boot them out, yes we are so good at that, infact so good we have spent 1.1 bil in feeding them, housing them, and giving them our tax dollars, infact we even put them in front of the line, you know the line....we can't even deport know criminals, some of them convicted war criminals even....once in the nation we some how loose track of them, it takes years to locate them and even more years to put them on a plane....and then what do we do when it becomes known they will face torture and death if we do....we keep. them....So how do we boot them again ? and do you think the liberal government still has that policy? 

Yes I am jaded, the UN could not organize a gang bang in a whore house, most Canadians don't even trust the organization , it's a money pit that produces very few results....that list goes on forever.....why we still have it I not sure, and why do we want a seat on it , is a pipe dream, and waste of blood and treasure.....

[Moonlight Graham]

8 hours ago, turningrite said:

A column in today's Globe and Mail castigates critics of the soon to be signed Global Compact for Migration on grounds that, well, they're overreacting because the pact is essentially legally meaningless anyway. Whaaaat? So why are we signing it if it has no practical force or effect? Is it just more virtue signalling on the part of Trudeau's government or are Canadian policies going to be impacted by our membership in this club?

It's just some good PR, gives some leaders the ability to pat themselves on the back while not having to do anything whatsoever.

[turningrite]

4 hours ago, scribblet said:

There's been quite a discussion about this on another thread so don't want to repeat all of it, but suffice to say at least 18 countries are now recognizing the problems and refusing to sign on.

 

Under what other thread? It would be helpful to know. I searched to see if there was discussion on this topic elsewhere on this site and didn't find anything under any obvious thread.

[turningrite]

38 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

It's just some good PR, gives some leaders the ability to pat themselves on the back while not having to do anything whatsoever.

I wouldn't be so certain of this. I understand that most UN declarations have little or no legal force or effect but what would stop the Trudeau government from using a pact like this to argue that debate about immigration can't be tolerated in Canada? Do you trust our political leaders, and particularly those now running the show in Ottawa? If you do, your view differs substantially from my own.

Edited December 7, 2018 by turningrite

[scribblet]

https://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/36656-war-of-the-worlds-un-migration-compact/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-1324559

 

[turningrite]

On 12/5/2018 at 10:41 AM, DogOnPorch said:

It's important to the globalists to divide the West by identity politics so it is incapable of circling the wagons and preventing its destruction in favor of the Brave New World.

Not sure if resistance is futile or not...oh, Borg Collective.

Very true. I'm surprised at how few people appear to understand this and likely won't until it's too late.

[turningrite]

15 minutes ago, scribblet said:

https://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/36656-war-of-the-worlds-un-migration-compact/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-1324559

 

Thanks, I found it under the 'Rest of the World' category. I was looking at the issue from a Canadian perspective and therefore trying to find it under 'Federal Politics'.

Edited December 7, 2018 by turningrite

[turningrite]

On 12/2/2018 at 11:21 PM, TTM said:

We have full sovereignty over our borders, and nothing in this pact reduces it.

I think you fail to recognize that the real danger is domestic in that in order to bolster their globalist objectives and credentials political charlatans (like Trudeau) might be able to assert that by signing the pact we've agreed to comply with its provisions, however dangerous or nonsensical. There's an interesting article in the G&M where the columnist, while more or less dismissing much of the content of the migration pact as "bureaucratic blah-blah", holds that we shouldn't be too worried because it has no real force or effect. It's an interesting approach to support something on grounds that it's silly and some of it ill-advised but it's okay because it's meaningless: "[It] is a vague, non-binding document full of long-winded, gobbledygook claptrap that includes a few worthy principles and a couple of dumb ideas. But it won’t force anyone to do anything." I suspect the columnist's actual intent is not to support the pact but instead to gratuitously castigate those criticizing it ("right-wingers'). As the G&M piece admits, the pact's apparent promotion of compelled or acceptable speech is clearly problematic. Free speech, of course, is the oxygen of democracy. Without it, democracy withers and dies.

The G&M piece equates criticism of the pact with the controversy over M-103. In my opinion, M-103 amounted to a propaganda exercise intended to generate a political wedge, but should we really be participating in a process that affords the anti-democratic globalists a soapbox burnished with the imprimatur of the UN - an institution already confronting a crisis of legitimacy? Sensible nations will no doubt give the pact a big swerve. Canada, apparently, is not such a sensible nation, at least at this time.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-to-right-wingersthe-global-compact-for-migration-motion-is-a-sign-the/

Edited December 7, 2018 by turningrite

[TTM]

12 hours ago, Army Guy said:

1 Not sure your mocking my questions or not

...

I am only assuming [these politicians] would be able to dissect these document and raise issues with some of it's parts

...

Now you seem to blow off these questions only because they come from a party which you do not agree with

2. I really don't care what the US does

...

most Canadians think we are accepting to many immigrants, and want to par down those numbers from there current numbers

...

How many bils does Immigration and refugee cost this country every year? ....

3. How large is this white Nationalist group we are talking about

4. so many countries now deciding not to sign on to it

5. Man you are narrow minded when it comes to the right....

6. Are you suggesting that the UN is the all to be all institution

7.  lets not just jump into something with out at l;east discussing it in Parliament  , and the senate,

...

why has the liberal party pretty much kept it a secret? 

8. Oh like the people coming in from the US, your saying that this compact is going to control that issue, how so....

9. boot them out, yes we are so good at that...

...

and then what do we do when it becomes known they will face torture and death if we do....we keep. them....

...

the UN could not organize a gang bang in a whore house

1a. Mocking the inability of most anyone (you, other posters, those authorities you are getting your misinformation from) to simply point to a line in the document and say "that there is problematic.  Without that, I dont see how we can have a real conversation about it.  One side says "this pact is full of a bunch of bugaboos" the other side says "here is the text, where are your specific issues" and the first side goes "well, I cant say specifically, but the document is giving off bad vibrations, which is scary and I left my protective crystals at home" (sorry, more mocking)

...

You are also assuming they have no ulterior motives, while also assuming those who wrote / agree with the pact do ... confirmation bias or just plain hypocrisy?

...

I blow them off because they are divorced from what is actually written in the document, which I can read

2. You said "can high light some of the areas in your source documents that Canada or for that matter most western countries are not already providing"  Canada and most Western countries are substantially doing what is in the document, which is why they have no problems signing. I gave you an example from one western country that does not. And "coincidentally", it is also one of the few that doesn't want to sign.

...

I would be fine with somewhat reduced immigration as well. But I'm good with anywhere between 0.5 and 1% of total population.  Which it is.

...

Irrelevant as immigration targets are set nationally and not affected by this document

3. I wouldn't hazard a guess, but large enough Scheer would stoop to saying some things he almost certainly knows is not true to attract back the ones that are eyeing up the new People's Party

4. A handfull is not "so many"

5. Some of my best friends are right-wing! After a while you don't even notice the mouth breathing

"Both" types of nationalists though want to limit immigration in order to to protect "white european Christian culture"....

6. I'm suggesting they don't hide under your bed to get you when you're sleeping

7. That would be fine.  Although based on recent irrational comments by Scheer, likely to turn into a circus

...

Do you know the details of all of the other dozens of non-binding agreements Canada has signed over the years?  The document was created openly, the text is freely available, there are news articles detail it and Canada's leadership in helping craft it going back to at least July. It was not widely reported because it was considered (until the nationalist's hysteria--in the traditional sense of the word) not very interesting.  Or do you think the government should be telling the media what to report?

8. Lol. So now the compact is toothless. I thought it was an instrument of world domination.  Please try to keep consistent 

9. National issues not having anything to do with the UN or this document

...

Non-refoulement is part of other (binding) treaties that we have signed. It is irrelevant to whether we sign this (non-binding) one

...

And yet they are secretly taking away our national sovereignty as part of the vast underground plot of establishing the "New World Order" 

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by TTM

[TTM]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

1. [Politicians] might be able to assert that by signing the pact we've agreed to comply with its provisions

2. we shouldn't be too worried because it has no real force

...

or effect.

3. As the G&M piece admits, the pact's apparent promotion of compelled or acceptable speech is clearly problematic. 

1. Yes, that would be the point of signing.

2. Yes, should "unexpected consequences" arise, or should we decide we no longer agree

...

No. The hope would be that having the world sign it would result in some positive effect.

3. Agreed, this is an arguably marginally problematic statement in the pact, but only if you believe (1) that state funding of media is a good thing and (2) that the CBC is going to start inciting hate against immigrants. 

Canada could also decide this is problematic as a conflict with freedom of speech and simply not enforce this one statement while upholding the rest of the document ... and there would be zero consequences, except for maybe a few tsk, tsks.  Though if the CBC did start encouraging hate crimes I woul expect to see their funding pulled regardless

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by TTM

[Goddess]

13 hours ago, Army Guy said:

what I do have is a bunch of questions raised by other parties, some of these parties are professional politicians who I am only assuming would be able to dissect these document and raise issues with some of it's parts...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15ysTG-_LeQJrgKihDKbUL7DPugEZV7pD/view?fbclid=IwAR31YvFCoX8LXb81fSHpR0Sx7MViBsAeO5R9IBdDSlUorCLhXelx9rQ_RSw

Your questions and concerns with the Compact are iterated by the Opposition here.  I have the same questions and concerns.

[turningrite]

8 hours ago, TTM said:

1. Yes, that would be the point of signing.

2. Yes, should "unexpected consequences" arise, or should we decide we no longer agree

...

No. The hope would be that having the world sign it would result in some positive effect.

3. Agreed, this is an arguably marginally problematic statement in the pact, but only if you believe (1) that state funding of media is a good thing and (2) that the CBC is going to start inciting hate against immigrants. 

Canada could also decide this is problematic as a conflict with freedom of speech and simply not enforce this one statement while upholding the rest of the document ... and there would be zero consequences, except for maybe a few tsk, tsks.  Though if the CBC did start encouraging hate crimes I woul expect to see their funding pulled regardless

 

The more prudent decision would be to give the pact a big swerve. There's no doubt the Compact for Migration is an intentionally ideological instrument. (The use of the preposition 'for' rather than 'on' is clearly illustrative of this.) We don't need to give ideologues like Trudeau and his cronies any more encouragement to promote and pursue their own globalist objectives. It's time to stand up for democracy and say 'NO' to such globalist nonsense. Canadians can decide on our own policies in relation to migration. Trudeau and his ilk need not hold our hands in guiding us to an outcome that serves a narrow ideological agenda.

[Goddess]

13 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Are you suggesting that the UN is the all to be all institution, one that can stop wars in a blink of an eye, reverse famines by sitting out money and food where ever required, who's members that are appointed are non biased, and have years of experience on governing a institution as large as the UN. An institution that is beyond questioning, or reproach....maybe it will become illegal to question them in the next compact....

I agree with you.  Backwards countries have way too much power on the UN.  Saudi Arabia being elected to the Women's Rights Commission is a f'ing joke.

[Army Guy]

 

 

 

9 hours ago, TTM said:

1a. Mocking the inability of most anyone (you, other posters, those authorities you are getting your misinformation from) to simply point to a line in the document and say "that there is problematic.  Without that, I dont see how we can have a real conversation about it.  One side says "this pact is full of a bunch of bugaboos" the other side says "here is the text, where are your specific issues" and the first side goes "well, I cant say specifically, but the document is giving off bad vibrations, which is scary and I left my protective crystals at home" (sorry, more mocking)

...

You are also assuming they have no ulterior motives, while also assuming those who wrote / agree with the pact do ... confirmation bias or just plain hypocrisy?

...

I blow them off because they are divorced from what is actually written in the document, which I can read

2. You said "can high light some of the areas in your source documents that Canada or for that matter most western countries are not already providing"  Canada and most Western countries are substantially doing what is in the document, which is why they have no problems signing. I gave you an example from one western country that does not. And "coincidentally", it is also one of the few that doesn't want to sign.

...

I would be fine with somewhat reduced immigration as well. But I'm good with anywhere between 0.5 and 1% of total population.  Which it is.

...

Irrelevant as immigration targets are set nationally and not affected by this document

3. I wouldn't hazard a guess, but large enough Scheer would stoop to saying some things he almost certainly knows is not true to attract back the ones that are eyeing up the new People's Party

4. A handfull is not "so many"

5. Some of my best friends are right-wing! After a while you don't even notice the mouth breathing

"Both" types of nationalists though want to limit immigration in order to to protect "white european Christian culture"....

6. I'm suggesting they don't hide under your bed to get you when you're sleeping

7. That would be fine.  Although based on recent irrational comments by Scheer, likely to turn into a circus

...

Do you know the details of all of the other dozens of non-binding agreements Canada has signed over the years?  The document was created openly, the text is freely available, the signing was announced and is on the agenda. It was not widely reported because it was considered (until the nationalist's hysteria--in the traditional sense of the word) not interesting.  Or do you think the government should be telling the media what to report?

8. Lol. So now the compact is toothless. I thought it was an instrument of world domination.  Please try to keep consistent 

9. National issues not having anything to do with the UN or this document

...

Non-refoulement is part of other (binding) treaties that we have signed. It is irrelevant to whether we sign this (non-binding) one

...

And yet they are secretly taking away our national sovereignty as part of the vast underground plot of establishing the "New World Order" 

 

1.don't put words in my mouth,  I have already explained that I do not fully understand what the compact is implying directly or indirectly, I have not presented any sources, but instead asked question to the forum, to which you decided to answer but can not explain. I thought my question were some common sense one....So I will point out a few lines to which I think in my opinion are not explained very well...

1. The compact promises that national sovereignty and the rule of law will be respected and maintained, but then carves out special rights and protections for migrants and insists that the “well-being of migrants”, including illegal immigrants, must come first.

2. The document promises it is “not legally binding” and merely a framework, but at the same time, it encourages countries to sign the agreement, join the UN’s efforts and implement its suggestions at home.

The entire point of the UN Compact on Migration is to form the foundation of new international norms that will, in time, become international law.

3. The compact promises that national sovereignty and the rule of law will be respected and maintained, but then carves out special rights and protections for migrants and insists that the “well-being of migrants”, including illegal immigrants, must come first.

4.  It pledges to “eliminate all forms of discrimination, including racism, xenophobia and intolerance against migrants” — without defining these words or acknowledging that in today’s heated public discourse, these terms have been weaponized and are used to discredit anyone who doesn’t subscribe to Liberal ideals on immigration and multiculturalism.

5. The treaty insists that governments must provide “access to objective, evidence-based, clear information about the benefits and challenges of migration.” That sounds good. Citizens should know about the harms and dangers associated with mass migration, as well as the potential advantages and benefits.  But wait, the sentence continues to say, “with a view to dispelling misleading narratives that generate negative perceptions of migrants.” Governments are being told what the narratives are going to be by the UN....I guess I missed that class in democratic governments....

2.  once again "WHY" do we need to sign on to a document, if we as a nation are already providing far better services than what this document say we should....I mean are there other useless documents we could sign , perhaps a new one on basic human rights, oh wait we already did that one,   Genva convention, nope already done....SO WHY do we need a compact....your response was what is the big deal if we are doing it already, WOW just a minute I have to self medicate...Nope this stuff is not making me understand your stance at all...If someone was out of the blue to jam a set of papers down my throat and say sign here, don't worry we already do all that stuff anyways it would send alarm bells off....and a lot of countries are doing just that....And when I asked you to explain you pointed a nationalist right " or liberal code for white power...and some how I have to connect the dots....

You don't get it , Most Canadians believe that our immigrations numbers are WAY to high not a little to high they want it slashed...big time...Europe is drowning in immigrants, from around the world, you don't have to be a right wing racist to see that they are have huge issues with immigrants...and most Canadians do not want to see that happen here....

3.  Thats a guess on your part, I wish I had your crystal ball....

4. Well it looks like you handful is growing by the day, The US, Austria, Australia, Hungry, Italy, Croatia, Israel, Poland, Greece plus there are discussions or heated debates in another 14 countries , such as here in Canada. Sure is a lot of white racists nationalist out there.....

5. I know what your talking about.... just walking down the street it's hard to even think with all that leftist whining and bitching going on.... 

6. Perhaps you can tell us what world changing moment has the UN given us in the last say 30 years....Have they been successful in wiping out wars, famine, improved health care through the 3 rd world, Climate change....anything ? I don't fear them, I distrust them, huge difference, they suck millions out of this country with no return, and they do this on a global scale.....and yet still nothing to show for it....

7. Always something with those red necks right...Can't talk to them, can't shot them...I thought discussing topics was the democratic way, I thought liberals would be good at doing talking stuff, and yet when it is time the repeat the same story over and over....

The UN treaty doesn’t so much as mention the impact of mass migration on the host country and its citizens — who are often ignored and removed from any discussion on migration.

8. Yes , it's all about taking over the world....a liberal plot....those nasty bastards....get your skates on , 3 periods, no stop time, most goals is the winner.....you can have first puck...don't forget your helmet , and mouth guard so I don't have to hear you cry....

 

[turningrite]

29 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

 

a.) The compact promises that national sovereignty and the rule of law will be respected and maintained, but then carves out special rights and protections for migrants and insists that the “well-being of migrants”, including illegal immigrants, must come first.

b.) The document promises it is “not legally binding” and merely a framework, but at the same time, it encourages countries to sign the agreement, join the UN’s efforts and implement its suggestions at home.

c.) The entire point of the UN Compact on Migration is to form the foundation of new international norms that will, in time, become international law.

d.)  The compact promises that national sovereignty and the rule of law will be respected and maintained, but then carves out special rights and protections for migrants and insists that the “well-being of migrants”, including illegal immigrants, must come first.

e.) It pledges to “eliminate all forms of discrimination, including racism, xenophobia and intolerance against migrants” — without defining these words or acknowledging that in today’s heated public discourse, these terms have been weaponized and are used to discredit anyone who doesn’t subscribe to Liberal ideals on immigration and multiculturalism.

f.) The treaty insists that governments must provide “access to objective, evidence-based, clear information about the benefits and challenges of migration.” That sounds good. Citizens should know about the harms and dangers associated with mass migration, as well as the potential advantages and benefits.  But wait, the sentence continues to say, “with a view to dispelling misleading narratives that generate negative perceptions of migrants.” Governments are being told what the narratives are going to be by the UN....I guess I missed that class in democratic governments...

g.) The UN treaty doesn’t so much as mention the impact of mass migration on the host country and its citizens — who are often ignored and removed from any discussion on migration.

 

a.) It's clear that the intent is to create special rights intended to limit the ability of voters in sovereign democratic countries to set their own rules. As such, it's an entirely cynical and inherently anti-democratic approach.

b.) The more dangerous impacts might be in countries like Canada where ideologically driven politicians might hold up our membership in the pact to argue that we don't have a right to debate immigration and refugee policy.

c.) Note that its called the Compact For Migration and not the Compact on Migration. That seemingly minor difference has a significant impact on explaining its intent. To be "for" something is to be bound to promote it.

d.) It's all about special rights. That's the point.

e.) Sounds like M-103, right? Of course it does. It's another instrument of weaponized ideology.

f.) They're not interested in objective "evidence-based" analysis when they insist on control of the narrative and the ability to shut down dissenting voices. Of course, we know that the Trudeau government isn't interested in evidence-based analysis where immigration and refugee policy are concerned. Reportedly, it doesn't even track  outcomes for the refugees it allows to enter and remain in the country. And it has no mechanism to more broadly track the real economic impacts of immigration on either newcomers or the existing population. I suspect it's afraid that actual evidence will serve to undermine public support for its policies. Rather, it resorts to ideological posturing and emotional bullying. 

g.) Of course it doesn't. That's the point of globalism. Everything's a wash, even when it isn't  They wouldn't want ordinary working people, especially in democracies, to realize that negative outcomes are in reality predictable and intentional aspects of the globalist agenda. In fact, such outcomes are a feature of the system rather than a bug. As long as the money keeps flowing into the coffers of the globalists, their globalized world is right as rain even if its a nightmare for millions of others.

[scribblet]

So all of these ‘elitists’ telling us that opposition to the UN compact on migration with the “it’s not legally binding” angle as the only argument in favour of signing  - is that  it’s not legally binding – then maybe they are wrong,  so what’s the point.

State controlled and orderly immigration based on merit and our national need is not Alt-right, far-right, or any other policital meme, it's just common sense.

 

[scribblet]

16 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

The Rebel has been banned from the UN-GCFM...by the looks of it, on the recommendation of JT and Ahmed Hussen.

But, you know...none of your fears re: $595 million bail-outs and the Free Press are real...you wack job.

Of course, they don't want to be exposed...     this is part of the Trudeau regime's plan to control the media and the message because we know they  awarded the Toronto Star a sole source contract to pay the Star journo’s to “cover” Parliamentary Committee meetings.   Cos you know – only the Star is capable of reporting on Trudeau. (read spreading propaganda) Thank goodness this source contract was blocked by the ombudsman.

 https://www.blacklocks.ca/ombudsman-kills-contract/?fbclid=IwAR2sN5PRrNQ5_oyHYg91FXI11RiDJ-JERaVSbi_4WK4EvIJe3nzyFmlt5oc

A federal agency yesterday cancelled a $355,950 sole-sourced contract to pay Torstar Corporation reporters to attend public meetings. Authorities claimed only the Toronto Star was “capable”. The cancellation followed a formal complaint by Blacklock’s to Procurement Ombudsman Alexander Jeglic.

[turningrite]

2 minutes ago, scribblet said:

So all of these ‘elitists’ telling us that opposition to the UN compact on migration with the “it’s not legally binding” angle as the only argument in favour of signing  - is that  it’s not legally binding – then maybe they are wrong,  so what’s the point.

State controlled and orderly immigration based on merit and our national need is not Alt-right, far-right, or any other policital meme, it's just common sense.

 

You've got to wonder, though, why they're so interested in getting involved if the whole thing is merely virtue signalling mush? It seems odd to argue for something when noting at the same time that it's irrelevant. We saw this with M-103. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I suspect there's a real agenda behind the virtue-signaling and that if we just give it a pass we'll eventually land in a situation where that agenda's been normalized and enshrined in policy and law. And then we'll be stuck with it.

[TTM]

7 hours ago, Army Guy said:

1a. The compact promises that national sovereignty and the rule of law will be respected and maintained, but then asks signees to affirm they will apply basic human rights and protections to migrants and insists that the “well-being of migrants”, including illegal immigrants, must be respected.

2. The document promises it is “not legally binding” and merely a framework, but at the same time, it encourages countries to sign the agreement, join the UN’s efforts and implement its suggestions at home.

The entire point of the UN Compact on Migration is to form the foundation of new international norms that will, in time, inform national laws.

3. [duplicate]

4.  It pledges to “eliminate all forms of discrimination, including racism , xenophobia and intolerance against migrants” — without defining these words or acknowledging that in today’s heated public discourse, these terms have been weaponized and are used to discredit anyone who doesn’t subscribe to Liberal ideals on immigration and multiculturalism.

What words would you have them use? Do you want new politically correct terms? These are the correct terms for the behavior they endeavor to eliminate. They have dictionary definitions.  Moreover I'm sure they have definitions in various human rights treaties weve already signed too.

5. But wait, the sentence continues to say, “with a view to dispelling misleading narratives that generate negative perceptions of migrants.” Governments are being told what the narratives are going to be by the UN....I guess I missed that class in democratic governments....

No. They are being told they should attempt dispel misleading narratives that may arise.  They are not "given a script" as to what those narratives are.

Ex. a narrative starts that people from country A have a tradition of eating babies and this is causing "negative perceptions" to immigrants from country A.  If it is not true, government should adress this.

2.  once again "WHY" do we need to sign on to a document, if we as a nation are already providing far better services than what this document say we should...

The statement that (1) "we shouldn't sign it because we already do everything in the document" directly contradicts the statement that (2) "we shouldn't sign it because it is making us enforce a bunch of special rights".

This is is why I dismissed it with "so what is the issue then?"

Please stop saying (1) when you mean (2)

Most Canadians believe that our immigrations numbers are WAY to high

Cite.  Also this document does not set immigration rates

4. Well it looks like you handful is growing by the day, The US, Austria, Australia, Hungry, Italy, Croatia, Israel, Poland, Greece plus there are discussions or heated debates in another 14 countries , such as here in Canada. Sure is a lot of white racists nationalist out there.....

What started in white nationalist circles has expanded to mainstream right wing political talking points. The left aren't really clamoring for this, so for the most part there is no real domestic political benefits to sticking your neck out on this one once the right wing get all riled up.  I expect if a tipping point is reached this will fail, to be taken up at some point in the future ... because it is an important issue.

6. Perhaps you can tell us what world changing moment has the UN given us in the last say 30 years.. 

They have successes and failures. 

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.ipsnews.net/2015/05/the-u-n-at-70-impressive-successes-and-monumental-failures/amp/?espv=1

7. I thought discussing topics was the democratic way....

?? I said it should be discussed.

The UN treaty doesn’t so much as mention the impact of mass migration on the host country and its citizens — who are often ignored and removed from any discussion on migration.

Objective 2 tries to adress and eliminate the causes irregular migration ...

What specifically would you like them to say about the host country?

 

 

[eyeball]

On 12/1/2018 at 8:08 AM, scribblet said:

What is very alarming is the intent to define criticism of migration as 'hate speech'  so would become a criminal offense.

Taking over the planet would sure be a lot easier if Soros would simply issue a fatwa that orders the deaths of all right-wing conservatives.

I'm starting to have my doubts about Soros, I mean look at what happened to Pinochet when he couldn't go the extra mile to do what needed to be done.

[scribblet]

Non-binding is deceptive, isn't the Trudeau regime imposing a brutal carbon tax in order to fulfill the 'non binding' Paris Accords - and naturally Canada will  agree to withhold taxpayer funding from media outlets that criticize immigration,  only shortly after announcing a gov't panel will be responsible for determining which media companies get to access a 600 M slush fund. 

This clause is part of the pact’s core objective to “shape perceptions of migration' along with calling for pro-immigration content to be put into school curriculums.

“Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media.”

Then there's this one:  Governments have to set up specialist, migrant focused health care which is culturally appropriate at both national and local level.      Goebbels would be proud.  

 How can it not affect sovereignty and if it doesn't  why are so many countries refusing to sign on including the oh so radical far right Switzerland...  

ETA:  The director of the N.Y.  office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has acknowledged that many people have anxieties about migration that have led to negative reactions to the compact. She said it aims to harness the collective strengths of governments, the private sector and others to make a "transformational shift" that can achieve better outcomes for refugees and their communities.

Edited December 8, 2018 by scribblet