The UN Global Compact for Migration aims to “leverage” migration in order to achieve “all Sustainable Development Goals”
Canada has foolishly, irresponsibly signed the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (which James Delingpole calls “the UN’s sinister blueprint for migration hell”).
The UN claims that
This Global Compact is the product of an unprecedented review of evidence and data gathered during an open, transparent and inclusive process … (Section 10)
However, the draconian “migration hell” agreement has not been debated or voted on in Canada’s Parliament, PM Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government did not inform Canadians, Canada’s taxpayer-funded state broadcaster the CBC has not enlightened its audience, and most of the mainstream media have remained deaf, dumb, and blind about it.
The UN Global Compact references “sustainable development” 22 times, and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 13 times. The UN Global Compact’s plans for nightmarish unfettered, aggressive, free-for-all migration are paired with mandates to meet the UN’s dictatorial “sustainable development” goals.
“Sustainable development” is nothing more than a brazen power grab, the UN’s excuse for a bid for supranational unelected, unaccountable global governance, coerced wealth redistribution, deindustrialization, and the abrogation of national sovereignty, individual freedoms, and democratic rights.
The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development grew out of the 1992 UN Agenda 21 “programme of action” for sustainable development. The UN created an imaginary planetary climate emergency, supposedly caused by plant food carbon dioxide driving fictitious manmade climate change, which can only be “fought” by UN fiat, diktat, and command-and-control over everyone and everything. The UN decrees that “Sustainable Development” must be at the core of and govern every single human endeavour, including migration.
Thus, the following UN Global Compact directives (emphasis added):
The Global Compact is rooted in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development … Migration contributes to positive development outcomes and to realizing the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development … The Global Compact aims to leverage the potential of migration for the achievement of all Sustainable Development Goals…” (Section 15)
Collect, analyse and use data … with a view to inform the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and related strategies and programmes at the local, national, regional and global levels.” (Section 17)
… develop research, studies and surveys on the interrelationship between migration and the three dimensions of sustainable development (Section 17)
… commit to ensure timely and full implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Section 18)
Promote the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including the Sustainable Development Goals … as well as the Paris Agreement … (Section 18)
Invest in programmes that accelerate States’ fulfilment of the Sustainable Development Goals (Section 18)
Invest in sustainable development at local and national levels in all regions …. drive sustainable development (Section 18)
We commit … to harness the benefits of migration as a source of sustainable development … (Section 35)
Ensure the full and effective implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development … by fostering and facilitating the positive effects of migration for the realization of all Sustainable Development Goals. (Section 35)
… commit to … aligning the implementation of this Global Compact with … the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development … (Section 39)
Increase international and regional cooperation to accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. (Section 39)
The UN Global Compact for “safe and orderly” (come one, come all) migration is yet another pernicious, insidious UN scheme to advance and enforce its destructive, sovereignty-robbing policies, regulations, laws, and diktats meant to hobble states and tighten the noose of “sustainable development” around the necks of industry, resources, and people.
At the same time the UN Global Compact gives “migrants” the unprecedented “right” to migrate, and foists them on states without the vote or agreement of their citizens. It gives migrants more special rights and freebies than any hardworking or homeless Canadians have ever received. Migrants to Canada will become persons with special status beyond the reach of mere mortal Canadians, who are left to foot the hefty migration bill.
YouTube commentator AmazingPolly brilliantly puts the special status given to migrants into shocking perspective. She posits that under the UN Global Compact, 225 million migrants will become de facto UN citizens that the UN will use, without doing any of the heavy lifting, to colonize signatory states. As she puts it, migrants become walking, “portable UN jurisdictions.” Wherever they go, they will have the protection and “rights” given to them by UN fiat, and the host signatory country is saddled with providing and paying for them. Every migrant will in effect be planting a UN flag in the nation of his or her choice, says AmazingPolly.
The UN Global Compact IS binding, and legally so
Pundits and politicians have been telling us that what’s in the Global Compact is nothing to worry about, because it’s “non-binding.” Andrew Lawton exposes the lie.
The 34-page “Intergovernmentally Negotiated and Agreed Outcome” claims that it is “non-legally binding.”
“This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, cooperative framework that builds on the commitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants.“ (Section 7)
3 (3) This Act is to be construed and applied in a manner that (f) complies with international rights instruments to which Canada is signatory.
The Global Compact would appear to be an “international rights instrument” and Canada has signed it and the Act must comply with it.
In fact, the EU has already proclaimed that it is “the legal framework on which the participating countries commit themselves to build new legislation.”
Canada, for one, is currently being governed as if UN agreements such as UN Agenda 21, the UN 2030 Agenda, the UN Paris Agreement, et alia, all of them supposedly “non-binding” agreements, are legally binding. In the case of the so-called “non-binding” Paris climate agreement, the Trudeau government in Canada has been acting on and implementing the “commitments” (for example blocking fossil fuel industry operations and needed pipelines) and developing laws (“carbon” taxation) in order to fulfil the UN diktats contained in it.
Trudeau, an apparent globalist (“There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada … the first postnational state“) and admirer of “basic dictatorship,” has stated that Canada should take the lead in implementing the UN Global Compact. In fact, he has already been acting in accordance with it, judging by his open Twitter invitation to all comers and the huge number of immigrants/migrants, supposed asylum-seekers heeding the call and streaming illegally across the border from the USA into Canada.
The intentions of Canada’s leaders were made clear when they signed the UN Global Compact, thereby pledging to
… commit to … ensuring that the words in this document translate into concrete actions for the benefit of millions of people in every region of the world. (Section 14)
… a whole-of-government approach is needed …(Section 15)
The UN Global Compact will criminalize “migration speech”
One of the many truly chilling and Orwellian aspects of the UN Global Compact is that signatories agree to engage in “sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology” in order to “promote independent, objective and quality reporting.”
While supposedly “in full respect for the freedom of the media,” signatories are directed to mete out punishment by withholding public funding if the media haven’t been properly sensitized and educated, and therefore are guilty of committing migration wrong-think.
In other words, the media must become government propaganda machines or suffer the consequences. The EU even went so far as to say that “criticism of migration will become a criminal offense.”
So read, share, and discuss while you still can without risking jail!
The Ontario McGuinty/Wynne Liberal governments created special legislation and regulations for industrial wind turbine owners, granting them permits to slaughter species at risk without consequences. They have license not only to kill, harm or harass a member of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List, but also to situate the bird-killing machines in designated Important Bird Areas—and they take full advantage.
Ontario Regulation 242/08: General under the Endangered Species Act, 2007. S.O. 2007, c.6 states in section 23.20 that
Clause 9 (1) (a) and subsection 10 (1) of the Act do not apply to a person who is engaged in the operation of a wind facility and who, in the course of the operation of the wind facility, kills, harms or harasses a member of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an endangered or threatened species, or damages or destroys the habitat of such a species…
Fauna not at risk are fair game, no permit required.
The federal Liberal minister of the environment, Catherine McKenna, doesn’t see anything wrong with this. McKenna’s straw-woman response to Sen. Bob Runciman’s request to assess the cumulative effect the killing machines have on birds and bats is that “wind turbines kill relatively few birds when compared to cats, windows on buildings, vehicles and transmission lines.”
Bird Studies Canada, claiming to be “Canada’s leading science-based bird conservation organization,” and others of its ilk don’t seem to care about the wind industry’s bloody bird and bat massacres. In Bird Studies Canada’s Top 6 Ways You Can Help Birds web page, there is not a single word about it. Instead we are fed greenie kumbaya pap such as: “Reducing overall consumption, and making ‘greener’ choices generally, reduces your environmental footprint and benefits all wildlife over time.”
The save-the-planet environmentalist-pretenders sure don’t care. As Oxford biologist Clive Hambler pointed out in 2013 (emphasis added):
Wind farms are devastating populations of rare birds and bats across the world, driving some to the point of extinction. Most environmentalists just don’t want to know. Because they’re so desperate to believe in renewable energy, they’re in a state of denial. But the evidence suggests that … renewables pose a far greater threat to wildlife than climate change.
Over in the UK, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Birds (RSPB), as James Delingpole derisively called it in 2014, has also lost its way:
A wind farm in Scotland, which the RSPB was instrumental in easing through the planning process ten years ago has successfully destroyed all but one of the forty breeding pairs of golden plover in the region.
… birds are what the RSPB – originally known as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds – was established to protect.
… it appears to have decided that the “birds” in its name no longer have much relevance to its campaigning causes. In fact it appears increasingly to view their destruction with equanimity.
… the RSPB … made up its mind … that climate change was such an important issue that supporting renewable energy was more important than stopping birds being sliced and diced by gigantic eco-crucifixes … despite copious evidence from around the world of the millions of birds (and bats) killed by turbines each year.
As usual, it’s a case of follow-the-money. As James Delingpole reported, the RSPB “is making hundreds of thousands of pounds from the wind power industry.” Bird-protection mandate and charity status obligations be damned.
The wind industry worldwide is very good at hiding mortality rates, and governments and the mainstream media don’t care for the truth—it would ruin their save-the-planet-from-burning-up-with-green-technology narrative. Wildlife expert Jim Wiegand and other analysts estimated in 2013 that in the United States, the industrial wind turbines annually kill up to 39 million birds and bats, but the wind industry will never admit it.
The wind industry is hiding over 90% of the bird and bat mortality caused by their turbines. This statement is supported by the industry’s own data and reasonable adjustments for its manipulations.
The wind industry is … producing faulty, misleading and even fraudulent documents to hide the serious and growing mortality. This situation has continued for years but has been shielded by state and federal agencies and other supporters of wind power.
As the bird and bat mortality reports are slowly uncovered, the numbers just seem to get worse and worse. I never imagined it could get this low, but then again nobody was releasing this info to the public, so how were we to know?
As she implies, real news like this is hardly ever published in the mainstream media and certainly not advertised by bird protection organizations such as Bird Studies Canada. Not surprising when you consider that Bird Studies Canada partners with the Canadian Wind Energy Association, Environment Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources to maintain the Wind Energy Bird & Bat Monitoring Database and produce the Wind Energy Bird and Bat Monitoring Database Summary of the Findings from Post-construction Monitoring Reports, dated July 2016.
Of course, the Canadian Wind Energy Association, Environment Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources all have a vested interest in NOT broadcasting how many birds and bats the wind industry kills every year. That would be bad for the subsidy-sucking, taxpayer-gouging wind business, and really bad for public acceptance of government greenie, ”sustainable,” “alternative energy,“ “tackling climate change,” “decarbonizing,” “reducing carbon pollution,” “changing behaviour,” “economy and environment go together,” “saving the planet” policies.
It is therefore astonishing and laudable that the Wind Energy Bird and Bat Monitoring Database Summary concludes that there are serious problems with respect to the scientific validity of the bird and bat mortality estimates:
The mortality estimates presented here potentially underestimate true mortality as they are based solely on carcasses that fell within 50 m of the turbine base.
…the proportion of carcasses expected to fall outside of 50 m [estimated] to be up to 51.8% of birds, based on 4 studies that searched a radius up to 85 m.
For 80 m turbines, carcasses were expected to fall to a maximum distance of 156 m. These findings indicate that the mortality estimates presented here may underestimate true mortality…
The numbers in the FOI reports that Esther obtained, while shocking, are probably just the tip of the iceberg. And just imagine the numbers world-wide!
And for what are millions of birds and bats being sacrificed, with hardly a peep of protest to be heard from the many (co-opted) bird protection organizations around the world? It would be bad enough if their deaths were collateral damage for a greater good, but the terrible fact is that they are being slaughtered for nothing except a morally corrupt ideology—the massive scientific deception of manmade climate change, where the industrial wind abominations supposedly are a remedy for what is actually a non-existent problem.
The killer wind machines, these fake-green, bird-and-bat-slaughtering, taxpayer-robbing, corporate-welfare, crony-capitalist monstrosities, will never meet our energy needs, will never have any redeeming value whatsoever—not for the environment, not for the economy, not for our quality of life.
The wolf in sheep’s clothing in Ontario
In Part One we tried to understand why useless and destructive industrial wind turbines continue to be forced on unwilling communities in rural Ontario. The Government of Ontario seems to be in the grip of powerful unelected, unaccountable interests that makes it care little for the democratic process, the welfare of the people or the health of the economy.
We discussed how Agenda 21/Sustainable Development, devised by the United Nations, is a plan to inventory and control everything and everyone on the planet. The rationale for the plan is the phoney prognostication of catastrophic climate change brought about by supposed man-made global warming. The leading promoter of this massive doom-and-gloom scenario is the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). As James Delingpole put it in his must-read book Watermelons:
…the ‘evidence’ that has been provided for us by the sources of supposed authority (our political leaders, the media, the scientists…) is so corrupt as to be meaningless.
In 1992, Canada was one of the 179 countries to “surrender their sovereignty”, as Delingpole writes, “by signing up to perhaps the most far-reaching and constrictive code of environmentally correct practice in the history of the world …” He describes Agenda 21/Sustainable Development as “a document right up there in significance with the Declaration of Independence and the Magna Carta (though with exactly the opposite effects).” He explains that Agenda 21 is a wolf in sheep’s clothing:
…it contains no legally binding obligations. But then, it doesn’t need to, for its apparently voluntary codes can be enforced – and are regularly enforced – via a mechanism over which sovereign governments have little control anyway: the vast, labyrinthine, democratically unaccountable behemoth that is the United Nations.
Delingpole explains further:
…the apparently ‘voluntary’ codes are enforced in such a way as to pass unnoticed by those outside the system. Those within the system include politicians…UN technocrats, green activists and environmental NGOs. Those outside the system are people like you and me. We don’t know how Agenda 21 works because we are not meant to know.
Delingpole quotes from a 1998 UN discussion paper that suggests how best to keep us in the dark:
This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’…would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’…So, we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management, or smart growth.
So there you have it: an agenda, rationalized by a fake planetary emergency, that easily crosses sovereignty lines, and that is deployed and enforced by an unelected, unaccountable body using “lies, deception and a form of Orwellian Newspeak” to hide its true purpose and actions.
Agenda 21 at the local level: “And there ain’t nothing you can do about it”
In Part One we saw how unelected, unaccountable environmental NGOs played a prominent and proud role in creating Ontario’s undemocratic Green Energy Act in 2009. Their malignant influence has not waned since then. Read Parker Gallant’s exposé of who really sets Ontario’s energy policies.
At the local level, things are no better.
As James Delingpole explains in Watermelons, Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is enforced at the local level in small, seemingly unstoppable increments through ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, “the UN-funded pressure group responsible for promoting Agenda 21”. First, local environmental activists form a lobby group, and urge the local councils to sign up with ICLEI to “become part of ICLEI’s network of local governments working together to advance sustainability“. (See the list of ICLEI Canada members here.)
Delingpole describes what happens next:
ICLEI bestows accolades on the local government…for its efforts at advancing the valuable cause of sustainable government. In turn, the local government entity can then boast about its achievements in publicity handouts, showing voters how sensitive and caring it is. These ratings also make it far more likely that the local council will receive grants and/or other financial inducements from any number of UN or…government-sponsored initiatives. In return…the local council feels honour-bound to promote the ‘sustainability’ agenda it has committed to…
He adds: “And there ain’t nothing you can do about it.”
Freedom Advocates lists some of the consequences:
While some of these policies sound good on the surface, they result in consequences such as: high-density housing scams…open space where access is not allowed; government “partnering” with favored private businesses and non-profit agencies using your tax money…undermining Constitutional administration of government; managed control over your life; mismanagement of public utilities; prohibitions on natural resource management leading to increased fire hazards, lack of water, and private property restrictions; increased taxes, fees, regulations and restrictions.
What’s in a word: sustainability
So, is ICLEI or an ICLEI-based mindset or activity operating in your local community? Even if your town is not a direct member of ICLEI, it is subscribing to ICLEI indirectly by virtue of membership in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, itself an ICLEI member.
Sustainability is hiding in plain sight everywhere in your community. To see it, all you have to do is conduct an online search for the terms ‘sustainable development’ or ‘sustainability’ on the websites of your local governments, schools, colleges and universities, community centres, non-profit and charitable organizations, foundations and institutes. Chances are you will find countless examples of that word popping up, either in the names of organizations, or committees, curricula, programs, funding, mission statements, planning documents, recommendations and reports, official pledges, policies, bylaws, rules, regulations and other legislation. As Delingpole writes:
You thought ‘sustainability’ meant desirable, manageable life-goals…Sustainable Development sounds like a good thing…but in fact its underlying philosophy has much more to do with taxation, regulation and control.
ICLEI at work in your town
The 2011 recommendation from the Town of Milton’s Director of Planning and Development clearly shows the straight-line connection from the origins of the concept of sustainability (which eventually gave birth to Agenda 21), to the automatic infiltration of the concept into municipal governance, to the required implementation of the concept in order to qualify for funding and incentives (emphasis added):
Town of Milton staff is developing a Sustainability Plan for the Town that will be adopted as an amendment to the Official Plan. This plan will ensure the Town meets the requirements under the Agreement for the Transfer of Federal Gas Tax Revenues and also allows the Town more freedom when applying for funding and incentives.
As Mayor and Council may be aware, the word sustainable, and the associated implications, has become a permanent part of planning within a municipality. The Bruntland Commission coined the most often used definition for the term and states that sustainable development is that which “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Sustainability initiatives within municipalities can be found in all areas; from policy creation, to new developments, to redevelopment within a built area, as well as in operations and programs. Creating an overall plan to guide these activities has become an integral part of entrenching sustainability in the corporate municipal culture.
Conditions surrounding the Federal Gas Tax have further provided motivation for plan development. An Agreement for the Transfer of Federal Gas Tax Revenues under the New Deal for Cities and Communities allows municipalities to tailor funding to suit local requirements. Section 8.2 of the Municipal Funding Agreement (MFA) requires that, over the life of the Agreement, municipalities develop or enhance an Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP).
In 2010, The Town of the Blue Mountains published a gorgeous, glossy 126-page book called The Blue Mountains Sustainability Path, wherein the fine print says that its preparation was carried out “with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities”. The cover, however, proclaims that the book was “created by the people of the Blue Mountains and their friends”. This makes it look as if the voters had full knowledge, input, buy-in, or agreement with the contents of the document. This may not have been exactly the case.
On page 5, the book describes how The Town of the Blue Mountains created its ‘sustainable path’. With funding from the previously mentioned Federation of Canadian Municipalities, it started by having ‘Community Partners’ adopt the same definition of sustainability which spawned Agenda 21, the identical one used by the Town of Milton above. Then the Community Partners formed a Sustainable Path Implementation Steering Committee (ISC) to which they also elected a few members of the public (who must show fealty and “formally declare support for the implementation of The Sustainable Path by signing and submitting an Implementation Declaration”). The terms of reference say the ISC is not a committee of the Town, and that “The Town of the Blue Mountains acts as Stewards of the Plan.” Community collaboration and agreement to the plan are thus rationalized. No municipal voting or referendum on the overall direction or commitments required. It’s likely that most of the communities across Ontario and Canada have employed similar procedures for developing and implementing Agenda 21-inspired “sustainability paths”, guided by ICLEI’s boilerplate solutions and action plans.
ICLEI Canada provides “toolkits” for every conceivable sustainability initiative:
Research has identified a set of tools to promote behavior change: obtaining commitments, using prompts, utilizing social norms, designing effective communications, providing incentives, and removing external barriers. Not all tools need to be utilized in any one campaign, but note that they are most effective when used in combination with each other.
ICLEI’s publication Leadership & Legacy: Handbook for Local Elected Officials on Climate Change is instructive, to say the least. It’s the perfect propaganda and brainwashing document on the subject of (debunked) man-made global warming and catastrophic climate change for the unsuspecting or opportunistic elected official, paid for by your tax money: “This resource was made possible thanks to the generous support of Natural Resources Canada: Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Division.”
Another 111-page ICLEI document, made possible again “thanks to the generous support of Natural Resources Canada: Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Division”, i.e. your tax money, is Having the Climate Conversation: Strategies for Local Government. If you believe that the notion of man-made global warming is a hoax, and that there is no catastrophic planetary climate change emergency, and that it has all been concocted for nefarious power-grab reasons, and that the IPCC’s lies and data fakery have spawned a huge and lucrative climate change/carbon trading/alternative energy industry, then this handbook makes for very depressing reading indeed. ICLEI provides every communication trick and rationale known to man to help public officials continue to maintain the fiction. For example, on page 52, we read:
Extreme weather events can provide very effective teachable moments where climate change messages become highly relevant to the experiences of an audience. Whether experienced first- hand or remotely in other areas of the world, these events tend to be vivid and dramatic. They also tend to receive considerable attention in the press, which can be used to spark interest and trigger dialogue. Such events can include floods, heat waves, ice and wind storms, or forest fires. These events make it easier to envision a warmer, wetter, and more extreme world, and to anticipate some of the environmental and economic impacts that such a future would bring. As such, extreme events can be effective catalysts for changing behaviour and initiating a dialogue on the need for more adaptive and resilient communities.
Perhaps the most revealing section starts on page 94, in the section called Communication Challenges, especially Challenge #4-Climate Change Uncertainty, on page 99.
Three main areas of uncertainty exist when making climate change projections: The lack of complete knowledge of how climate works; natural variability in the climate system; and the inability to predict what humans will do in the future that has impacts on the climate.
Despite these admissions, the document nevertheless proceeds to explain the IPCC’s ludicrously contorted “Confidence Terminology” and “Degree of confidence in being correct” and its “Likelihood Terminology” and “Likelihood of the occurrence/outcome”, ratings that are somehow supposed to make IPCC predictions believable. You have to see the charts to understand how absolutely feeble and puerile this stuff is, and yet government and the media routinely and dutifully repeat the IPCC’s fabricated, bogus “Extremely likely” rating it has given to its latest fraudulent claims.
The final “Communication Challenge” is odious in its use of language: “Challenge #5-Dealing with skeptics and deniers.” That would be us, and good luck with that!
It ain’t over ’til it’s over
James Delingpole wrote in Watermelons, “And there ain’t nothing you can do about it” but the State of Alabama, for one, did do something:
Alabama became the first state to adopt a tough law protecting private property and due process by prohibiting any government involvement with or participation in a controversial United Nations scheme known as Agenda 21.
Resistance is not futile. Our American neighbours have some advice on how to fight back. The best one is that knowledge is power. Get informed, and become powerful. But you won’t find out much about any of this from the majority of the mainstream media, who take man-made global warming and catastrophic climate change as a given. Do your own research about Agenda 21/Sustainable Development, ICLEI, the IPCC, “green” legislation, “green” NGOs, Ontario’s Green Energy Act. Monitor your local, provincial and federal governments and follow the money.