C3RF Member Update - 12 October, 2018
M-103 on Steroids – The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration
Here we thought Motion M-103 was a real and present danger to our Charter Rights. The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration stands to do so on an unprecedented scale as host populations are prepped to better accept a massive migrant influx. These preparations include the need to “eliminate all forms of discrimination, including racism, xenophobia and intolerance against migrants and their families”. Does this sound like M-103’s call to “quell” a “rising tide of hate and fear” to you? All this even as the Compact calls for the transfer of wealth to countries of migrant origin, the expenditure of additional provincial health and education resources to service an exploding migrant population, the flooding of job markets with cheap labour and the coordination of border controls with international authorities. Sound good so far? If not, make your voice heard by signing our related C3RF petition here. If not now, then perhaps after you read the material below.
Bit of Background
The Global Compact on migration is an inter-governmentally negotiated agreement coordinated by the United Nations. It has been a work-in-progress for two years with the final text agreed to this past July. It moves forward to formal adoption by UN members states, save for the United States, Australia and Hungary, this December in Morocco. It is noteworthy that the U.S. and Australia see the Compact as incompatible with their sovereignty concerns while Hungary desires measures that deter, rather than promote, migration. The two worldviews for and against the Compact could not be further apart as the U.N. sees migration as a benefit to all while opponents see it as a risk to security and social cohesion. Here are some of the aspects of the Compact that Canada is about to sign onto, it:
is rooted in the U.N 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and is therefore affiliated with related initiatives such as the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC);
affirms the pre-eminence of international law in areas that include national migration policy, protocols that distinguish between regular and irregular migration status, due process, labour mobility and recruitment and initiatives that deal with discrimination and associated redress mechanisms;
requires a “whole of government” approach to eliminating discrimination and intolerance of migrants and their families;
seeks to minimize factors that drive migration through elimination of socioeconomic factors such as poverty, failing infrastructure and climate change while funding sustainable development at local and national levels in originating states;
sees border management as an internationally coordinated and integrated affair;
requires laws that see provision of basic services to migrants absent grounds of discrimination that include “political or other opinion”;
requires the incorporation of national health and education plans and policies that accommodate all migrants without discrimination in a “lifelong” fashion;
requires the minimization of disparities between migrant and host populations;
calls for migrant access to decent work and employment opportunities and safe, welcoming school environments for their children that are absent all forms of discrimination;
requires passage of laws that penalize hate crimes directed at migrants and the training of law enforcement and other public officials to respond to such occurrences;
demands the cessation of funds to media outlets that promote intolerance against migrants and the provision of national and regional complaint and redress mechanisms;
calls for the provision of labour-matching and skills development programs for migrants;
requires the promotion of safer, cheaper and easier means of remittance corridors to originating states; and
calls for the facilitation of return and readmission to originating states including financial support and the portability of social security benefits and earned benefits from host states.
Make no mistake, this Global Compact, with its promotion of available and flexible “pathways” of migration, means supranational coordination of international border controls. This will not be the first time the world has witnessed such developments as they are resident within the European context of the past few years. I speak, of course, of EU migration policy that saw European borders opened to mass Muslim migration from the Middle East and North Africa. The results in areas of security, violent crime, individual rights and finances has been, and continues to be, startling. Is there any reason that similar, supranational efforts at the U.N. level will produce different outcomes for Canada?
Coincidental or Connected?
Given the similarities between the rollout and potential impact on individual rights of both Motion M-103 and the Global Compact, one might wonder if they have been crafted by a common hand. Certainly, they have both flown under the radar with little public debate before their instatement. As well, they both place an inordinate amount of pressure on the host nation to accommodate migrant sensibilities and needs. There is simply no mandate for the migrant to integrate or even consider the possibility that such a capacity might be a part of the migration process. Rather than this, the accepted bigotry of the host population must be “quelled” (M-103) or eliminated (Global Compact). Not great ways to start a “lifelong” relationship between host and migrant communities.
Time for Meaningful Consultation?
The stakes involved by virtue of the Global Compact are potentially nation-changing and include the type of social dislocation we are beginning to see in Europe. Sure, one might say that the agreement is non-binding since it doesn’t constitute an official treaty or UN Convention but it will establish an international norm regards the governance of international migration. It is norms such as these that can become part of what international law experts call “customary international law,” that, in turn, can inform and shape national laws. Given the fact that the Compact calls up the need for significant resources to be expended by both federal and provincial agencies and for individual Canadians to sacrifice their right to criticize such policies and expenditures, is it not time to openly debate Canada’s participation in such a venture? Should you start by contacting your federal and provincial representatives to express your concerns? Why do these same representatives feel it’s OK to keep us in the dark on such critical national initiatives. After all, we elected them, not the U.N. apparatchiks they are seemingly reporting to. Finally, if you haven’t already done so, sign the petition that demands the public consultation that this issue so richly deserves.
C3RF Twitter Highlights
Theme-based Twitter highlights this week home-in on the seeming disconnect between the State’s selective respect for the rights of its citizens. Cases in point over the past several days include its reticence to deal with Canadian ISIS fighters who have had the misfortune of being captured while escaping from the battlefield. A second case sees the rights of citizens circumvented when it came to attending an advertised public event in the form of an Islamic “Carry the Light” conference in Mississauga. Here’s a smattering of related tweets:
Govt says returning ISIS fighters cannot be detained without evidence-based charges. Can't be treated as POWs. Don't wear uniforms. Who says? ...dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3 … They meet all the requirements of an enemy combatant. At least detain them till end of hostilities;
This is embarrassing. Why are Canadian security authorities offering avowed terrorists and enemies of Canada the cover of the criminal justice system. This man is an illegal enemy combatant by Geneva Conventions standards. Get on with the military tribunal. Secure the nation.
Ongoing operations and trends
C3RF believes that the Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration represents a clear danger to Canada’s ability to exercise its sovereign responsibilities in the critical fields of national security, immigration and the preservation of individual rights and freedoms. Accordingly, it is committed to raising public awareness through petitions and any number of other public advocacy measures. Look for future correspondence on these measures in the near future. Additionally, we remain focused on C3RF founding members Weld and Price v. Ottawa Public Library. This free speech case continues to grind its way slowly through our judicial system. With your support, we will continue such efforts even as we seek to educate the Canadian public on threats to their treasured fundamental and individual rights and freedoms.
For those of you who have recently contributed to our coffers, thank you very much. We cannot continue to operate and progress such initiatives without such aid. Having said that, we could certainly use a lot more of it from all others and hope you can contribute towards making a difference. If you are able to make a monthly donation, no matter how small, even $5/month, it will help us plan our finances and provide funding for a rainy day which is sure to come.
C3RF continues to monitor and react against attacks on your fundamental rights and freedoms on a number of increasing fronts. It really does appear that there is a “full court press” ongoing with developments forthcoming in the fields of the Global Compact on Safe, Open and Regular Migration, censorship not only of documentaries like “Killing Europe” but those that discuss the censorship process itself as with the follow-on documentary “Killing Canada”, differentiated “hate speech” rules for Islamic conferences, attempts by Islamist organizations like the OIC to bring sharia speech codes to non-Muslim nations and the list goes on and on. With your support, we will continue such efforts even as we seek to educate the Canadian public on threats to their treasured fundamental and individual rights and freedoms.
For those of you who have recently contributed to our coffers, thank you very much. We cannot continue to operate and make progress on such initiatives without such aid. Having said that, we could certainly use a lot more of it from all others and hope you can contribute towards making a difference. If you are able to make a monthly donation, no matter how small, even $5/month, it will help us plan our finances and provide funding for a rainy day which is sure to come.
And while you're considering making a difference, please follow C3RF on Twitter, on Facebook and on our web site and share with friends our great content and a realistic outlook on the continuing battle for Charter Rights in Canada.
Major Russ Cooper (Ret'd)