UN Migration Pact part of the plan to extinguish Canadian identity

In the last few weeks, I’ve had serious conversations with colleagues about whether the federal government is going to allow me to continue using the term “illegal migrants” in reference to the influx of people at Roxboro Road. I’m not kidding.

That’s because the new United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration — which Canada is expected to sign in Marrakech, Morocco on Dec. 10-11 — has a section about media re-education in how we talk about all migrants, including those who break the rules to come to our country.

Objective 17 of the pact commits the government to “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.”

I love the way they throw that last part in — “in full respect for the freedom of the media” — as if the entire paragraph preceding it didn’t just negate the notion of press freedom.

But it took Western University professor Salim Mansur to piece it all together for me. It was coincidental that the day I spoke to Mansur was the day former U.S. president George H.W. Bush was being laid to rest because it was Bush Sr. who first declared the New World Order after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. I don’t know what he meant by the term when he first said it, but it is becoming increasingly clear how the bureaucrats at the United Nations see it, along with sycophantic world leaders like Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who crave international validation.

When, just after getting elected, Trudeau declared, “We’re back,” I wasn’t sure what he meant, nor did I know what he was up to when he told the New York Times that Canada was “the first post-national state.” But I never thought it would mean extinguishing the Canadian identity.

Mansur connected the dots. I thought it odd when Trudeau used the term “irregular migrants” when the illegal crossings began. There are experts who say nothing illegal is going on and that it is not illegal for someone to enter Canada for the purpose of making an asylum claim at any point along the Canada-U.S. border. I call them illegal crossings because those who enter our country via Roxboro Road have to walk past a sign that says it is illegal to cross the border. The reason they don’t go to a proper border crossing is because they could be turned away under our Safe Third Country Agreement.

After reading the UN pact, I’m beginning to realize that Trudeau’s ill-considered “Welcome to Canada” tweet to the world was likely deliberate, as well as the language he uses to normalize illegal crossings. The pact seeks to make migration — for any reason — a recognized right. As for the rights of the receiving nation to object to having their borders overrun? Well, now you’re just being racist.

M-103 — the non-binding motion that condemns Islamophobia — has been in the works for years under the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, which have a disproportionate influence at the UN. Last week, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan said there needs to be an international convention to ban speech that is insulting to Muslims. Looks like that is part of the migration pact, too. There’s more.

Bill C-69, the bill that will make it impossible to build pipelines, and Bill C-48, the bill that bans tanker traffic off the northern B.C. coast, are also deliberate. Landlocking Alberta oil and crushing our energy industry flows from the unrealistic commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions committed to in the Paris Accord, which is also referenced in the migration pact.

According to Mansur, the $600-million media bailout is the last piece of the strategy to ensure compliance by financially punishing those outlets that don’t play along with the new speech and thought code.

I suppose one way to look at it is there is no reason to worry when Trudeau signs the pact next week because he’s already implemented the key provisions of it. The other way of looking at it is this: when did we give our prime minister the unilateral authority to sign away our sovereignty?

Please share this.