Globalization and UN activism in Canada with Big Brother and the Enablers
"UNA-Canada's projects also aim to define foreign policy priorities for our government"
Quote from the United Nations Association in Canada. Is our government social engineering? Indoctrinating? Practicing thought control in the service of globalization and the UN? I believe so.
Our government's inordinate respect for the United Nations, about which so much chicanery has been revealed, raises my cynicism to the point where I read further. The Global TV news item (Dec. 6, 05 "Media Hatchet Job in the Maritimes") is partly responsible for my quest and, like Topsy, the quest for more information "just grew and grew".
I wondered for example, why
the UN's Kofi Annan was invited--or did he
ask--to speak to Canada's Parliament?
Why was he accorded such respect when heads of state are not? When interference in our election makes the news at present and everyone criticizes any foreign involvement,
why is our government honouring the views of an organization led by a man who ignores evil and terrorism, even when it is staring him in the face? Read Daniel Pipes' article on Kofi Annan's selective stupidity concerning the Palestinians' map which omits Israel; it is not on the map. Why do Annan and the UN not react to the Muslim states who state openly that they would obliterate Israel and Israelis? (National Post, Dec. 15, 05). Then I remembered
Arafat's appearance with a gun at the UN. Note too that the Arab League is active through the UN in Canada. Our government is honouring all that? It boggles the mind. This government did not ask the rest of us.
I question the dictates of
this self-serving body--not every country nor its representative--but the current movers and shakers of the
UN, a body whose survival depends upon convincing enough member states that its influence and the good it does--such as it is--warrants not only its survival, but its
expansion, its reach.
It is this expansion of influence into into Canada with the Liberal government(s) complicity that I question.UN expansion is achieved with a willing Paul Martin & Team through allowing and approving with funding,
UN activism and influence over what are considered acceptable topics for discussion, along with delineating what are acceptable attitudes -- attitudes which, in effect,
have placed some questions beyond debate altogether.
At the national level, a
compliant-to-UN-speak Canadian government, using the UN to advance its own plans as well, has
narrowed the range of debate in compliance with UN-speak. What follow are just a few examples:
* Consider the Kyoto accord: There has been one perspective on climate change that has dominated for years, compliments of taxpayer funding, with the likelihood of much more if the Paul Martin government is successful with its plans, the government-&-UN-approved position. Yet, there are other perspectives from scientiests who have not received the same wide publicity, not being the recipients of taxpayer largesse. Since government and the mainstream media are supportive of each other (in an enabling relationship, as Lorrie Goldstein might phrase it.), the non-government-approved and non-UN-approved science information has not been disseminated adequately enough to be included in the debate. See the example I posted on this website detailing how difficult, how impossible, it is to get a public hearing for your research if government is against it--if it goes against what Big Government wants to do.
FHTR: Week of May 8-13, 05 -- Kyoto: triggering government funding & "broadcast quality" -- Government information control is insidious.http://
frosthitstherhubarb.blogspot.com/
2005_05_08_frosthitstherhubarb_archive.html
CFP: Kyoto Protocol--Propaganda or Censorship? -- How to keep information from being broadcast to Canadians if it contradicts the line the government is pushing by Garth Pritchard, Canadafreepress.com, Saturday, May 7, 2005
http://
canadafreepress.com/2005/cover050705.htm
Last Thursday, I received a telephone call from Douglas Leahey, Ph.D., representing a group of Canadian scientists under the umbrella of "Friends of Science." It seems that they had been talking to Peter Worthington of the Toronto Sun, and he had mentioned to them that they should get in touch with me.
[. . . . ] Then I found out what their documentary was about. The story was incredible: it documented scientists--from Canada--speaking out against the $10-billion scam known as the Kyoto Protocol.
Yes, the very same Kyoto Accord that our government has committed Canada and Canadians to support.
[. . . . ] The Canadian government created an entity known as Telefilm and the Canadian Television Fund--a $250-million slush fund of taxpayers’ dollars. A bureaucracy that in theory provides funds for the creation of Canadian programming. Hidden in this monolith are a few interesting rules: [. . . . ]
These scientists were so hamstrung by the rules that they could not get a film--that they, themselves, had paid to make--into the television media so the rest of us could see and hear for ourselves. This is engrossing and shows Big Brother in action. Do you ever wonder about the "news" that is "allowed" to be heard through the Liberal Propaganda Organs? Unbelievable government interference!
Nothing substantive came out of the Kyoto and climate change conference recently held in Montreal; it fact, other countries are re-thinking this slavish following of what the UN wants. (Think of UN pressure for Western
guilt geld in the form of
Kyoto pollution credits, credits which will facilitate economic and other expansion in countries such as Russia and China, particularly China, which will continue polluting using
Canadian energy sources and minerals. All this will be achieved on the backs of businesses and Canadians' who will be paying; we will be penalizing our own businesses, while the worst polluters gain.)
* Consider what are termed women's issues. Some perspectives and some NGO's receive government funding; others do not. Compare the taxpayer funding given, along with government recognition of their views as acceptable--hence the chosen group gain a certain credibility (though government has lost enormous credibility ). Those holding accepted views become stakeholders. Consider these two organizations:
* Women's groups such as the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC)--more in the past than recently, resolutely fought for women's rights, but not men's rights. In fact the whole movement has devalued men, sometimes denigrating the need for men and fathers in children's lives. Organizations like this successfully get special status, in effect, for women. NAC, non-denominational, particularly non-Christian, at least in regard to abortion and the legal position of the foetus, has been able, using taxpayer money, to publicize its views and has gained government approved status as a high-profile stakeholder.
* Compare their position with that of REALwomen unable--unacceptable?--to be an NGO to the UN conference on women's issues and family because it did not have government-approved views. REALwomen's views are from a Christian perspective, from what I can gather in reading. Caveat: I know too little about both organizations but I do hear enough to get an idea of the relative influence of each on government and the resultant publicity and taxpayer funding received. It is quite evident to which organization our government has listened. REALwomen has views that, I suspect, are more in tune with a large number of Canadian women, but they remain unrepresented at international symposia.
Non-elected NGO's with a government-approved perspective have had much more influence. Canadians have not voted to determine who will represent Canadians' views on the family internationally.
Citizens have no vehicle to make their views known with the UN, for example, except through their government. Those who do
not accept women's groups such as NAC as representing their views have had
no means of input. Liberal governments have been elected to reign and then they chose. There is no debate, except outside government, and with lack of airing in mainstream media, the non-government views (e.g. pro-choice) have had little or
no influence over government(s).
Public discussion is, effectively, over, about which perspective, and hence which NGO's, deserve funding, get to decide the agenda and to represent some Canadians' views internationally. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women perspective prevailed in Canada's input to the UN, though,
heard from less and less, now that it has served its purpose for those with an agenda, in my opinion. Do Canadians have access to information about past funding? Who chose / chooses what views will prevail? That is one of those dark and murky areas of our (mostly Liberal) government(s), I suspect. (Check further. Also, I have read something lately about REALwomen having some rise in status as intervenors, but not officially as an NGO, but, again, check further.)
As for the message, defining women's "choice" has been the province of women who agree with the prevailing 'right to choose' viewpoint pushed by such as NAC; other views have been outside the realm of even being considered any more.
'Choice' now means not just a right to health and security of the person, a laudable goal, particularly in the world of women's being subject to the rule of men in the Muslim world, which runs a gamut from oppression to a degree of freedom from the dictates of men. Yet the health issuue as promoting security of the person and of a woman's free will has today become the right to abortion without limits in Canada.
There are other issues omitted from discussion:
* That women are the bearers of children, thus have responsibilities
transcending the self* That women have
responsibilities to that foetus / child,
to the father of that child, and to the child to see that the bond with the father is not broken
* Whether the foetus is considered
a person from conception, or some time after that
* Whether the foetus deserves to be
protected by legal rights, as well
* That a parent has responsibilities to a child but also to a community, particularly since today society pays for the care of those who bear children and have insufficient income, for whatever reason, to care for them* How much input those who pay may have -- for example, in the case of alcoholics or drug addicted women who become mothers again and again
These issues have not been aired adequately; they have not been part of the official debate, and, as Kim Campbell put it, an election is no time for reasoned debate (roughly remembered).
What she should have added is that our media are listening for the sound bite, the wounding shiv, anything but reasoned debating points. Logical arguments do not make the news; media wouldn't want to interfere with people's watching the mindless TV drivel which supports the media and the mindless shopping. Hence the non-debate about Canada's lack of abortion law and our government's leader and team huffing and puffing over women's sacred bodies . . . and votes.
At the time of the push for women's issues, came
the perfect poster boy for men's violence against women which fit in well with the anti-male bias of the last ten to fifteen years,
if there were success in hiding its origins, the influence of a father and the fanatacism that entered Canada with him from Algeria, along with his Muslim, sharia-inspired despicable treatment of women.Into the breech, the need for women to rise on the backs of those they could denigrate, came
Gamil Gharbi / Marc Lepine. His atrocity became an excuse to paint men in general as violent against women, and there was the subsequent tilt by the courts toward women, for example, in the treatment of men as fathers.
Yet fathers have rights which affect their children if ignored or belittled.
Compared with the treatment of women in divorce, there has arisen an imbalance in the courts' treatment of men in divorce and child custody issues.
There has been a concomitant and not-too-subtle acceptance in the
advertising world of men's second-rate status. All this has risen in parallel to
a quest for 'equal status' for women--women as judges, as MP's--in all areas that government could influence.
It has come to mean not equality, but preference. Enough. Let merit be the guide.
There is too much concerning women's issues which has moved
outside the realm of public debate, yet the subjects need reasoned discussion by all, not just with government-approved groups.
Too much power has been arrogated to those with the government-approved perspective, in this, and in other areas. At whose instigation? Who approved use of Canadians' tax dollars for one view, but not another? Have we in Canada moved
beyond debate, particularly if it diverges from the government-approved position?
Has the debate over the foetus, like the one over Kyoto agreements, been settled by those whose ideas have prevailed, those who see choice as the right to abortion with no limits--that a perspective which includes the (generally Christian) concern for the foetus as having rights, for example, is
no longer even to be discussed? That it is settled? Those who disagree have not even had the democratic right to a referendum on this contentious issue.
The playing field has been gerrymandered by a government which agrees with the NGO's pushing women's choice--by the ones who want no control over abortion at all. That is how to get funding and publicity and why an NGO (NGO's?) represents Canadian women at international and
UN conferences on women's issues.
It just happens to be the view of Maurice Strong, our Prime Minister's mentor, as well.
It is fair here to state
my own biases. I do believe that Canadians who pay should have input,
not just those who agree with the government.As for abortion, my mind has run the gamut of views--from what anyone feels when hearing of rape's progeny or a child of 13 or 14 pregnant, to being utterly appalled at descriptions of partial birth abortion. I believe that
society and humanity do have an interest in the unborn child, that the result of a night of abandon, a fling, stupidity, naivete--or whatever--is not solely the province of the woman, either to keep or to abort. Society has been paying, and will be, for the offspring of those who do not think or plan ahead so society deserves too, to have some input into if and where it will draw the line, to be discussed openly.
The issue encompasses more than the idea that the woman's womb is hers to do as she wishes. The more I learn, the more I see that
complete freedom of choice in this, as in other areas, is not an unmitigated positive, that the societal and personal costs may be too high, but we are not discussing this at all. Society has a right to at least discuss what values contribute to the long-term health of society. I do not know how to solve the dilemma, but refusing to discuss it is ridiculous, since society will pay, whether for the children born, for the abortion or for the single mother*, for the mental health problems that may ensue whatever the decision, and more. No woman is an island, either. (* Fathers seem to be missing too often, though women's freedom to
hook up might be impeded if we discussed why. It might open
a can of worms, might it not? )
When government(s) refuse to allow civilized debate, democracy is finished. More and more that has become PM & Co's Big Government way, in Parliament and in all spheres. Governments coerce behind the scenes, use a compliant media to get out a one-sided message, and effectively forbid differences to be expressed and explored before a vote which is controlled at the behest of a PM/PMO. Most of us can live with the results of a free vote; we can no longer afford Big Brother's control.
Why I support the inclusion to the debate of groups with which I might not even agree:I believe that one does not even necessarily have to agree with everything REALwomen stands for to believe that it has a right to make its point publicly, without being denigrated and treated disdainfully, as I have heard mainstream media members do, if they mention REALwomen at all. MSM have ignored their views and those they represent . . . or the group has been treated as old-fashioned, out of step with the times, not deserving of the media elites' respectful hearing. That is wrong.
Too often the government and media are in concert as to what warrants nothing more than an amused or disdainful glance
before ignoring the arguments altogether.The media have been ignoring some news and become a pro-government cheering team for other news. Besides what I have mentioned, the media have been complicit with government in their
treatment of the US, with their
negative attitude to the US Republican President and government, but relatively positive in their treatment of the visit to Montreal by the PM-Propping Billy, the I-did-not-have-sex-with-that-woman Democrat, William Jefferson Clinton. Media glee at the photo-op was that of supporters for PM & Team. I join others in preferring presidents whose attention is focused on the job, for example, the chance of capturing Osama before 9/11 occurred, which Bill let slip by. (Perhaps the chance which he was offered, detailed on FHTR, occurred when he was distracted by other 'service'.) I rather cotton to leaders who realize that the Oval Office is not the place for sexual dalliances, if one does not want to risk putting the office of President, itself, into disrepute.
Bill failed on both counts; he is hardly a poster boy for PM & Team, if they had thought about it at all -- or did Bill's charisma win out again?What must change in Canada is the disenfranchisement--the exclusion from discussion--of the views of Canadians whose positions differ from those of the current government, the mainstream media located in Canada's centre, and those who live off the work and taxes of others. . . all those--erroneously--known as 'elites'. Government funding and perquisites do not an 'elite' make.
While I have considered Kyoto and women's issues as incomplete explorations of societal concerns, as well as mainstream media and government's complicity in narrowing debate, it is the UN's influence in all this in Canada that presently concerns me. With this perspective in mind, look again at the list of UN committees operating in Canada, influencing students and others' minds, with the help of our government and Canadians' taxes. Canadians do not pay taxes for indoctrination nor for control on the part of Big Brother -- not for their pre-schoolers nor for their university students, nor for the citizenry who are neither. It isn't just the West that wants in; we all want in.
