Travelling in hope? Source: oxfordtoday.ac.uk
The United Nations special conference to endorse the controversial pact on global migration, which seeks to make migration a human right, opened in Morocco today. In spite of a number of high profile refusals to sign up to the pact, including the U.S.A. where President Donald Trump denounced the pact in very strong terms, the wannabe global government that is the United Nations Organisation is pressuring smaller nations to accept uncontolled immigration from third world nations as a universal principle. Australia, Austria, the Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Poland and Slovakia have also walked away. And though we have heard no comment either way from them, you can bet your life savings that Russia, China and Japan will not be falling over themselves to support this crackpot idea. A clue as to how toxic this proposal truly is lies in the refusal of Australia: when a country with a political elite as effete and emasculated as Australia’s politically correct poofters finds it too much to swallow, it is bound to be good for global corporations and high raking bureaucrats and terrible for ordinary people.
The 32-page Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration was finalised at the UN in July after 18 months of talks. It will be formally adopted at the start of the two-day conference in Marrakesh led by German Chancellor and arch globalist Angela Merkel and supported by France’s Emmanuel Macron, whose globalist friendly policies have triggered massive civil unrest in French cities and inspired a protest movement which threatens the French government. Macron himself will not attend as he must prioritise dealing with the “yellow vest” protests at home, but is sending his secretary of state for foreign affairs to back the pact. That will go down like the proverbial lead zeppelin with the protestors.
U.S. President Donald Trump was the first to declare his rejection of the pact, describing it as it the surrender of national sovereignty to a supra national body of unelected bureaucvrats. He said, “Migration should not be governed by an international body unaccountable to our own citizens. Ultimately, the only long-term solution to the migration crisis is to help people build more hopeful futures in their home countries. Make their countries great again.”
Mr. Trump’s pronouncements triggered so many snowflakes it may have been responsible for the freak winter storms experienced in parts of the united states early this year. It also agitated both the mainstream media and globalist politicians.
Representatives of Spain, Greece, Denmark and Portugal will attend and back the vote,
Belgium’s liberal premier Charles Michel won the support of parliament to back the accord, but he was left leading a minority government on Sunday after the Flemish nationalist party quit his coalition over the pact.
The Flemish nationalist party, New Flemish Alliance (N-VA) sensationally quit the shaky coalition after a weekend of crisis talks, prompting Michel to announce he would travel to Marrakesh to sign the controversial compact representing a minority government.
Stepping down as interior minister on Sunday, the N-VA’s Jan Jambon told local media “I think that, formally speaking, we are stepping down. We said that if the coalition goes to Marrakesh, it will be without us.”
It is safe to assume the pact will not be ratified by the Belgian government, if it is presented to the National Assembly and defeated the government is likely to collapse, leading to further gains for nationalists in the ensuing election.
Belgium is among a group of seven nations which the UN describes in that mealy mouthed language of diplomacy, as “engaged in further internal deliberations” over the accord, with Bulgaria, Estonia, Italy, Israel, Slovenia and Switzerland also falling into this category.
The UN special representative for migration, Louise Arbour, on Friday scolded those nations which have decided not to sign the compact. She said: “There are many different issues at stake: economic, to maximise the positive effects of migration on economies of host countries, on countries of origin, on the migrants themselves, on communities which receive them.
Surprisingly (OK, I’m being sarcastic) she did not mention the threat to free speech and press freedom.
But perhaps a bigger clue as to its toe-curling, achingly right-on, surrender-monkey awfulness is offered by the countries which are planning on signing up to it. These include Leo Varadkar’s Ireland and Justin “President Bieber” Trudeau’s Canada: arguably the two Western nations you’d least want to be living in right now because they are currently in the hands of politically correct bedwetters bent on destroying every last vestige of their national identity and replacing it with some kind of squishy, globalist melting pot where people of all colours and creeds hold hands under a rainbow.
Another country which is planning on signing it is the United Kingdom. Which is bizarre to the point of incomprehensibility when you discover what this UN Global Compact on Migration entails.
Essentially it’s a globalist masterplan for making migration easier. Much, much easier. But it will also require signatories to enact measures curtailing the right to free speech by criminalising criticism of migration or migrant communities.
One of the things that has the global government fans really scared is the wave of nationalism surging round the globe as a reaction to UN sponsored mass migration from third world to first world nations. The elites, living on their country estates or in their gated communities love the idea of mass migration, the people who must live alongside the lawless, uneducated elements of migrant communities are not so keen. And New Media gives voices speaking for those people a platform, which in turn drums up support for nationalist political movements. The UN’s solution (totally predictable if you know anything about the authoritarian Modus Operandi of the United Nations, is to make it illegal to talk about this problem.
Read the relevant section of the UN Global Compact on Migration by clicking the link or look at the snippets below to get the flavour of the thing:
OBJECTIVE 17: Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration
33. We commit to eliminate all forms of discrimination, condemn and counter expressions, acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, violence, xenophobia and related intolerance against all migrants in conformity with international human rights law. We further commit to promote an open and evidence-based public discourse on migration and migrants in partnership
with all parts of society, that generates a more realistic, humane and constructive perception in this regard. We also commit to protect freedom of expression in accordance with international law, recognizing that an open and free debate contributes to a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of migration.
To realize this commitment, we will draw from the following actions:
a) Enact, implement or maintain legislation that penalizes hate crimes and aggravated hate crimes targeting migrants, and train law enforcement and other public officials to identify, prevent and respond to such crimes and other acts of violence that target migrants, as well as to provide medical, legal and psychosocial assistance for victims.
The excuse offered by defenders of this outrageous document and global totalitarian government in general is that it is not legally binding. Unfortunaely that’s the excuse globalists always use to give a veneer of respectability to their Cultural Marxist global initiatives. The same happened with the UN’s Agenda 21 in the early years of the century and before you knew what was happening Barack Obama was declaring that if you collected te rainwater that fell on your roof you were actually guilty of sealing the government’s water. At the 1992 Rio Earth Summit leaders of nations and organisations signed up to it because they were led to believe it was not a binding agrement but a statement of intent. But it very quickly became clear that watermelon politicians (green on the outside, red on the inside (h/t J Delingpole,) green lobbyists, and left-leaning pressure groups were using it to force t, and scare stories about imminent climate catastrophe to boost support for policies that benefitted certain agenda, to the detriment of people living on moderate incomes.